Wednesday, 12 September 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr Sinclair-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I know that it is only a matter of courtesy but I suggest to the Government it would be appropriate that on future occasions, before the commencement of prayers, some Ministers are available in the House. This morning during prayers no Ministers were in the House. The Prime Minister has not been here on any occasion for the commencement of proceedings. It is appropriate, in spite of the late night sitting last night , that they should be here. Mr SPEAKER —I think the Leader of the National Party knows that that is not a point of order. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 Dobie,Mr Howard,Mr Lusher 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 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 Ewen Cameron and Mr Hawker. 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 respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation' s historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change.' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensure that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Hawker. 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 totally disapprove of the legislation before the house concerning ''X'' classification of video cassettes, etc., and that it will do huge harm not only to the citizens of Australia but to the young and future generations. We the undersigned, therefore, request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron and Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: 1. That we unreservedly oppose the Federal Government's proposals in relation to the censorship laws designed for the Australian Capital Territory; and further we oppose any such proposal on censorship laws becoming law in any State in Australia. 2. That we consider it right and proper that the citizens of this nation be consulted, and their views and desires respected in the formulation of law in censorship and similar areas. 3. That it is with alarm the proposed censorship laws are regarded by citizens living in a society based on christian ethics. In essence Australia is a Christian nation and our nation's laws must reflect and uphold our established values. Legislation which sanctions behaviour repugnant to Christians, is legislation not appropriate to Australia. Moreover, it is legislation which condones the destruction of the very fabric of our society. Legislation which promotes the degradation, abasement and exploitation of people, both young and old, and of our nation, is unacceptable. 4. That we the undersigned request the Government to heed the points in this petition, and abandon its 1983 decision to alter the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That we the undersigned request that the Government abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. We also request that urgent considerations be given to devising effective ordinances prohibiting, and more effectively reducing the circulation of, all objectionable publications, particularly objectionable video tapes and discs. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The Federal Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and, 3. following the report of such a wide enquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: 1. the Hawke Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request 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 Lusher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We assert that TAFE, with over 1 million students, requires greatly improved resources if it is to continue to train Australia's skilled workforce effectively. 2. We call upon the Commonwealth Government to provide greatly increased funds to ensure that TAFE is accessible to all Australians, unlike the present time when thousands of people are turned away from TAFE colleges each year. 3. We urge the Commonwealth Government to equip TAFE workshops with the advanced technology used in modern Australian industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag reflects Australia's membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, her position in the southern hemisphere, and her federation of original colonies, recognises that the flag is 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 are 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. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance, and reject the Remuneration Tribunal's travel entitlements to de facto wives of Parliamentarians and the ABC's Commissioners decision to allow the de facto and homosexual partners of ABC staff to travel at public expense, and that the Government should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography and grossly obscene publications, 2. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes, 3. Protect Australians and those who enter into de jure (legal) marriages, and their families, from exploitation and the encroachment of immoral regulations and Acts into the traditional and Christian forms of life And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: that ABC radio transmission from 4QA Mackay is antiquated and operates on transmitters installed in 1947-48 to service a region in which the area and population has doubled in the intervening 36 years, the signal from 4QA is below strength so that station 4QN at Townsville has a far better signal strength into the Mackay hinterland than 4QA, a distance of only 70 km from Mackay and over 300 km from Townsville, the 4QN news programmes are of no interest in the Mackay region and in emergency situations such as cyclones, the 4QA frequency has limited penetration within the region, that while FM programmes are available in Rockhampton and Townsville, Mackay, with a regional population of 100,000 people, has been by-passed when towns of smaller size have the advantages of FM radio. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government and the Department of Communications will move urgently to rectify both these anomalies. 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 State''. And Whereas the terms of the United Nationals 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 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 R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The concerns which the people in the State of Queensland have for the curtailment of initiatives in the educational projects under the priority country area program in the south-west Queensland region. Specifically: 1. The loss of staff and transfer of a vehicle from the mobile field study unit in 1984. 2. The loss of staff for mobile manual arts vans in 1984 and the uncertainty of the continuation of this project. 3. The loss of a vehicle to the Charleville school of the air. 4. The reduction in funding for the P.C.A.P. computer project and the Balonne Ballet. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament restore to the Queensland priority country area program a level of funding sufficient to enable the continuation of these initiatives in south-west Queensland together with the operation of all priority country area program projects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, and in particular the citizens of the Manning Valley, respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia and in particular the citizens of the Manning Valley, firmly express our strong opposition to the classification of the Taree Open Cadet Unit as a unit to receive limited support only under the restructured Army Cadet Scheme. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that; the Minister for Defence direct the Australian Army to re-classify the Taree Open Cadet Unit as an open, community-based, regional cadet unit (R.C.U.). And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned residents of Wills and other electorates are alarmed that following the visit of an Australian parliamentary delegation to East Timor in July/August 1983, Indonesia has launched a massive new offensive against East Timorese resistance to colonialisation by Indonesia. We support the East Timorese people in their struggle for self-determination and independence and ask the Australian government to: (a) end military aid to and defence co-operation with Indonesia; (b) urge Indonesia to resume the negotiations with FRETILIN which led to a cease-fire in 1983; (c) take diplomatic initiatives to achieve a U.N. supervised act of self- determination in East Timor. Your petitioners therefore humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-that the railway line and train-passenger service remain in service; that the railway line remain maintained; that the passenger service include return trips; and that the services become more frequent. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Railway Line between Victor Harbour and Adelaide remains 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 the certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). And your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Cross,Mr Keogh,Mr Millar and Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Authorities in Australia shows considerable concern that the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program levy, at 2 cents per litre on petrol and diesel, was indexed in the 1984 Budget, but that funds raised from indexation of the levy will go into consolidated revenue, and not specifically into expenditure on road funds. It has been estimated that indexation of the levy will raise $491 million over the next six years to 1988/89, of which local government could have expected to receive $58 million. This is a further denial of funds to local government, following $13 million lost this year from Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will amend the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act, such that funds raised through indexation of the levy will be placed in the Trust Fund, and used for much needed road construction work. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. Petitions received. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Minister for Communications to immediately resolve the confusion created by the listing in Telecom's 1984-85 'Service and Business outlook booklet' of a sum of $1649m for a Bencubbin TV transmitter, by promising the residents of that area that the project will proceed as the document indicates. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) urges the Government to carry out a full investigation into the serious problems facing Australia's wheat industry; (2) calls for the investigation to cover the huge costs incurred by freight handling fees, fuel, capital for servicing plant and equipment, tax and excise on fuel, 15% duty on large imported harvesters, rail freights, and sales tax; and (3) recommends that the Government give this proposal a high priority. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns- (1) the Government for its lack of consultation and consensus in the introduction of a tax on Australian wine, and (2) the Prime Minister for his blatant lack of integrity in this matter. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Consideration resumed from 11 September. Schedule 2. Department of Communications Proposed expenditure, $426,386,000. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.07) —In the brief time that I have in which to talk about communications, I want to concentrate on two aspects, but particularly the fact that, in the 18 months of the Australian Labor Party's term in office, no progress has been made in finalising the arrangements for a commercial television and radio service for the people in the remote areas of Australia. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal inquiry, which was instituted last November by the Government, was an attempt by the Government to pass the buck on decisions that it found too difficult to make. Sections of the Labor back bench had prevented the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) from making the sensible decision of following the previous Government's policy of giving priority to the high-powered transponders on the second satellite, to be provided in four spot beams, to give commercial services to remote areas. Those sections of the Labor Party were ideologically opposed to country media interests gaining supplementary licences for regional radio and television if they had any other media, radio or television interests. That was an illogical and inequitable position, as they showed no similar reservations about the metropolitan media and about the greater concentration of media control that those metropolitan interests exercised in those larger markets. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal reported in late July, some eight months later after a considerable cost in terms of resources and time was incurred by the Department of Communications, the Broadcasting Tribunal and, in particular, the various regional and metropolitan television companies. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal effectively told the Government that it would not make the Government's difficult decisions and that the decision was really one for the Government. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal also delivered a few backhanders for good measure. The ABT's greatest concern was the even greater dominance of Australian television program control and purchase by the major networks unless new licensing criteria were established-it would be based not on the number of television licences but on population or total market control. The ABT recommended against the networks being allowed to telecast directly to remote areas, and reconfirmed the prevous Government's policy of specific licences for the remote areas, using the 30-watt spot beams similar to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation service, so that the service to remote areas would be free and the reception cost minimised. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal also indicated its attitude to restricting the ownership of regional television interests in an opposite way to that which was being considered; that is, of changing the licensing basis from two licences , whether they be Sydney or the bush, to population covered by a licence. That would allow them to obtain several licences if necessary so that their strength over a period of time would be built up to match the strength of the networks, and thus encourage greater diversity in programming purchase and creation. The ABT specifically stated that the Act should be relaxed and amended to allow groups of regional stations to apply for these remote area licences. So 18 months after achieving office, 10 months away from the first domestic satellite launch, this Government is no further advanced than was the previous Government when it lost office in March 1983 in sorting out the problem of providing a second or a commercial television service for the remote areas of Australia similar to that which will be made available by the ABC when the satellites go up next year. Eighteen months ago when the previous Government lost office we were on track in putting those policies in place. That wasted 18 months now leaves insufficient time for the remote and underserved areas to have any hope of a complementary commercial service to the ABC Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service No. 1 system in time. That system for the ABC may also be delayed because of the need to change the satellite transmission system from that originally proposed, the PAL system, to one that is more technologically competent, or capable of carrying more audio signals, such as the MAC-B system, which I understand the Minister acknowledged in a recent interview. The Government must act quickly as a further two months has elapsed since the ABT report throwing the whole matter back at the Government. The Minister must now convince his irrational left wing colleagues and the Cabinet of the urgent need for a Government decision to proceed with the HACBSS1 and the HACBSS2 proposal of the previous Government-that is, the uniform high-powered spot beam transponders for both the ABC and the commercial services . The Minister must advise the Tribunal to call for applications for a remote area commercial television service using the 30-watt transponder and/or, if considered better in some places, the 12-watt transponders as required in spot beam formation for the separate areas of Australia, for the Western Australia section, with either the central ones together or separately-as I think is more practical for the Northern Territory and South Australia-for Queensland, and for the south-east of Australia. The Minister must tell the Tribunal that applicants can be a consortium of existing regional and/or metropolitan television and radio interests and that the service they will provide should be at no actual viewing cost to the consumers, so that the whole cost of reception of people in remote areas receiving a commercial service and an ABC service is as cheap as possible. The Government has let down the people in remote and underserved areas of Australia and Government decision and action are now needed, late as that may be, and it must be real action and real decision, not just window-dressing and passing the buck to get Labor over the next election. The second point concerns public broadcasting. The Public Broadcasting Association and thousands of people associated with public broadcasting in Australia were confident that they had been advised and promised by this Government that they would be granted $5m in this Budget to assist with a public broadcasting foundation, the investment of which would provide income so that public broadcasting would not always be the mendicant asking whatever government was in power for assistance in its budgetary process each year. When it became known to me prior to the presentation of the Budget that it appeared that the Government was backing away from its promise, I agreed with the public broadcasting people in a bipartisan spirit-I think there is a bipartisan approach to public broadcasting-not to say anything about it in the hope that something would happen and that the Government commitment would be honoured. Well, it was not honoured. Immediately after the Budget was presented the President of the Public Broadcasting Foundation, Mr Keith Jackson, issued a Press release which stated: The Foundation was expecting at least $5m endowment so that 54 radio stations and another 40 public broadcasting groups could receive reasonable funding. 'We are extremely upset that the Government has broken its election promise and ignored last month's ALP Conference resolution calling for a substantial endowment to the Foundation', said Mr Jackson. That was all public knowledge within the public broadcasting group, yet Senator Button in the Senate Estimates hearings recently, when a question about the $5m promise was put to him by Senator Lewis, said: There were some widespread suppositions in the community and the honourable senator clearly got hold of one. I believe that that is not good enough either from Senator Button, who was one of the major proponents of the $5m, or from the Government generally. People in public broadcasting and the Australian people in the rural, remote and underserved areas of Australia want some action and decisions from this Government so that they will know where they can go in the future. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.17) —I am very honoured to speak in support of the appropriations for the Department of Communications. We obviously have a Minister who has fought very hard and long for appropriate allocations of funds to his Department and to the various bodies under his administration. Before I move on to that I wish to make a few comments on the contribution to this debate of the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), who preceded me, although I am sure that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) will pick them up in more detail when he summarises this debate. We heard about the satellite, how this Government has supposedly done nothing and how the previous Government, of which he was a member, was on track to a successful conclusion of the satellite proposal. That is clearly not correct. The facts are quite to the contrary. If my memory serves me correctly, the question of the satellite arose in 1977, some six years before this Government came into office. After six years we were really no better off. We had certainly gone a little way down the track, but I think the word 'little' must be emphasised. Mr Ian Cameron —We still don't know. Mr CHARLES —There was no clear indication of ownership or who was going to control the satellite, what the resources of the satellite would be, what it would provide, who would provide it, whom the services would be provided to, how they were to be provided to remote areas, et cetera. It is interesting that a member of the National Party of Australia interjects. Members of the National Party did nothing for their constituents, the people in remote areas-absolutely nothing. The National Party, on this question of satellite broadcasting, would represent hypocrisy in the extreme. Members of that Party did nothing for the people they represent in the remote areas of the country throughout the years of this debate. If they had been game enough to go back and tell their constituents that, they would not have been re-elected. Mr Hollis —They will not be next time. Mr CHARLES —That is absolutely correct. The truth is that they did nothing in the years leading up to the election of the Hawke Government. This Government has put the satellite in train. It has settled the ownership question. An excellent statement was made to the House by the Minister on 15 November last year. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal report was put in train. It has now come before the Government. I will not go into that report now; time does not permit that. It is not for me to pre-empt those decisions, but the Government will be making decisions to finalise the whole satellite question and many of the points raised by the honourable member for Murray about remote area television within, I believe, the next few weeks. Also, the honourable member for Murray talked about how the ownership question was raised in the report. One conclusion to which the report comes is that governments should be looking at taking away a licence from the major networks, the big three, and then moving them into a major consortium-a breaking down of their influence, so to speak. Whether or not that would work is another point. On the question of ownership, however, one has only to look back at who gave the licences in the first place, in the 1950s. It was the conservative Menzies Government. When that Government realised in the early 1960s that the matter was running out of control, it decided that it would have to limit the licences to two. Even though television in Australia was less than a decade old-it would then have been only five or six years old-that Government still did not do the right thing and implement its decision right through. It invented the infamous grandfather clause, which meant that certain companies which held a number of licences could continue to do so. That is still the case today. We saw alterations to the Broadcasting and Television Act in 1981 that made it even easier, in some areas, for people who were not resident in Australia to hold major licences in this country. We had a complete mess of things in the early days of television from the conservative Menzies Government and they were never corrected throughout the many years of conservative governments. I return to the Appropriation Bill specifically. We have seen a very generous allocation to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. At this time of the new Board and new set-up, the Government has done the right thing in appropriating substantial funds, $340m. It is an increase of over 12.5 per cent, which is a substantial increase in real terms. There are sufficient funds in that $340m for expansion on capital equipment which the ABC desperately needs. That has not been there for many years. Much of the ABC's present equipment is very antiquated and should be replaced. This Government, through the Minister, has appropriated sufficient funds, $340m this year, which augurs well for the ABC in the coming 12 months. As one can see, through broadcasting and television $450m has been allocated. That is an increase of 12.7 per cent, which is, again, a substantial real increase in funds over the next 12 months. It shows the importance that this Government attaches to the communications of this country. I now ask the Minister a couple of questions, which are partly for himself and partly for the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). The first question is rather straightforward. How much money does the Commonwealth expect to get in 1984-85 from Telecom Australia by way of interest payments? I believe it is a substantial figure. If that substantial figure was not required to be paid by the Australian Telecommunications Commission, what would that mean? I think this is the more important question: Would it mean lower charges by the Commission and/or would it mean extensions of very important capital works on behalf of Telecom? The payment by statutory authorities of substantial interest payments or dividends to the Government, which in effect owns and controls them, is a point raised with me on a number of occasions. The communications of any country are an extremely important element of its society. It is worthy of note that this Government obviously has attached high importance to it in the appropriations it has brought down. The Government will be making a number of decisions in the next few weeks regarding the satellite and the future of communications in this country. This should be the completion of a series of statements to finalise this very important new technology. That will have been done within 18 months of this Government coming to office. That is quite a comparison to the many years of inactivity and botch-ups we have seen from previous conservative governments. I congratulate the Government and the Minister on the allocations of funds and the high importance attached to this important industry by this Government. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(10.27) —I am pleased to participate in this debate on the estimates of the Department of Communications. I will concentrate my remarks on those funds which are to be directed to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. In particular I refer to the decision of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to provide financial support to homosexual partners of employees of that Corporation. I believe that that decision is an extraordinary and perverse one. It is a decision which has drawn significant amounts of criticism from the Australian community. I find the decision to be quite incredible. I cannot understand why the Corporation has made a decision of this kind. I have tried to find, in all of the comments made publicly by representatives of the ABC, some justification for this decision to provide financial support for homosexual partners of ABC employees. This is a giant step forward or a giant step backwards, depending on which side of the fence one happens to be on. The Parliament has a very real role to play in this matter because the ABC was created under legislation promulgated through this Parliament. Also it is the responsibility of the Parliament to authorise the funds which finance the operations of the ABC. Therefore, members of this Parliament are entitled to question this decision of the ABC and to ask the ABC and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to justify this decision. How is it justified? Why is it that the taxpayers' money is to be spent in this way? Does it accord with Government policy? Is this a pacesetter? Are we to see other public corporations also providing this kind of help to homosexual partners of employees funded by taxpayers? Equality between the sexes, between male and female, is one thing. Certainly as a parliament we want to see that achieved. Equality of a de jure heterosexual relationship with a de facto relationship is another thing. I have a certain view on that. I do not believe that we should go very far down that track at all . I think we should give more encouragement and more support to lawful marriages in this country. But to say that a homosexual relationship is to be treated in the very same way in every respect as a heterosexual relationship is a very queer view of the nature of our society. The ABC seems to believe that homosexual partners are a family in the same way as heterosexual partners are a family; that is, that homosexuals living together are to be treated in the same way as a man and his wife living together and procreating. I believe that this goes to the very fabric of our society. Where are we going to go if we are going to spend taxpayers' money on encouraging homosexual relations in this community? The future of Australia is very much dependent upon proper support being given to the ordinary Australian families, a husband and wife living together lawfully and having children in a natural way. One would have thought that the Managing Director of the ABC, Mr Whitehead, would have been able to justify and explain this decision. Recently he had an opportunity to do so when he appeared before Senate Estimates Committee A on 4 September, only a matter of days ago. In the Estimates Committee he was put on the spot and asked how he could explain and justify this decision. In the Hansard report of the Senate Estimates Committee at page 163 he is reported to have said: I am happy to take the responsibility for the decision. He then went on to try to justify the decision. Mr Goodluck —Send him back to New Zealand. Mr GROOM —That might be so. He was not particularly impressive in his performance before the Senate Estimates Committee. How did he justify this decision? The question was put to him by Senator Harradine. As reported on page 162 of Hansard he said: I was advised-and I had this verified by legal officers within the Corporation- that the action we proposed to take was soundly based. I was further advised that there were precedents within the Australian Public Service, although I believe that that may now be in doubt; He said: I do not know. Here is the Managing Director, the chief executive of the ABC, saying that that decision was based on certain precedents. He said that those precedents: . . . may now be in doubt; I do not know. Mr Duffy —They were not in doubt when he took the decision. There was no doubt. Mr GROOM —They were not in doubt? Mr Duffy —No, not when the decision was taken-no doubt at all. Mr GROOM —Would the Minister for Communications agree now that there is some doubt about it? Mr Duffy —There might be now, but there was not when the decision was taken. Mr GROOM —There might be some doubt now. Will the decision be reversed? Mr Duffy —No. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Perhaps the Minister could answer the honourable member when he sums up. Mr GROOM —Despite the fact that the precedents may now be in some doubt the decision will not be reversed. Mr Whitehead went on to say, as reported on page 163 of the Hansard: My understanding is that it is consistent with previous practice in the Australian Public Service and consistent with legislation. Senator Harradine then said: 'Right, okay. What legislation? Can you point to the legislation? Can you explain the legal basis for this extraordinary decision ?'. When Mr Whitehead appeared before the Estimates Committee he could not point to any law of this Parliament which said that we should provide some support of this kind to the homosexual partners of ABC employees. So the Public Service precedents are in doubt and Mr Whitehead could not point to any law. One inane senator said that the Sex Discrimination Act was very relevant. I do not know what he knows about the law. Has he ever read the Sex Discrimination Act? The Sex Discrimination Act talks about equality between male and female. It does not suggest that the sexual habits of individuals, whatever they might be, are protected by that piece of legislation. Sure, males and females should be treated on a fair basis but it does not mean that the homosexual conduct of a particular employee should also be protected. There is no justification on any basis for this decision. Mr Whitehead said that he was not aware of any significant concern being expressed by the Australian community. I do not know; he must have his head in the sand. He must have been blindfolded and he must not have been listening. There have been letters to the editors of most Australian newspapers about this problem and there is genuine concern in the Australian community. When I speak about matters like this people say that I am old-fashioned, madly religious or something like that. But ordinary decent Australians, whom we represent in this Parliament, are concerned about what we are doing for ordinary , decent Australian families, for the man and wife living together decently, providing support for their family and procreating. That is the future for this country. Homosexuals will live together-we cannot stop that sort of thing happening as we are living in a liberal society-but should taxpayers' money be provided to give them support? A letter was handed to me-I wish I had it in front of me-which was to be sent to the manager of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Hobart. It was written by someone who had been to the United States of America. I can almost recall what he said. It went something like this: 'Dear Sir, I have just returned from a gay convention in the United States. I am considering joining the ABC as an employee. I want to bring my boyfriend out from the United States. He lives in Texas. He has got a lot of furniture he wants to bring out, including a grand piano, and six milking cows which are part of the family. I am delighted that the ABC is going to provide this support for my boyfriend to come out from the United States; but he is not in good health, so he will have to travel first class'. Is this the way taxpayers' money should be spent? This is a serious issue. I hope the Minister for Communications, who is at the table, will explain whether he and the Government support this extraordinary and perverse decision of the ABC. Is this to be a precedent to be followed by the rest of the public corporations which are created and funded by this Parliament? We should ensure in this place that taxpayers' money is spent wisely. I hope the decision of the ABC will be reversed. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(10.38) —In speaking to the estimates for the Department of Communications I would like to support the remarks made by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) regarding homosexuals working for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. At least Neville Bonner, one of the commissioners, had the guts to disagree with the decision. I am quite sure the Aboriginal community does not go along with and support homosexual behaviour within their laws. I believe that if more commissioners had the guts of Bonner this decision would not have been made. I am not very supportive of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) today when he says that there is some doubt about the legality of the decision, yet he is not prepared to reverse it. Surely, when we are spending $392m of taxpayers' funds an organisation like the ABC ought to have the choice of not employing these sorts of people because they are in a tremendously advantaged position to get to the hearts and minds of people across Australia. We have only to look at some of the programs on the ABC. There is talk within the Corporation and by the people of Australia that the ABC needs to be totally revamped. I hope that the Minister, while he is heading up this Department, has the guts to clean out and reorganise the ABC and get it back to something that we regard as Australian. We are sick to death of being-- Mr Fisher —Not Pommies. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am not too sure of the word I should use. I am sure that most decent living Australians are totally disgusted with the way that this decision has been taken. What happens is that it spreads into all other departments in the Public Service. Surely, as taxpayers, we deserve better than this. The debate today is on the appropriations for the Department of Communications. An amount of $426m of taxpayers' funds has been allocated to the Department. Telecommunications is a tremendous asset in the outback areas and is something that we get very involved with. The Minister attended a meeting the other day which dealt with telecommunications in the outback. I congratulate Telecom Australia for conducting this seminar. I was pretty disgusted that I did not get an invitation. For some reason or other Telecom always breaks down in its public relations department. It conducted a seminar which dealt with telecommunications in the outback, and not one back bench Federal member of parliament was asked to attend. I represent an area that covers 42 per cent of Queensland-quite an area, about four times the size of Victoria. Mr McGauran —Hear, hear! And well represented. Mr IAN CAMERON —It is well represented. Yet when Telecom held a seminar on matters that are of vital interest to us we were not invited to attend. It is we who cop the crow. We are the people who continually work with Telecom's regional managers, et cetera, and with the Minister for Communications, who I must say gives us a good hearing. Public relations is our job and it is our job to liaise . Yet when Telecom held a seminar that was of vital importance to us we were not even sent an invitation. I think that is poor. I say to the Minister that next time Telecom holds something of vital importance such as this seminar, which was held in Canberra at taxpayers' expense, he should make sure we get an invitation to attend. I am totally disgusted. Mr Duffy —At Telecom's expense. Mr IAN CAMERON —I do not care. The Minister is the boss. He ought to see that we get invitations to such things. He knows that we want to know what is going on in his Department. I think it is disgusting that we were not invited, and I hope the Minister feels the same way. Although I did not get to that seminar, I have read a bit about it since it was held. Things at long last are starting to move. We were promised that we would all have a subscriber trunk dialling telephone service by 1990. I hope that the Minister sees that that promise is carried out. The in word in Telecom during the last few years has been 'slippage'. It promises communities automatic telephones and we wait for the day, but nothing happens. Telecom then says that it does not have enough telephones, that it does not have this, that it does not have that, and things are let drop for two or three years. Telecom said at the conference I mentioned that it hopes to have the whole system completed. It has been experimenting with the digital radio telephone in my electorate of Maranoa. It has been running a link between Charleville and Cunnamulla for 18 months or so. It now has let a contract to Australian and Japanese companies to manufacture this telephone, which will be of tremendous benefit to people who live in very isolated parts of Australia. I am sorry that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) is not here today. I am a good friend of his and give him a bit of support. The link between Charleville and Cunnamulla is being driven by solar-powered panels. Telecom is at the forefront of this technology in the world. It was among the first to use solar-powered panels in Australia and certainly was the first to use the solar-powered panel in communications. When the digital radio telephone is perfected it will be unique. It has been designed for certain conditions. Those conditions of isolation are unique. Telecom is certainly at the forefront of this scientific endeavour. I think that every encouragement should be given to it. I certainly support it as much as I can. I do not believe that it is perfect. It is a very big organisation. It now employs more people than the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. It is the biggest employer of people in Australia and the biggest corporation we have. I think that overall it is doing a reasonable sort of job. I make a suggestion to the Minister for the next time the Remuneration Tribunal meets. I note that Telecom is to make it much easier for mobile telephones to be used. I believe that every member of parliament ought to have a mobile telephone . I think it would be of tremendous assistance. I am the only person in Parliament who has a high frequency radio in my car. It is hooked into the Flying Doctor base in Charleville. I can ring anybody in Australia or, if need be, around the world, although I like to confine myself to Australia and preferably to the electorate of Maranoa. The mobile telephone is a very useful tool. I believe that the Minister ought to help us to extend the use of that facility to members of parliament, because I think it would be of tremendous benefit to them in keeping in touch with their constituents. As the Minister knows, we are very busy people. We waste a lot of time sitting in motor cars when I believe we could be using a telephone and getting on with our business. A few areas in my electorate are desperate for STD telephones: Condamine, Moonie and Durong South. The Minister might note down those three areas in his pad while he is sitting at the table. I would like him to see that some funds are channelled into those areas. Perhaps he can hurry along an STD installation. In regard to the satellite, the money allocated to the Department of Communications has been increased by $33m. However I note that $16m of that is going towards setting up the Aussat Pty Ltd project. I will support what I hope will come out of the satellite decision. I believe that the regionals ought to be given the 30-watt transponders. I know that the shadow Minister for Communications, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), has spoken at length on this matter. It is essential that the satellite and communication systems remain as regional as possible. That is the only way we will help people communicate with one another. We must do it at the grass roots level. We cannot have Packer and his boys transmitting signals from Sydney and telling people in Charleville and similar places what is going on. They are not the least bit interested. I say to the Left wingers and some Australian Labor Party members in New South Wales who want the big networks to get the 30-watt transponders: People in the bush do not want that type of television; they want a regional- type service. I will certainly support the Minister in his endeavours to get regional television stations in each State combined so that people in isolated areas of Australia can at long last get a television signal. Of course we are waiting for the satellite. My good friend said that when we were in government we were a bit slow. I remind him that the satellite has not yet been launched; it is due to be launched next July. Let us hope that it is a successful launch and that we do not lose it. I am pleased that the last launch of the American space shuttle was successful but the previous one was not so successful. I just hope that this one is not lost. I think the most interesting thing about Aussat is that it is going well. We are looking at bringing forward the date of the launch of the second generation of satellites by about 12 months . I say to the Minister: There is an allocation of $85,000 in the estimates for an ABC radio station at Charleville. I ask the Minister to see that that program continues because the people of Charleville are really looking forward to hearing ABC radio for the first time. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.48) —It is true to say that there is no more complex or difficult portfolio to master than that of Communications, particularly at this time when there is such a rapid development in technological change. To that extent at least, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), who is at the table, has the understanding, if not the sympathy, of the Opposition, as does the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), who has mastered this very complex and difficult portfolio without the assistance of a department and with restricted resources. They have the respect of the Opposition. That leads me to say, however, that I have a number of reservations about some of the policies which the Minister has adopted or appears to be adopting. The two matters I wish to deal with in the brief time allocated to me this morning are, firstly, the policy of the Minister which requires all new translators to be of ultra high frequency rather than very high frequency, and, secondly, supplementary licences as they affect the electorate of Gippsland. I well understand the Minister's desire to require that new translators be of ultra high frequency. It is a long overdue measure which would greatly free the very high frequency band so that further licences on that frequency could be issued. I have met with the Minister and he has patiently, and at some length, explained to me his thoughts on these matters. However, I point out to the Minister that the cost of purchase and installation, as well as the ongoing power and maintenance costs associated with ultra high frequency translators, is far in excess of that required by very high frequency translators. This has the effect in remote country areas of making it an uncommercial proposition for commercial television stations to install ultra high frequency translators. I refer specifically to an area in my electorate, far east Gippsland, which encompasses the areas of Cann River, Genoa and Mallacoota about which I have spoken to the Minister. I have further spoken in this Parliament on two occasions about these areas and presented petitions containing several hundred signatures. The problem here, I think, exemplifies the problem that the Minister will encounter in a number of different parts of Australia. It is simply that the commercial television station in Gippsland-GLV8, owned and operated by Southern Cross Communications-has a VHF translator sitting in a crate all set to be installed in Cann River so that the signal can be beamed into these otherwise remote areas of Gippsland. However, the Minister or his Department has not yet given approval to it because of the requirement that it be an ultra high frequency translator. That is simply unrealistic and the people of east Gippsland are becoming more and more frustrated and disillusioned that the Minister would adhere so strongly to his policy, particularly as I understand that he has waived that requirement in other parts of Australia. I again ask the Minister-I have asked him on two previous occasions in this Parliament-to consider this problem more carefully and to have his Department act more quickly to examine the proposal put forward by Southern Cross Communications. The second matter I wish to raise with the Minister relates to supplementary licences. I am sure the Minister has been bombarded by an avalanche of submissions and representations concerning supplementary licences and he has my sympathy. Nonetheless, I ask him to consider the effect of granting supplementary licences to existing regional television broadcasters on existing frequencies. The Shire of Maffra for one, and other shires within the electorate of Gippsland, have expressed concern that if Southern Cross Communications receives a supplementary licence that licence, when it is transformed into a frequency, will interfere with their reception of Melbourne television stations. I have pointed out to the shire that the granting of a licence is the responsibility of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the allocation of a frequency is the responsibility of the Department of Communications. In both instances I trust that both those decision-making bodies will take into account the fact that residents in the region receive Melbourne television stations and that they ought not be interfered with. I ask the Minister to take it a step further and state clearly that in his view only exceptional circumstances-in my view there are no exceptional circumstances in the electorate of Gippsland-would allow the granting of a licence which would interfere with metropolitan television reception. That matter is obviously of real concern to a number of people throughout Australia, particularly those in Gippsland. Mr Braithwaite —In Mackay we cannot get FM radio. Mr McGAURAN —It has been pointed out by the very energetic honourable member for Dawson that he has problems in Mackay receiving FM radio. With respect to the honourable member, that point is somewhat removed from the matter I was addressing but I take the opportunity to make that representation on behalf of the honourable member for Dawson. There is a further problem in the far east region of Gippsland in dealing with VHF and UHF translators and that is in the area of Ensay. Ensay, the Minister may be aware, being a well-travelled Victorian, is close to Omeo. The problem with Ensay is that it is a very hilly region. The 50 families in that region who cannot receive any television have banded together, under the previous Government's self-help program, and installed a major translator. But the complicating fact in that part of Gippsland is that it is so hilly that one needs several translators feeding off the main translator. The people of Ensay have each contributed a substantial amount of money and installed a number of smaller receiving translators. However, they have now come to the end of their tether. As I pointed out in this House only last week, they require a further $3,000 to complete the project so that they will be able to receive, as I believe is their right, communications. I shall make a further representation to the Minister in the near future. I ask him to consider it favourably at that time. The Ensay television committee's actions represent the initiative of people in isolated areas who are somewhat removed from major metropolitan areas. The people in that area deserve every bit of assistance that the Government can give. In this case, they are asking for an amount that is negligible, given the amount that they have already contributed. I thank the Chair for permitting me to participate in this debate when time is so limited. I have outlined two matters of concern to the people of Gippsland, including the problems associated with implementing the Minister's policy which requires UHF translators rather than VHF translators. I ask for exceptions to be made for people in remote areas so that they can receive television transmissions-in many cases, for the first time. I ask the Minister to note also the concern of the Shire of Maffra and other shires in the Gippsland electorate about the granting of a supplementary licence to Southern Cross Communications Ltd. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.57) —I thank those honourable members who contributed to the debate this morning. The matters dealt with by the shadow Minister for Communications, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), were, to a large degree, covered by the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles). I shall, therefore, not take up the Committee's time on all those matters. The point was made that for 18 months there has been no progress towards providing commercial television to remote areas. I assure the Opposition that that is not the case. A statement will be made on that matter at an early date. The fact is that honourable members on this side of the chamber are not divided in the way in which the honourable member for Murray seems to think. The opposition to country media interests having any control in the media, by being able to lease high powered transponders on the satellite, is not a matter of substance to honourable members on this side of the chamber. In the long term, it may well be that the disagreement about this matter will be a lot less than the honourable member for Murray thinks. I understand the concerns that he expressed, but I think he will find that they will not prove to be correct. I noted also the remarks about public broadcasting that were made by the honourable member for Murray. An amount of $500,000 was made available to the Public Broadcasting Foundation. Of that amount, $150,000 was allocated for Aboriginal programming. That left the Public Broadcasting Foundation with a balance of $350,000. As the honourable member for Murray is aware, last year the Government made a one-off grant of $100,000 to the Public Broadcasting Foundation to enable it to set up a secretariat and to become established. I do not know the amount that the Foundation will decide is necessary for it to continue to maintain the administrative support that it considers necessary at the moment. Last year, the Foundation felt that $100,000 was necessary, but I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the amount will be less this year. Let us say that the amount will be around $80,000. If one deducts from $350,000 the cost of the PBF, one is left with $270,000, which represents an increased allocation to public broadcasting stations of about 35 per cent over the 1983-84 figure. Despite the fact that the Chairman of the Foundation expressed his concern that $5m was not granted to enable the PFB to have the independence that it said the money would have given, this year's allocation to public broadcasting-I think this is a reasonable way to analyse this matter-is up by 35 per cent on last year's allocation, and that is not a bad result. I was delighted to hear the strong support by the honourable member for Murray for some motions passed at the Australian Labor Party conference. We can, of course, be a little selective from time to time in giving support. I take on board the fact that the Labor Party's policy is so strongly supported. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) brought up matters that he raises regularly because of his concern-it is the concern of all honourable members who represent remote areas-for television and radio. I think we all agree that the provision of telephony is probably the first priority for those areas. There is no doubt that compliments were paid, with some caveats-I am not unreasonable-to Telecom Australia for the role that it is playing. It is plain that Telecom's undertakings to remote areas about the target dates in the early 1990s will be met. The honourable member for Murray asked about the satellite system that is to be used. At this stage, I can say only that later this week a full statement will be made on that subject. I assure the honourable member that there will be no delays and that the technology used will be the best available. The Government and the Opposition want many channels to be available. There is a particular problem with radio. It will be necessary to operate a system of technology that will give remote areas television cover. It is necessary also for those areas to have radio cover. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) and the honourable member for Maranoa referred to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's actions. Their speeches showed a slightly different emphasis. The honourable member for Maranoa took the view that there was a weeding out process and that the ABC should not employ homosexuals. The honourable member for Braddon, although I do not agree with him, raised certain matters which are obviously of concern to him. There are a number of things worth saying about this matter. First, the ABC's decision is properly within its management prerogative as an independent statutory authority, and there is no question about that. Second, the ABC's equal opportunity policy, affecting persons living in unmarried heterosexual or homosexual relationships, is not the pacesetter that some people seem to think it is. That is where the whole argument has got out of perspective. People seem to think that that policy was something on to which the ABC fastened as though it were completely new, but that is not so. As long ago as 1978-those opposite should understand this, because we all know who was in power then-the Commonwealth Public Service Board's elaboration of equal opportunity principles determined that benefits such as bereavement leave and removal and transfer allowances would be decided on a basis that did not discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual unmarried relationships. That was the determination by the Public Service Board in 1978. That was the position when the ABC made its decision. It is correct to say that the Public Service Board subsequently moved from that stand, but that was the position when the ABC took its decision. In fact, in 1978 the Public Service Board, under the Fraser Government, laid down those guidelines. That policy was not seized upon by the ABC as something completely new and something that had not been thought of before. The Board and management of the ABC clearly have the power to set pay and conditions for staff. The question of other authorities was mentioned. Directions can be issued to other authorities in certain circumstances, but there are some difficulties. In fact, the advice given by the Attorney-General's Department to various governments has been that directions of that sort may not stand up if they get in the way of other powers of independent statutory corporations. What could be done is that the Government could give a statement of policy on the matter which would have to be taken into account by authorities . However, to talk of directions to independent statutory authorities is not as easy a matter as may be first thought. I think that issue will continue to cause some conjecture, but it is not a matter that was plucked out of the air by the ABC. I inform the honourable member for Braddon that it relates to items such as bereavement leave and removal and transfer allowances, totally unrelated to the letter to which the honourable member referred. It would not cover the case of somebody wishing to bring someone who had a grand piano out from the United States. It would not cover such situations and was never intended to do so. That is a matter people would have to take on themselves. Nevertheless, as these points have been raised at various stages this is an opportunity for me to cover them. Mr Groom —Do you support the ABC? Mr DUFFY —It is not a matter of supporting the ABC. The interjection from the honourable member for Braddon points to one of the grave problems faced by Opposition members. It is not a matter of my supporting the ABC or not doing so. I said a moment ago, and I repeat word for word, that this type of decision made by the ABC is perfectly and properly within its management prerogative as an independent statutory authority. Opposition members should start to attempt to understand the ABC's position as an independent statutory authority. Mr Ian Cameron —Put on a few more like Neville. Mr DUFFY —In reply to the interjection by the honourable member for Maranoa, let me say that Neville Bonner has proved to be a fine commissioner. There is no question about that. Mr McGauran —The others are not much good. Mr DUFFY —In the considered judgment of the honourable member for Gippsland, the others are not much good. That is an opinion he is entitled to have. It is not one that I share. One of the great problems is that this House is full of more instant experts on the ABC-on both sides, may I say-than on any other subject in this Parliament. Mr Bilney —Foreign affairs? Mr DUFFY —The honourable member for Kingston cites foreign affairs as a similar area. If one looks at the condition in which the ABC found itself on the basis of a report commissioned by the previous Government, we now know that a new board has been set up under a new general manager. It ill becomes honourable members on both sides of the House to continue this whingeing and carping criticism of the ABC. The ABC is not in the ratings game-that is not what it is about. The ABC, given a period of time under a new board and with a new general manager, I think will deliver the goods. It is about time people gave them a bit of a chance to do that without perpetually seizing on various issues and criticising them. In closing on a happier note, I again thank honourable members who have made a contribution to the debate. Mr McGauran —What about VHF? The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will cease interjecting , particularly when he is not in his own seat. Mr DUFFY —The questions raised on technical aspects, particularly VHF and UHF problems, are matters on which I have already had detailed discussions in the past few months with representatives of Southern Cross Communications Ltd. It is an interminable argument, particularly when it involves engineers. Those of us who are in the law know that lawyers are often subject to criticism in that any two lawyers will give three or four different opinions. I think the same argument applies to engineers. The fact is that the managements of Southern Cross Communications and many of the other television stations have made considerable progress in those discussions at management level. However, the problems which have been raised are complex, and the honourable member has represented them on other occasions. They will be taken on board and are being examined almost on an on-going basis. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Administrative Services Proposed expenditure, $461,566,000. Department of Housing and Construction Proposed expenditure, $356,605,000. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.15) —On behalf of the five Liberal Party Federal members in the House of Representatives from Tasmania, I take the opportunity to speak on the estimates for the Department of Housing and Construction and to condemn the Hawke socialist Government and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) for the most disgraceful treatment handed out by this Government to Australia's smallest but most beautiful State. There has never been a worse Federal Budget, in terms of Commonwealth capital works for Tasmania, in living memory. It is shameful and disgraceful that the Hawke socialist Government, having done so much to damage Tasmania last year, continues the war by bringing down in this Parliament the lowest, tiniest Commonwealth capital civil works program for Tasmania in living memory. I can go back eight years in the Tasmanian Parliament and eight years in the Federal Parliament and I emphasise that there has never been a worse Budget in terms of Commonwealth capital works for Tasmania than the one brought down by the Treasurer. Mr Hurford —What are the figures? Mr HODGMAN —The Minister of Housing and Construction, who has declared war on Tasmania, is to be contrasted to the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), the former Minister for Transport and Construction, who was one of the best Ministers in that portfolio that this country has ever seen. I put the figures before the jury-the jury of the people of Tasmania who will shortly have a chance to vote on this-and let them make up their minds. Let us take the year 1982-83, the last year of the Fraser Government. Incidentally, I am delighted to see in the chamber the honourable members for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), Braddon (Mr Groom) and Wilmot (Mr Burr), or Lyons as it is about to become. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman), unfortunately, is out of the country. I take the figures for 1982-83 under the stewardship of the honourable member for Gwydir. I have in this document the civil works program for that year . Does the House know how much that program totalled for Tasmania in that year? The answer is $37.5m. The longer the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) remains in that office, the more Malcolm Fraser is starting to look like Father Christmas as far as Tasmania is concerned. Let us remind ourselves of some of the projects that went through in the 1982-83 civil works program. In the electorate of Denison we had, for example, in the Department of Administrative Services the erection of the stores building at Glenorchy. Turning to the Attorney-General's Department, again in the electorate of Denison, we saw the erection of the Commonwealth Law Courts Building in Davey Street and the amount appropriated was $8.707m. I turn to the Department of Aviation and to the electorate of the honourable member for Franklin. What did the Fraser Government provide? For the strengthening of runways, taxiways and apron and provision of additional apron parking at Hobart Airport it provided $3.45m. There was an appropriation for the extension of the maintenance building and a further $1m was appropriated for the erection of the international terminal building. Launceston was not forgotten. It received an appropriation for the extension of the maintenance building. I turn to the Department of Home Affairs and Environment. Again in the electorate of Franklin, due to the efforts of the hard working member for Franklin, there was a further appropriation for the erection of the Archives Repository at Bellerive. Mr Bilney —The what? Mr HODGMAN —The archives repository. That is where the honourable member will be put after the next election, except that it will be in South Australia, not in Tasmania. We come to the appropriations, which I just mention in passing, for our Antarctic work, which again reflects on Tasmania and benefits Tasmania. Mr Goodluck —No, it reflects on you for the hard work you did on it. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member is very kind indeed. The appropriation for that was $5.7m. Then we come to an appropriation for the light tower and power house at Bluff Hill Point. There are many more appropriations in the book to which I wish to refer. There was an appropriation for alterations to the operating theatre at the Hobart Repatriation General Hospital in the electorate of Denison. Then we come to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Marine Laboratories. An amount of $11.84m was allocated for those magnificent laboratories for the Divisions of Fisheries Research and Oceanography at Castray Esplanade in the electorate of Denison. Some $37.5m was allocated in the last year of the Fraser Government. What do we find in the 1984-85 civil works program? A damning indictment of the Hawke socialist Government. The Minister for Housing and Construction should be sacked. He will not want to come to Tasmania in the election campaign. Do honourable members know what the Government has come up with? Do they know how much has been allocated this year for Commonwealth new works in Tasmania? An amount of $3.5m has been allocated. It is less than one-tenth of the appropriation of the Fraser Government in 1982-83. Let us listen to the Press. The Hobart Mercury summed it up well. It said that it was quite clear that the Hawke Government had decided it was not worth trying to win any seats in Tasmania. It made it quite clear that the Hawke Government had decided it was not going to try to buy any seats in Tasmania. Mr Hurford —What a pity you don't have any credibility whatsoever. You are making an arse of yourself again. Mr HODGMAN —Isn't that parliamentary! I would like the boys and girls and the men and women of Australia to hear the lovely language of this man, educated at the London School of Economics. The Hansard will show the words that he used. He is rattled. The amount of $3.5m is the lowest appropriation for new Commonwealth capital works. Mr Hurford —It is not the right figure. Mr HODGMAN —Of course it is the right figure, as the Minister well knows. Mr Hurford —You don't know how to read the documents. Mr HODGMAN —I am sorry; the Minister is a con. He is an absolute con. I am comparing the Commonwealth civil works program 1982-83, Budget Paper No. 6, with the Commonwealth civil works program 1984-85, Budget Paper No. 6. Let me put the figures on the record so that the Minister will be exposed for exactly what he is. Mr Hurford —We will catch you later on. Mr HODGMAN —All right; just hold on a minute. On page 12 of this year's Budget Paper No. 6 under the Department of Administrative Services we see such great appropriations as that for the Hobart Commonwealth Centre. How much is the Government going to spend on 'alterations for installation of PPW system computer facilities for the Australian Taxation Office'? It will spend $35,874. Big deal! We come to the Attorney-General's Department. The sum of $25,769 has been allocated for sundry works. What do we find for Tasmania in the estimates for the Department of Aviation? For the erection of the international terminal building at Hobart Airport the remaining sum of $5,093 is allocated. How much further do I have to go? An amount of $750,000 is allocated for the strengthening of the freight apron at Launceston Airport. There is an allocation of $123,000 for the erection of a dormitory, a lecture room and a fire station at the Launceston Airport. For the Australian Broadcasting Corporation headquarters which should have been started this year-they are not just my words ; they are the words of Mr Jim Bacon, the State Secretary of the Builders Labourers Federation, and every other trade union leader-the Government has appropriated $300,000 for this year, which would barely cover the cost of plans and specifications and the construction of an amenities building or, as it is called, a dunny on the construction site. The Minister has condemned Tasmania to the smallest capital works program in living memory-$3.5m, less than one-tenth of what Malcolm Fraser provided. As I said in the Minister's absence from the chamber, the longer the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) remains Prime Minister the more Malcolm Fraser is starting to look like Father Christmas as far as Tasmania is concerned. Mr Keogh —Impossible! Mr HODGMAN —The Minister is condemned. I am pleased to see that the honourable member for Bowman is here. He was a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works that came to Tasmania. It was pointed out to the Committee that the Commonwealth Law Courts building would be finished, which it now is; that the CSIRO Marine Laboratories would be finished, which they now are; and that Tasmania needed a major Commonwealth works project ready to start so that hundreds of workers would not be retrenched. The Minister has declared war on Tasmania. He has sold out our smallest State. I wish that we could sack him and bring back the honourable member for Gwydir, because at least under him we got fair treatment. The people of Tasmania will have a chance to vote on the Minister's disgraceful civil works program. I tell honourable members opposite now that, even with the cooked boundaries, they will not win a single seat in Tasmania at the next Federal election. The Government will be condemned. The people of Tasmania-Liberal, Labor or of whatever political persuasion-will vote it out. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! This is a debate on the Estimates, not a policy speech. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman. I wish it could be a policy speech because I look forward to making that in Denison even with the rigged boundaries . The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(11.22) —If ever one has heard a demonstration of why the people of Tasmania should, as they will, elect a large number of new representatives to replace those incompetents whose representative we have just heard speaking, certainly the speech of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) was it. I am about to make some remarks about my own State of South Australia. Perhaps it reflects somewhat better on the standard of South Australia's representatives and in particular on the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), who comes from South Australia, that our record should have been so good in that State in comparison with the pathetic performance that we have just heard. I shall not dwell on the general record of the Government in the housing field, although it is well known that we inherited a problem in that field of quite terrifying dimensions. Certainly, in my electorate of Kingston it was far and away the major issue which pre-occupied ordinary people. They could not afford homes, they could not find homes for rental. The private rental market was such that it discriminated against those in greatest need and with the least chance of affording or obtaining housing. That was a dire problem which I was extremely pleased to see the Government begin to tackle even before its first Budget. The record speaks for itself in terms of housing starts. We inherited a situation in which housing starts were running at a level unprecedented since 1962, of 106, 000. That figure is now up to something like 130,000 a year, partly through the extremely successful first home owners scheme under which some 55,000 people received assistance in 1983-84 and partly through the assistance which has been given to public housing in the States and through the States by this Government. It is to public housing that I wish to devote the remainder of my remarks. There has been a certain amount of discussion in the community about the Federal Government's response on the public housing side, so it is that to which I wish to turn my attention. It is, in my view, a great achievement of the Government and a personal achievement of the Minister for Housing and Construction that there has been a successful renegotiation of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement this year. I understand that the Housing Assistance Bill, which will incorporate the main provisions of that agreement, will be introduced in this Parliament this week or very shortly. The new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement is a breakthrough in many ways. It includes a very greatly expanded guaranteed minimum base funding from the levels which prevailed previously. Under the old agreement, those levels were $200m a year. Under the new agreement , the levels will be $500m a year-a total of $1,500m. They do not necessarily work out to that amount each year, but they will be $1,500m over the first three years of a 10-year agreement. The agreement incorporates a number of innovative or broadened features. One of those, about which I wish to speak later, concerns the local government and community housing program, but other features are such things as broadened criteria to include single people and youth in the eligibility for public housing and a return to a system of real cost rents for houses, rents that reflect the real cost of housing rather than the market rent philosophy espoused in 1981 by the Fraser Government. Other features are the use of rental purchase schemes which will encourage home ownership but with the proviso that any public stock which is sold will be replaced as public housing stock, special allocations for rental for pensioners and Aboriginals and for other disadvantaged groups, and a continuation, but an improvement, of the mortgage and rent relief scheme and the crisis accommodation program. Of those, perhaps the most exciting is the local government and community housing program. People will remember that a proposal for a program along these lines was put forward by the Australian Labor Party during the last election campaign. It is a tribute to the Minister for Housing and Construction that he has worked hard to get this program into operation. It represents just another promise which the Government has kept. The aim of this scheme is to involve local governments and community groups in providing low cost rental housing and to facilitate greater tenant participation in the management of dwellings. These dwellings may be constructed, purchased, leased or renovated by State housing authorities, local governments or community groups, but they must be managed by local governments or by community groups-hence the name of the scheme. This scheme will enable assistance to be given to more innovative programs which have not generally been funded, or not previously been funded, under CSHA programs, such as boarding houses, hostels, rental co-operatives or group housing. That money can also be used in order to attract additional funding so that the total of $27m which has been allocated to this three-year program-$7m in the first year-can be used to expand the total amount of funds which will be devoted to this innovative response to public housing needs. Of course, it is expected that, where it is practicable, local governments or community organisations will put in their own resources to expand the total; nevertheless, it is something which I expect to be of particular relevance in my own area. The area of Kingston, the southern suburbs of Adelaide, is one of the fastest growing areas in Australia as far as housing is concerned. Madam Deputy Chairman, you would realise if you visited the area why that is so. It is an exceptionally beautiful area in which to live. The South Australian Housing Trust, a body for which I have a very high regard, has some major developments planned there-major but, in the tradition of the Trust, innovative as well. Programs such as this one, the local government and community housing program, will assist the Trust to make a varying and flexible range of responses to what are increasingly varying and flexible needs in the community. The other two matters I should like to mention are the crisis accommodation program and the mortgage and rent relief scheme. Under this Budget, $21.7m will be provided to the States and the Northern Territory for the mortgage and rent relief scheme, which is an increase of $3.6m over the 1983-84 expenditure. As most people will know, these are funds which are used for payments to or on behalf of individuals who are having severe financial difficulties in meeting mortgage repayments and rent payments-including mortgage relief, rent relief, bond money payments, arrears of rental-and, for the first time, this year for housing advisory services. In my area there are plenty of people still, unfortunately, who are obliged to make use of this scheme, which in my experience is administered very sensitively by the South Australian Housing Trust, which, under the scheme's provisions, is obliged to provide matching funds to enable the scheme to proceed. This, in my view, is an absolutely essential program with which the Government must continue . I am extremely glad to see that the allocation to it has increased. Of course, I shall be extremely glad when the day comes that it is no longer necessary to have such a scheme but, in the meantime, it represents a sympathetic and sensitive response on the part of the Government to the problems of those who have difficulty in meeting mortgage repayments. Fortunately, under this Government, interest rates have fallen considerably and we are not now seeing the desperation of people who took on a mortgage but found that the repayments went up and up to an extent that they could not afford them. Some of those in my area were forced out of their homes by the absence of a scheme as good as this one. In the very short time available to me, the last issue that I mention briefly is crisis accommodation. Again, in Kingston there was a situation in which people were being forced to seek crisis accommodation, which was not readily available. This year there will be an increased provision for crisis accommodation, which is something that I support. The program that we have will replace the old families in distress program and the homeless persons assistance program. It will be a considerable improvement. Overall, I congratulate the Government, very sincerely, on the way in which it has gone about tackling the housing situation, both on the private side and, increasingly now, on the public assistance side. I also congratulate the Minister personally. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(11.32) —Housing is of great importance to the Australian community. It represents an area in which this Government's policies have caused considerable embarrassment to people who would normally be strong supporters of the Australian Labor Party. I instance the public demonstrations that we have seen in this Parliament, in the public gallery and in King's Hall. Unfortunately , in the latter instance the demonstration resulted in damage being caused to this building. I believe that these demonstrations, if not encouraged, were perhaps orchestrated by some members of the extreme Left within the ALP who disagree with the approach to housing of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). I have considerable concerns about the approach of the Minister and this Government to housing. Perhaps my greatest concern is that they fail to understand the realities of the market in terms of the provision of housing. Given the time available for discussion of these estimates and the late hour to which the House sat last night, I shall not indulge today in an examination of market forces in the provision of housing. However, I should like to refer to the changes made in the Budget to the first home buyers assistance scheme. Under the new rules, the income threshold for maximum assistance of $7,000 has been lowered from $24,000 to $20,000, though the reduced benefits will be payable up to a maximum joint income of $27,900. Similarly, for sole applicants the income threshold for maximum assistance of $5,000 will be $10,000, with reduced benefits payable up to an annual income of $13,950. In this day and age that is a farcical income limit to set. It is also completely inconsistent with the Government's professed concern for anti-discrimination, as there is obviously a discriminatory impact in this because of the level of incomes that single people have. It also concerns me that the Government persists with fiddling with the arrangements and assistance available to first home buyers. Under the previous Government's scheme there was a housing loan interest rebate arrangement, and many young couples committed themselves to the absolute hilt, based on the level of rebate that they would receive after claiming deductions for their interest. As a result of this Government's decisions in this Budget, the rebates that these young couples can expect in the future will decline. Quite a number of them have approached me and have explained that they will face severe financial difficulty and may either have to sell their home and seek cheaper accommodation or perhaps reduce their standard of living in another area, such as selling a second car or something else to reduce their commitments so that they can continue to make their mortgage payments. Mr Hand —As if every battler has a second car. What an extraordinary statement! Mr BLUNT —I think that if the honourable member lived somewhere else besides a metropolitan area he would recognise that there is an absolute necessity for a second car because people cannot walk the distances involved in this country. Unfortunately we are not talking about the provision of public housing in a closely settled European community. We are talking about a large country where there are great distances between where people live and where they are required to work and shop and where their children go to school. Of course, that point would not occur to honourable members on the other side of the chamber because they are preoccupied with the closely settled areas of Australia and do not really care about the non-metropolitan areas. I think that what this Government has done in the Budget is sow the seeds for considerable hardship for many young couples in the future. I am quite sure that when the opportunity arises many of these people will take the opportunity to protest at this Government's actions in terms of the first home owners scheme and certainly will not be supporting it. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(11.37) —In speaking to the estimates for the Department of Housing and Construction we do not have to look very hard at the Budget statements to see that there has been a significant redirection of funds to this area of Commonwealth expenditure since the Labor Government came to office. More particularly, this Government has given an enormous boost to public housing which is an area of great concern to me as the elected representative of an electorate in which so many of my constituents are reliant on public housing to provide a roof over their heads. Not only has this Government contributed massive increases in funds for public housing but also through the new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement it has developed a program which aims to ensure, as far as possible, that housing assistance is delivered to those in need and in forms which are appropriate to their needs. To understand just how great has been the reversal in funding for public housing since Labor came to power we should take a brief look at the abysmal record of honourable members opposite when they held the reins of government. In the 1975-76 Budget some $377m was allocated for public housing in the Commonwealth Budget outlays. By 1981-82 this figure had been slowly squeezed to a point where a mere $264m was expended in this manner; that is, without even taking account of the effects of inflation, a nominal reduction in expenditure of some $113m occurred over a period of six years of conservative rule. In other words, funds for public housing in 1981-82 had declined to some 70 per cent of their nominal level, as set in the last Budget of the Whitlam Government. While recognising that the downward trend was reversed in the last Howard Budget, expenditure for public housing really only received a sharp jolt upwards with the election of this Government. In the 1983-84 Budget grants and net advances to the States rose by a massive 55 per cent and this year there will be a projected increase of 18.5 per cent over the 1983-84 allocations. In dollar terms this Government allocated some $ 500m to public housing in 1983-84. Federal funding of some $624m has been allocated over 1984-85. This year, if we add each dollar contributed to public housing by the States under the conditions of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, combined with the projected borrowings by the States from the Loan Council and the actual amounts allocated by the Commonwealth Government under the agreement, the total assistance for public housing for 1984-85 by the Commonwealth and States is projected to be some $1,500m. Should the States choose to make public housing one of their major priorities and follow the example of Labor governed South Australia by allocating their entire Loan Council borrowings to housing, then this figure could be even higher. Under these Loan Council arrangements the States can nominate funds for housing at the concessional interest rate of 4.5 per cent repayable over 53 years. In 1983-84 an additional $227m was directed towards public housing under these arrangements. In 1984-85 these projected borrowings are expected to reach $275m. Following the last Loan Council meeting, State housing authorities are also free to borrow on the commercial market should they require additional funds. Let us return to what the Commonwealth Government is doing. I want to turn my attention to the renegotiated Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. This agreement is the major vehicle by which the public housing sector will be redeveloped as a viable alternative tenure choice. It constitutes the centrepiece of this Government's policy for achieving satisfactory housing policies for lower income groups in Australia and provides the basic framework for delivering a national housing policy. The main features of the new agreement include: A guaranteed minimum funding base of $500m per annum by the Federal Government over the first three years of the agreement compared with $200m a year under the 1981 agreement; all funding to be in the form of grants rather than a mixture of loans and grants, thus increasing the capacity of the States to borrow more moneys; rent levels for public housing to be based on costs of production and administration rather than market levels as per the 1981 agreement, with reduced rents for those unable to afford the asked rent; broadened eligibility criteria to include singles and youth; specific grants to pensioner housing and Aboriginal housing; and the establishment of a new local community housing program with a total funding allocation of $27m over three years. The agreement also includes the incorporation of other specific assistance schemes such as the mortgage and rent relief scheme and the crisis accommodation program. The specific initiative of establishing the local community housing program in accordance with my Party's policy of maximising greater tenant participation in the management of dwellings is welcomed in my electorate where a significant proportion of my constituents have no other recourse but public housing. The scheme which provides for greater involvement by local governments and community groups will provide assistance for types of housing of an innovative nature appropriate to individual needs, for example, boarding houses, hostels, group houses and rented co-operatives. A further initiative is the new crisis accommodation program within the agreement. Some $12.6m is to be made available to fund the construction, purchase or renovation of dwellings to be used for short term emergency accommodation with additional funds being made available through the supported accommodation assistance program-known as SAAP-for operational and administrative costs. Both programs are funded via social security. In 1984-85 the funding increase to crisis accommodation is some 19 per cent in real terms. Given the growing problem of homelessness in our society, especially amongst youth, this allocation should be seen as a step in the right direction although it is clear that if we, as a government, are to come to grips with the escalating incidence of homelessness greater funds will be required in the future. When this Government came to office public housing was in a state of criminal neglect after seven years of Fraser and Howard rule. The plain fact is that this Government has attempted to redress the pitiful state of affairs it inherited. The last two Budgets have seen a 53.4 per cent increase in funding for public housing with a guaranteed minimum of a further $500m in 1985-86. However, we would be shortsighted indeed, if we believed that this is an adequate response. Honourable members will be aware of just how critical the housing shortage is. Demand for public housing continues to rise alarmingly. The most recent estimates indicate that some 138,000 households are on the waiting lists, an increase in demand for public housing of some 64 per cent since 1980. This increase in demand must be seen as the result of people being forced out of the private market where exorbitant rents are causing severe hardship and poverty. Decent, affordable housing which is accessible to all income groups and household types is the right of all Australians. Provision of public housing to ensure that right is a basic social responsibility. I know that this Government will stand by its policy on housing and that in future Budgets even greater allocations will be made to keep our election promise of doubling the proportion of public housing stock over the next 10 years. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Before I call the next honourable member to speak I note the presence in the chamber of the first woman to hold the position of Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms. I pass on the congratulations of the women in this House and add those to the congratulations already recorded earlier this week. Mr Hand —All members of the Parliament. Mr Hodgman —All members of the Parliament. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I certainly say 'all members of the Parliament' but I point out that the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) has already made that point on behalf of the House. I specifically wanted to add the congratulations of the women to those already recorded. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(11.45) —I want to refer briefly to the speech that was made a little earlier in this debate by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). While we are now well used to his theatrical performances in this chamber I think his speech this morning was totally unjustified. Mr Bilney —It took the cake. Mr KEOGH —As my colleague the honourable member for Kingston says, it took the cake. The honourable member for Denison reminded me, when making his remarks, that I was present at the Joint Committee on Public Works hearing in Hobart where he appeared and gave evidence in respect of the progressive, positive decision of this Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) and this Government to proceed with the Public Works Committee hearing prior to making a decision on the need for a new Australian Broadcasting Corporation studio in Hobart. That decision has been made. The expenditure mentioned in this Budget is for the documentation of that building. There is no suggestion that the expenditure of any additional money in this 1984-85 Budget is warranted or is necessary for the completion of the building in the time schedule proposed by the Public Works Committee which, as I understand it, has been accepted by the Government as 1987. It is appropriate that I remind honourable members that the decision of this Government to build these new studios in Hobart was very warranted. I refer the honourable member for Denison to the report of the Public Works Committee which highlights the fact that the premises in which the ABC was housed under the former Government were premises in which it had been housed for some 51 years. Those premises are described in the Public Works Committee report as providing: . . . some of the lowest standards of office accommodation in Hobart. The Public Works Committee report goes on. I refer the honourable member for Denison to that report so that he can refresh his memory of the shocking conditions under which his Government forced the ABC to exist in Hobart and, perhaps more appropriately, to show him that he should be honest and congratulate the Government on proceeding with this new building. If the honourable member would like to have a look at the Public Works Committee report , which is available for all honourable members, it lists on two and a half pages some specific problems concerning the existing buildings. As I have said, the honourable member came into the chamber today and gave one of his usual theatrical performances and berated the Government for proceeding with this proposal. I want to devote my time principally to speaking about the achievements of the Government in the field of housing in the short time that it has been in office. I suggest to honourable members that in no other area is it more apparent that this Government has been successful and has turned around the economic downturn that existed under the previous Fraser Administration. This Government is to be highly commended for its allocation to housing and construction in this Budget and, indeed, in its last Budget. This allocation will increase employment opportunities, further stimulate the industry and improve access to affordable housing for more Australians. Over the last 12 months the Government's assistance in housing schemes has contributed to an improvement in the housing market conditions. Interest rates have fallen and lending has been increased by over 30 per cent, greatly improving access to home ownership for first home seekers in particular. The outstanding success of the first home owners scheme is reflected in the number of applications received in the first 11 months of its operation. There have been some 93,900 applications, of which 55,250 have been approved to date. Applications have averaged out at 2,800 per week. I believe that that is an indication of the outstanding success of this scheme. In keeping with the Government's aim of assisting those most in need, the income limits for applicants eligible for the scheme have been altered in this Budget. Income thresholds for sole applicants have been halved, with the full grant of $5,000 now payable to those earning less than $10,000 a year. The upper income level for this group will be $13,950. These new income limits for sole applicants reflect their lesser need for assistance. They could be expected to need a smaller, less expensive home than a family and they would have fewer demands on their income. In fact, the idea of encouraging young couples moving into their first home to build smaller, more affordable housing is something that I think this Government should concentrate on. Too often when young people purchase their first home they get a very large home and, unfortunately, the mortgage repayments are way beyond their means. It is a more reasonable proposition, if they can be guided to make that decision, to go initially into a smaller home. FHOS has enabled the Government to provide record funding for public housing and to increase assistance to pensioners and other needy people in the private rental market. It is estimated that in 1984-85 some 80,000 first home buyers will receive assistance through the scheme. This, together with the existing 55, 000 home buyers currently receiving the subsidy payments, will mean that 135,000 first home buyers will have benefited from FHOS. Estimated expenditure on the scheme in the current Budget is $265m. In Queensland the grant is expected to be in the vicinity of $54m. Last year in Queensland some 16,800 applications were received, of which 10,900 have been approved to date. In the Redlands Shire in particular, in my electorate, there has been a virtual boom in home building since this scheme was put into operation. There has been a 40 per cent increase in building approvals in that shire. Many of those homes were financed with the assistance of this first home owners scheme. A new program to be set up in this Budget-I am very impressed by it and I think the Government is to be complimented on its initiative in setting it up-is to be known as the local government and community housing program. It is designed to expand and diversify the range of low cost housing available. Funds will be provided to State governments to give financial assistance to local governments and community groups, including co-operative housing societies, to buy, build, lease or upgrade dwellings for low cost rental housing. There is certainly a need for that in the inner suburban areas of Brisbane and in some of the outlying, earlier established suburbs in the Brisbane City Council area. I have no doubt that the very advent of this scheme will give the Labor controlled Brisbane City Council an opportunity to take up the offer of this Government and participate in the development of this scheme. This scheme will provide for tenants to be actively involved in managing their housing. It seeks to ensure that a wider range of specific housing needs will be met, such as boarding house accommodation, group housing and housing for single persons. In this Budget $7m has been allocated for this program. In the few moments remaining to me I wish to say that it is a scheme that I am sure will work in very well with the home and community care program that is to be initiated by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Social Security. It will complement that scheme and will give the people to whom it is directed an opportunity to remain in their existing suburbs. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(11.55) —First of all , I thank those honourable members who have taken part in this debate so far on the estimates for the Department of Housing and Construction and the Department of Administrative Services. It will be understood that I feel warmer about some performances than I do about others. In particular, I commend the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney), the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) and the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) for their contributions. Then we had the ham actor's performance from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I suggest that it is a typical ham actor's performance when one is coming to retirement, as indeed the honourable member is coming to retirement. He has got only until the next election to put up these performances. Once again , we heard sheer rhetoric from him. There is no credibility in what he says and today's performance was another manifestation of that. He was misleading the Committee and the people who might be taking an interest in what is going on in the Committee. If we focus on the Commonwealth works program alone, I need to educate him that we do not look only at what is being done through my own Department. The total works program for Tasmania this year is over $17m worth-$ 17,380,000 will be spent on works programs. But that is not the total story. Incidentally, the figures the honourable member mentioned were less than one- third of that figure. We have also got the instalment purchase program. The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John Brown) may have a few words to say on this matter after me. I pay a tribute to him and his Department for making Commonwealth offices and other building space available through the instalment purchase program. Under that program a Commonwealth office will be built in Devonport during the coming year which is not shown in any of the figures and certainly has not been mentioned by the honourable member for Denison. Its approximate cost will be $3.23m. Other projects under the same program are in the pipeline. Glenorchy is a new project which will be coming to Tasmania under the civil works program. The approximate cost for these projects will be: Glenorchy, extension of Commonwealth offices, over $1m worth of building; Launceston Airport, $870,000; Hobart Repatriation General Hospital works, $680,000; Burnie Commonwealth offices, $240,000 and Hobart Airport, $3m under the Commonwealth-State arrangements arising out of the South West Tasmania dam compensation. Mr Hodgman —It is dam compensation. You said that you would not use dam compensation. Mr HURFORD —Okay. Let us exclude that, but it is still a magnificent story. Then there are some ongoing projects for 1984-85, such as: Proposed expenditure on the Bellerive Commonwealth offices, $1.5m; Hobart Airport Police Station, $670, 000; and Hobart Commonwealth Courts, another $520,000. I have already mentioned Glenorchy and an extension of Commonwealth offices there. There is a separate project for an $80,000 extension. Honourable members have seen the ham actor's performance, the hollow performance of the honourable member for Denison which is his final performance on the estimates in this House before he meets his electors and his inevitable fate shortly. That is a typical performance and is a manifestation of what he stands for, namely, empty rhetoric. Before leaving the focus on Tasmania, I point out that the total payments to Tasmania in the Budget that we are discussing are in the region of $816m for 1984-85. This is a rise of $71m or 9.6 per cent over what was appropriated in the previous financial year. It is the strongest rise of any State, except Queensland. I say again that that excludes funds made available to Tasmania under the Gordon below Franklin compensation arrangements. Mr Hodgman —That is including the dam compensation-crook figures. Mr HURFORD —We have just had an interjection from the honourable member for Denison about it including the dam compensation; it does not. That 9.6 per cent increase does not include that compensation. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has made a contribution in this debate. He talked about our housing performance being an embarrassment to us. Let me assure him that nothing could be further from the truth. There is an enormous demand for public housing in this country. It is understandable that there will be demonstrations, which will draw the great demand for public housing to the attention of the people and the Government of this country. Why are there such demands? It is because of seven years of neglect in that particular area from the Fraser Government of which the honourable member for Denison was a member. I point out that this Government, in its first year, increased the appropriation for public housing by 50 per cent and in 1984-85, from the estimates we have before us, we have increased the appropriation by another 9 per cent. It is farcical for the honourable member for Richmond then to turn to the first home owners scheme and give this Committee the impression that the changes that have been made to the income limits were, in some way, going to mean an end to that particular first home owners scheme. I point out that in the previous financial year-the nine months from 1 October to 30 June-$141m was expended on the first home owners scheme, helping 55,000 applicants; yet in this year, after those changes have been made to the income limits, 80,000 people will be helped and they, and others, will receive grants which total $265m under the first home owners scheme. We now hear charges from people who had virtually no scheme-such as those supported by the honourable member for Richmond-to the effect that something is wrong with our scheme. Far from being wrong, the scheme is seen to be a great success. People are applying for benefits under this scheme. That is one of the reasons why the housing market is going well. Along with the great confidence in the community and the careful economic management, we see housing commencements going up from a 20-year low of 105,000 in the last year of the Fraser Government to 135,000 in 1983-84 and to an expected 140,000 to 145,000 in the current financial year. I have been asked by the Leader of the House (Mr Young) and the Government Whip to cut my remarks short. I will end on this note: I thank the officers of my great Department of Housing and Construction for their excellent services over the last year. They have had an enormous task in administering the first home owners scheme in the housing division. They have had an enormous task in bringing together a renegotiated Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement which has been spoken about by the honourable member for Melbourne. I am looking forward to introducing into this House tomorrow legislation relating to that renegotiation. These officers have had an enormous task in attacking the costs of building in this country. We have great projects in the works division, some of which I have spoken about in my remarks but only in relation to Tasmania. I end on the note on which I commenced. As with Tasmania and the rest of Australia , the civil works program and other expenditure of this Commonwealth continues. We get criticisms from members of the Opposition who are themselves advocating a reduction in public spending. We have the empty rhetoric of the honourable member for Denison being put to this Committee from someone who is supporting a reduction in public spending. Yet we find that, if we look at the performance, certainly in the civil works program there will be less expenditure this year than in the first year of the Hawke Labor Government but that was so much greater than anything in the years of the Fraser Government. So I can sit down now, proud of what we are doing for Tasmania and the rest of Australia. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Administrative Services)(12.05) —It is with a great deal of satisfaction that I rise to make a few brief comments about the Department of Administrative Services. I do so proudly because the Opposition has not put forward one speaker to offer one criticism of a department of the magnitude of the Department of Administrative Services that plays such a central role in the provision of support services for Commonwealth Government departments and authorities. I think it is fair to say that the Department of Administrative Services had a fairly chequered career under the previous Government where certain decisions were made and were about to be made under the auspices of the so-called razor gang about diminishing the services that the Department of Administrative Services had provided. I think it is fair to say that when this Government took over in March of last year the morale of this very important Department was at a very low ebb. People in the Department did not know where their future lay. I think it is also fair to say that with the attitude of the previous Government the sense of purpose had gone from the Department. It was not operating in a business-like fashion. That is no criticism at all of the officers. I guess it is analogous to racing. The horse is only as good as the jockey. If the Department was being ill- directed, of course one would not expect the performance from it of which it was worthy. I am pleased to say that now, at the completion of almost two years of this Government, this Department is showing its true colours and is now operating in a fashion which brings great credit to Mr Jones, the permanent head, and all the officers involved in the Department. People fail to realise the size of the Department of Administrative Services and exactly what it does, so I will read into the record a statistic or two. For instance, the staff numbers 5,333. It administers almost 24,000 properties, including 1,517 overseas, and 2.7 million square metres of office space. It manages a fleet of 12,150 vehicles. It arranges contracts for the purchase of goods and services valued at $504.7m. It arranges the printing work for the Government, valued at $50.8m, as well as a whole raft of other responsibilities which it carries out in a very business- like manner. Before I sit down I make one point about the activities of this Department which might in some way point up what this Department is capable of doing. The cost of rent to this Government this year is something in the order of $300m, an ever-expanding figure under the previous Government which had not provided one new Commonwealth building since 1974. We reached the laughable stage where the Commonwealth Government had the worst record of any comparable national government in the world, leasing 70 per cent of its buildings. However, with the support of my Cabinet colleagues the Department has now undertaken the provision of something like 30 buildings in Australia over the next two years to provide Commonwealth accommodation in buildings we own. I note that the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who is sitting at the table and who represents the town of Dubbo, has a smile on his face because this Government has done what he was trying to encourage the previous Government to do, that is, to build a Commonwealth building in Dubbo that will provide an increased level of service to the people of Gwydir and will have great economic benefits for not only the Government but also the people of Dubbo. I am sure he recognises that the good arguments he put to the previous Government went unheeded. But this Government, with a much more business-like approach, rose to the bait. We built that building, along with others. I can tell honourable members, because we are not only members of parliament but also taxpayers, that the program which I have outlined and for which I have had approval in part by Cabinet with the rest to be approved next year, will mean that those 39 buildings, at the end of a 20-year span, will provide a saving of $2,300m to the people of Australia in terms of a better, business-like approach to government accommodation. All that could not happen if I did not have the services of a whole range of people in the Department who are extraordinarily efficient and hard-working. The public servants of Australia generally are pilloried and in many ways criticised very unfairly. I can say, as someone who has come from the private sector to this Parliament, that the range of public servants with whom I deal, particularly at the upper level, are every bit as efficient as anybody working in private industry. Given proper direction by government, as they are now getting from this Government, they will deliver services, skills and efficiency equal to any organisation in Australia. So I am very happy to stand here as the Minister representing the Department of Administrative Services. A department of such a size and such importance to the business-like approach to government has not merited one squeak of criticism from the Opposition. I find that personally very satisfying. I am sure I speak on behalf of all the public servants in the Department when I make that observation. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Primary Industry Proposed expenditure, $175,886,000. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(12.12) —The summary dismissal of our great rural industries in this Budget will affect every Australian. Primary industry traditionally provides up to one-half of our export income. It has been estimated that, for every $100m earned by our agricultural exports, more than 5,000 jobs are directly provided. Indirect employment effects on our export industries account for 11.4 per cent of total employment. That is the indirect and direct effect of the value of export industries. Yet Labor has treated primary industry shabbily, despite its enormous contribution to economic growth over the past 18 months. The May mini-Budget and the August Budget last year discriminated against the rural sector. This Budget did not redress the damage. I refer in particular to the wheat industry, which earned $1.34 billion in export income during 1982-83. The wheat industry is in crisis. That was made clear yesterday at a very large meeting of concerned wheat growers at Moree, which is in the electorate of Gwydir. Mr McGauran —Which you attended. Mr HUNT —Absolutely. The wheat price received by Australian producers has risen by only 2 per cent in the last five years. Yet surveys have shown that costs over that period have risen by 17 per cent, a decline in wheat growers' terms of trade of 15 per cent. This already highly efficient industry managed to lift its productivity by a further 2.5 per cent over the years, but of course this has in no way compensated for the escalating costs. Yesterday's meeting at Moree reacted bitterly to the miserable decision of the Hawke Labor Government to place a 15 per cent tariff on imported harvesters. Local manufacturers could have been protected by a $2m bounty but, instead, this Government has preferred to impose a tariff which adds about $15,000 to the average cost of imported headers. The Hawke Labor Government has savagely attacked wheat growers, and indeed all primary producers, by gutting the income equalisation deposits scheme . That scheme, which was set up to protect producers from the wide fluctuations of income created by changing seasonal conditions, is especially important now that the drought has broken and producers in some circumstances have begun the long process of restoring their farms' viability. The decision to gut the IED scheme is nothing short of a disgrace. I focus attention on some other costs which are weighing heavily on the wheat industry during this period of a heavy downturn in the growers' terms of trade. The present crisis underlines the need for a complete review of the inward- looking import replacement mentality which is severely hampering our economic growth. I know that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who is at the table, will have some sympathy for what I am about to say. The direct costs to wheat farmers of supporting the manufacturing sector has been estimated to be about $330m for the entire wheat industry or about $8,500 per grower per annum. By clinging to this protectionist mentality, the Government is securing for itself a revenue nest egg of about $200m a year. The decision on imported harvesters, for instance, is earning the Government $10m, while the growers pay out an additional $13m per annum. Of particular concern are the indexed taxes and excises on fuels. In the case of diesel fuel, for example, the fuel tax of 14.29c per litre adds another $133m burden to the wheat industry in New South Wales alone. The Commonwealth component is 9.4c per litre against a rebate of 7. 2c a litre. This is another $133m redirected away from this efficient export industry and into government revenue. When we add the costs of fuel tax on diesel to sales tax on lubricants and the tariff on imported headers we find that a total burden of $150m has been imposed on the industry. It is a huge tax take which is simply redirecting critically important revenue away from wheat growers. The marketing chain of the wheat industry, including bulk handling, storage, land transport, loading and ocean shipping, has compiled a cost that is greater on a per tonne basis than the total on-farm production costs for wheat. These infrastructure costs are out of control. They are less visible than on-farm costs. There is no single organisation responsible for keeping costs to a minimum and there is no competitive downward pressure on charges. Wheat growers are forced to pay whatever charges are set. There is inadequate information available on the basis on which those charges are made. The unjustified off-farm charges by government-run grain handling authorities and railways must be reduced if wheat growers are to survive the long term real decline in wheat prices which seems to be in train. Recent surveys reveal that the world scene is over-burdened with surplus stocks of wheat. Much of the excessive production is due to the subsidised production in the European Economic Community and the United States of America. Today the industry is in crisis and the only way the growers' terms of trade can be eased is by cutting unnecessary costs. World prices have remained static as Australia fights to compete on markets over-supplied with wheat from countries which have a far lower cost of production, especially labour costs. The only way our wheat industry will be restored to profitability in this crucial post-drought recovery period is by the Federal Government and State governments taking a hard look at the costs which are hitting this industry so hard. Another very positive step which should be taken immediately is to reverse the decision made by this Government on 5 August last year to apply a 15 per cent tariff on imported harvesters. This tariff, which has been the subject of an inquiry, was imposed across the board on imported headers without proper consideration being given to the looming crisis in growers' terms of trade-a crisis which is very evident today, as was indicated at the large meeting yesterday. This Budget has finally indexed the rebate on diesel fuel excise but the indexation of this rebate will not take effect until next February. The Hawke Labor Government has left a gap of 18 months during which the excise has been indexed but the rebate has remained static. Primary industry, which has a profitability rate of just 2 per cent compared with between 9 and 12 per cent in other sectors of our economy, could ill afford this rebate gap at the best of times, but at a time when it is emerging from four years of crippling drought the Government's failure to index the rebate has cost primary producers tens of millions of dollars. The most urgent task in this area is for the Government to return to growers the revenue it has pocketed by its failure promptly to index the diesel fuel rebate in line with the indexed excise tax. There is also an urgent need for a review of Australia's fuel pricing policy as it affects agriculture. The industry is seeking relief from fuel taxes and excises so that it can compete with growers in the United States and Canada. There is some validity in the industry's claims. The Government should take a leaf from the coalition's policy on petroleum products, as recently advanced by the shadow Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Chaney, and relieve the fuel industry of excessive regulations and costs and allow market forces to reduce the cost of fuel. The world over-supply of oil has altered the requirement for the present policy which was introduced in a time of severe world shortage of oil. Urgent action is needed if the vital agricultural export industries are to survive on a sound basis in this country. I am deeply concerned about the crisis facing the Australian wheat industry and the urgent necessity to implement policies that will ensure the industry's viability through its current difficult period. Just as we in government had to implement special policies to save the Australian wool industry during its time of difficulty and the Australian beef industry, this Government must consult the Australian wheat grower organisations with a view to implementing a range of measures to ensure that the Australian wheat growers are able to compete profitably with their overseas competitors for overseas markets. There is no way that the governments-State and Federal-can leave the wheat growers to wither like fruit on a vine. The wheat industry is one of our most important export industries. It must survive or Australia is doomed as a nation and Australians generally are doomed because they are very dependent upon the viability of this very important export industry. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(12.21) —The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt)-- Mr McGauran —You have sold out country people. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland is once again interjecting and once again interjecting away from his seat. I ask him to take on board the fact that he will do better if he sits in his own seat. Mr SNOW —The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), like the honourable member for Gwydir, is in real trouble in this debate. They talk about the summary dismissal of rural industries in this Budget. I refer them to what John White of the Livestock and Grain Producers Association said. He said that it is macro-economic policies which determine whether farmers will stay on their farms . This Government has the record on macro-economic policies. This Government was the first and only government to recognise that the dollar had to be deregulated so that farmers could get a return for their exports. Is this shabby treatment of rural industries? This Government has recognised that such things as a reduction of 8 per cent in social security beneficiary numbers means that more people are in jobs, earning more money, which means that there are more people who can spend. Is this shabby treatment of our rural industries? The indecisiveness of the Fraser Government was shabby treatment of the rural industries of Australia. This Government was prepared to make the hard decisions about better economic management and this Government has worked with farmers and fishermen to make decisions on the future of great industries such as the dairy industry, the tuna industry, the trawl industry and the meat and wool industries . This Government has made the hard decisions. This Government is being accepted . Only the other day a farmer, who has never voted for the Australian Labor Party in his life, said to me: 'Bob Hawke and your Government have done far better than I expected'. Mr McGauran —Name him. Mr SNOW —I will not embarrass the man because he is a member of the National Party. Mr Blunt —Does he live in your electorate? Mr SNOW —He does live in my electorate. He is a member of the National Party and I will not embarrass him by naming him. I will dwell for a moment on the recognition by the Federal Government of the very real threat to Australian primary producers of exotic animal diseases which find their way into this country. The Government has provided new funding of $480,000 for an exotic diseases contingency program. This allows Australia to join an international foot and mouth disease vaccine bank held in the United Kingdom which can be called on in the event of an outbreak. It also provides funding for the establishment of a technical training program to increase the expertise of Australian veterinarians in identifying and controlling exotic disease. Most importantly, this new funding will make it possible for the Government to formulate a national feral animal eradication program. The Hawke Labor Government has shown its concern in the recent Budget for the heavy losses that farmers and urban dwellers alike would suffer following the outbreak of exotic disease in feral animals. It is equally concerned about the substantial losses already being inflicted on farmers through feral animal attack and pasture damage. For this reason $120,000 has been set aside in this Budget specifically for feral pig control. Mr Blunt —One hundred and twenty thousand dollars? Is that all? Mr SNOW —It is not enough, but this is the first time in three Budgets that we have been able to get a government to accept a feral animal control program. I was pleased to be involved with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in securing that program. Of the $120,000 set aside in the Budget, $78,000 is going to New South Wales on an unmatched basis, and the funding will be continued in subsequent years on a dollar for dollar basis. The feral pig control program in New South Wales will involve the testing and development of control techniques on the southern tablelands and in coastal regions where the wild pig population has grown to uncontrollable levels. Mr Ian Cameron —How many? Mr SNOW —If the honourable member flew over the escarpment between the Monaro and the south coast, he would see pigs everywhere. There is plenty of evidence of them. The Government is providing funding for the extension and field trial of known control techniques in the western region. The National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales will be fully involved with the Federal Government in that program. The New South Wales Government, with the Federal Government, has shown a real change in its action towards feral animals. A senior national parks officer has recently been appointed to a full time permanent position to deal with feral animal and noxious weed control. I have been involved in encouraging government to organise the construction of electric fences around parks to prevent wild dogs from entering rural properties and destroying stock. This Government has shown its commitment to the rural sector through macro-economic policies, by supporting individual industries and by working with farmers and fishermen to deal with their problems and the stability of their industries. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(12.27) —I preface my remarks by reading from the August 1984 Quarterly Review of the Rural Economy, which was put out by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The review contains some very sobering thoughts. It states: Aggregate farm income in 1984-85 is forecast to be about 30 per cent lower than in 1983-84. The report continues: . . . the net value of rural production, in real terms, is forecast to be the second lowest on record. Accordingly, all discussion about agriculture should be prefaced with a reminder about that matter. The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), pointed out the wheat industry's problems. Not just the wheat industry but also other areas in agriculture are in far from healthy shape. The Government should remember that, despite the breaking of the drought, farmers' problems are far from over. The Committee should draw the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to the problems that farmers are facing. Farmers cannot get over a drought in one year. One good season does not make up for what was probably the worst drought in Australia's history. I shall now talk specifically about meat inspectors in the Export Inspection Service. On 3 April 1984, I asked the Minister for Primary Industry a question about the suspension of meat inspectors following the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry, which inquired into the meat substitution scandal. The Royal Commission's report came out in October 1982. From that time, 22 inspectors were suspended. For 18 months they remained on full pay while suspended. The cost to the Export Inspection Service has been at least half a million dollars and may have been even more. As the Minister has said, the authorities could not find a way of charging those inspectors in the courts, so they were going to discipline them under the provisions of the Public Service Act. I draw the attention of the Committee to the hearing by a Senate Estimates committee on Tuesday, 4 September 1984. In answer to Senator Boswell's question, an officer told the Committee a rather remarkable thing. He said: There are no inspectors awaiting trial in the court sense at the moment. There are some still subject to the disciplinary provisions of the Public Service Act . . . They have all been granted payment on hardship grounds. The officer continued: There was a group of 19 which has now returned to work; they were running from approximately October 1982 through to April this year . . . receiving payment on hardship grounds. In other words, they were suspended until April this year. To date, no disciplinary action has been taken, and yet those inspectors are now back working. What can the Minister tell us about that? There is something even more remarkable further on in the record of that Senate Estimates Committee when it was considering the Export Inspection Service. In reply to Senator Archer's question about the number of meat inspectors who were on full pay but were not employed, the Committee was told that on 30 April 1984 there were 153. The officer of the Service went on to say: . . . at the moment it is probably closer to 180. Following a few more questions, the Committee was told: . . . the all-up cost for a meat inspector is closer to $40,000 and, therefore, the cost for about 150 meat inspectors is about $6m a year. We are talking about the very same Export Inspection Service, half of whose costs the Government and the Minister expect farmers to pay. All we can find is question after question. Having spoken to people in the industry, a further question is: How many others of the 1,900-odd inspectors are not working full time? It seems after talking to people in the industry that there is gross overmanning. That is not surprising in view of the downturn in the number of stock being slaughtered, but the fact is that there are still 150 people on full pay doing nothing. And farmers are expected to pick up half the tab of the costs of the Export Inspection Service. Mr Hunt —It is a damned disgrace. Mr HAWKER —I agree; it is a disgrace. If there is one point at which the Government should be looking closely it is the real concern about the Export Inspection Service's efficiency. The Government has decided that it is happy to take over the export inspection services of some of the States but, so far, it has demonstrated that the Service is far from efficient. People have been suspended for disciplinary reasons, but no disciplinary action has ever been taken. At least 180 people on full pay are doing nothing. The Minister has many things for which he must answer, before we try to foist half the cost of that inefficient Service on to farmers. Mr Andrew —My wine grape growers would like to speak to him, too. Mr HAWKER —The honourable member for Wakefield will tell the Committee all about the wine tax shortly. I point out again, as the BAE has pointed out, that agriculture is already reeling from the lack of international competitiveness. The net real return is the second lowest on record. The Government is now trying to foist part of the cost of the inefficient and very costly Export Inspection Service on to the meat industry. I suggest that, instead of trying to do that, the Government should concentrate on making the Service a bit more efficient. We can look at the other parts of the Service afterwards. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(12.33) —I shall be brief in my discussion this afternoon because I believe, as so many farming organisations have indicated in various newsletters and publications, that this has been a very well thought out budgetary appropriation for the rural industry. Of course, one must consider that in framing such a Budget the Government had to take into account the major problems that the Australian primary producers have faced in recent years because their costs have escalated at a far greater rate than the costs of their competitors. Now, fortunately, for the first time in many years, the rate of inflation in Australia is below that of the average for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. This Government has created a climate in which Australia has the best chance in a decade to rein in wage increases. If the conservatives got another chance, wage increases would again hit the heights they reached under Fraser. Remember 1980-81 when, in just 12 months, wages increased by 14 per cent? This Government is about constructive economic management within the rural sector. The world markets into which Australian producers sell are increasingly characterised by restricted access and depressed prices. As a developed country producing temperate agricultural commodities and a country which for so long ignored its location at the edge of the world's most rapidly developing region, Australia is finding access to world markets more and more difficult. Over the past 20 years Australia's primary industries have undergone massive adjustment as their production and trading environments have changed. They will continue to need to adjust because this country is just too small in population terms to enter into the business of competitive subsidisation. The basis for our long term survival on world markets must be commercial. This Government recognises the key role played by primary industries in the Australian economy and we plan to secure their future. We regard our policies for primary industries as an investment in the future of this nation. Having 'the Bob Hawke of the bush' with us gives everybody great solace and confidence. Labor's aim is to put Australia's primary industries on a secure footing so that our producers can confidently face the challenges that constantly arise and take full advantage of any opportunities. The Hawke Government also recognises the need to tackle the major structural problems that face a number of our industries. Later I shall make specific reference to the ailing sugar industry. In other industries there is a need to update the marketing and financial arrangements. The Hawke Government, following on the total lack of interest in the tobacco industry by the Fraser Government, introduced a five-year stabilisation plan for the tobacco industry to help its producers adjust to the substantial changes they are constantly facing. Just before the last election the previous Government sidestepped the issue totally by referring it to the Industries Assistance Commission and, when its report was finally brought down, let it stand in abeyance for a number of months, much to the detriment of the tobacco industry. Mr Ian Cameron —What are you doing about the sugar industry? Mr GAYLER —We are maintaining support to the sugar industry. I will go through it very slowly. I know that the honourable member is a little slow. We are maintaining support to that industry while it looks at ways in which it can alter existing institutional arrangements, so that producers are better able to adapt to the uncertain world trading situation that characterises sugar. I know that the honourable member for Maranoa, living as he does in the west, has very little knowledge of the sugar industry. It is an indictment on the National Party and the Government that the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Turner, also has no knowledge of the industry. I was enlightened to hear that he is visiting the north this week, because it will be the first time he has been in the sugar producing areas of the super wet belt. I hope the State Government sends up a photograph of him before he goes there, otherwise nobody will recognise him. An essential complement to these industry plans is the rural adjustment scheme. The new financing arrangements currently being worked out with the States will ensure that the scheme is able to respond quickly and effectively to any sudden change in circumstances either within a particular industry or across the sector as a whole as a result of market downturn or drought. In speaking specifically of the sugar industry, I point out that, unfortunately , Queensland has a government which seems to come to the Federal Government only when it requires a financial handout. It was the State Government of Queensland which was the mastermind in the expansion of the sugar industry, to the detriment of the industry. It was in the 1960s that the Federal Treasurer phoned Mr Nicklin, the then Premier, warning him of the expansion in the sugar industry . That expansion, brought about as a result of the Gibbs committee of inquiry in 1963, was exceeded by the then State Government-as I have said, to the detriment of the industry. When Mr Nicklin was asked to restrict the expansion, he told the Federal Treasurer that the State Government would go it alone and that it wanted no interference from the Federal Administration of the day. Since 1890, nearly 100 years ago, there have been only two Federal governments which have afforded financial assistance to the sugar industry. I am proud to say that one of those two governments is the Hawke Labor Government, which last year gave it $11m. Mr Humphreys —What about the Fraser Government? Mr GAYLER —The Fraser Government gave nothing, and intended to give nothing. As a matter of fact, just before the last election in March 1983, Mr Nixon indicated that there would be no Federal financial support for the sugar industry. That Government was prepared to allow cane to be grown on the Ord. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), who represents a cane growing area, said that it was intended to grow sugar on the Ord. Once more there was to be expansion of production when there was no market to meet it. However, that is typical of the type of pig-headedness and expansion that one has come to expect from a National Party administration. In conclusion, may I say that the present Federal Minister for Primary Industry has brought some confidence back into the rural sector. I believe that the appropriation in this year's Budget will only substantiate the confidence that has already been instilled. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(12.43) —In addressing the Committee in this Estimates debate on the Department of Primary Industry, I wish to point out that the Department is unique. It is a unique portfolio and, within it, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) faces a wide range of issues and a disparity of solutions. Because the vast majority of Opposition members come from rural backgrounds and know what it is to live in rural electorates, we freely acknowledge that it is not easy for either the Department or the Minister to meet the demands of all primary producers. I wish for a moment in this debate to ask the Committee to consider an attitude to primary industry which we have not heard so far in this debate. As politicians and public servants we face the rather extraordinary situation that we have our salaries, our lifestyle and our facilities provided entirely from government appropriation. Out of the government appropriation, we, the politicians and the public servants in this place, take all we have and, through taxation, we hand back a portion to the Government to be redistributed. But the farmers we represent in this place are not in that situation. The farmers are the generators of the wealth in this community. We make demands and claims on the farmers in the form of various sorts of taxation and excise. In this Estimates debate we say to the farmers: 'This is the portion of the claim we have made from you that we will hand back to you'. The farmers in our community and to a lesser degree the small businessmen and the self-employed are not dependent on the public purse. In departmental terms this debate is unique in that there are contributors to this discussion who represent the farmers-honourable members on both sides of the chamber-and who are in the unique position of being prepared to say to the Government that, if these are the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry and if this is the way the Government is to apportion money to primary industry, we would be prepared to accept less. Nobody else has proposed that- certainly no other department. Some farmers are saying to the Government that they would be prepared to have a smaller allocation for the Department of Primary Industry if they could be sure that that reduction would result in a lowering of the present deficit and a lowering of the enormous overseas borrowings of Australia. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) was prepared earlier in the debate to wax eloquent about macro-economic policies. Such policies are causing much concern to farmers and to the Department. Let me quote from a statement made by Mr McLachlan, the President of the National Farmers Federation, who said of the Budget: The unacceptably high Budget deficit of $6.7 billion reflects a big Government philosophy with a real increase in expenditure of 6.1 per cent-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 101A, I shall report progress. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr GROOM —My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in that capacity and as Minister representing the Attorney-General. It relates to his responsibility in this place for laws relating to marriage, the family, abortion and censorship. Did the Deputy Prime Minister recently say 'The Labor Government is largely influenced by the intelligentsia, secular humanists they call them', and that 'Catholics and most other church people got out of the Labor Party years ago when they didn't like the ideas coming forward'? Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House what influence these secular humanists had on recent government decisions relating to pornography, abortion and overseas travelling allowances for the de facto partners of parliamentarians? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman knows that I am a Catholic and that the comments I made were to the Catholic Leader. I stand by those comments, but I respect the comments of other people. The influence of what I call the secular humanists is no greater in my Party than it is in the honourable member's. Mr BRUMBY —I address my question to the Prime Minister. It relates to taxation. I ask: How rapidly have total taxation revenues grown under the Labor Government in comparison with the years of Liberal-National Party rule? What have been the main causes of the increase in taxation revenues under our Government as opposed to the previous Liberal-National Party Government? Mr HAWKE —I am very much indebted to the honourable member for Bendigo for that penetrating question. A number of totally misleading and absolutely untruthful claims have been made on this matter since the Budget was brought down. It is about time this was cleared up, and I will now proceed to do so. I want to make it clear that for all the posturing that comes from the other side on this issue , the record and the facts show that the Opposition, when it was in government, was the big taxing government of this country. Let me go to the facts of this matter so that we can demolish this canard once and for all. The latest Budget Papers show that total tax collections rose under the previous Government by 142 per cent from $16.8 billion. Honourable members interjecting-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The level of conversation is too high. Mr HAWKE —Honourable members opposite do not want to hear it. Mr Speaker, I can assure you that they and the people of Australia are going to hear it incessantly. The latest Budget Papers show that total tax collections under the previous Government rose by 142 per cent from $16.8 billion in 1975-76 to $40.8 billion in 1982-83. In average per annum terms that is about 13.5 per cent per annum. Under the Labor Government total tax collections are expected to rise by 29 per cent from $40.8 billion in 1982-83 to $52.5 billion in 1984-85. That is also a per annum increase of about the same amount, 13.5 per cent. So it was a 13.5 per cent increase. Mr Carlton —In real terms? Mr HAWKE —I will give the honourable member real terms in a minute. He will wish he had never raised his head. The honourable member and, indeed, all honourable members who are interested-that certainly includes this side of the House-will appreciate that the average rate of increase in total tax receipts under the two governments has been about the same, about 13.5 per cent. It is very important that people understand that the causes have been entirely different. Under the Liberal-National Party Government inflation was very much higher and, of course, there were higher taxes and new taxes. Those were the reasons for the increased tax take under the previous Government. Under this Government economic growth has been the major contributor to the increase in tax revenue, because that growth and its effects on employment and income are making a much larger contribution to revenue. That is the overall picture. The reasons for the growth under the previous Government were inflation, new taxes and higher taxes, whereas under this Government the reason has been economic growth. The point becomes even more dramatically clear when we look at changes in the total tax paid by wage earners. I say to the honourable member and to the House generally that after deducting all refunds-- Mr Howard —And if you shoot a few taxpayers you will get a different result. Mr HAWKE —We can see how worried honourable members opposite are. Well they might be. Mr Griffiths —Will the Leader of the Opposition cease interjecting? Mr Young —Which one? Mr HAWKE —If we look at the front page of today's Canberra Times we are not quite sure who it will be, are we? I suppose there is some hope in that at least it will not be the honourable member for O'Connor. After deducting all refunds, total pay as you earn tax rose under the previous Government by 168 per cent. Honourable members should remember that there was a 168 per cent increase in PAYE tax under the previous Government. That was in a situation in which wage earners' incomes rose by how much? The figure was 121 per cent. Obviously, the overwhelming contributor to that growth under the previous Government was inflation. There was the big take in respect of PAYE tax. That is what happened under the previous Government. What is expected to happen in the two years of this Government is that PAYE tax will rise by 19 per cent with the huge contribution in that period being made by the very rapid growth in employment. There is the difference between the two periods. I conclude by reminding the House-- Mr Donald Cameron —Hurrah! Mr HAWKE —It is the conclusion of my answer here but it will not be a conclusion as far as the people of Australia are concerned. They will be hearing this incessantly. I remind the House of what the Leader of the Opposition had to say in his Budget reply. He said: We-- That is, honourable members opposite, and this is entirely hypothetical because they will not get the chance- will . . . be getting the tax man off people's backs. When we go to this early election we will offer Australians a clear choice on taxation policy. The facts are there. The former Government was an infinitely greater tax slugging government in its seven years than this Government has been. The simple fact is that, after the Fraser-Howard years, no one will believe that this second eleven will ever be able to reform. Their promises will not be believed. The tax fiddles that they pulled in 1977 when they gave the tax cuts and in a matter of months took them back will be remembered, as will be the fact that they were the biggest tax slugging government in this country's history. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer to his announcement of new penalties for tax evasion. In completing his extensive review, did he examine the possibility of amending the law to ensure that registrations of uncomplicated private sales of securities between related shareholders, such as a family company to a member of that family, take place promptly to prevent tax avoidance through the backdating of such transactions? If not, why not? Mr KEATING —I would need to peruse again the elements of the review which the Government undertook, which was most extensive. I might add, as I indicated yesterday, that this has been the first major review of tax penalties by any government since before the last war. Whilst it may have been that the former Treasurer gave some notice of a review of tax penalties towards the end of his term, in fact that never happened. I remind the House that he was Treasurer for five years and that his Government was in office for seven years. Some of the penalties, such as those for the most simple offences of, say, not completing a tax form or for filling it out untruthfully, with penalties of from $4 to $200, are entirely out of context with monetary values these days. Therefore, the increases are appropriate and long overdue. There are very wide-ranging consequences of these penalties to the basic fabric of the taxation system. Whilst we have seen a flurry of activity on the part of the former Government to deal with paper schemes long after they got out of control, and the tax debate in the last few years has focused on that particular element, the fact is that the nuts and bolts of the tax system work upon decent resources for the Taxation Office, an efficient Taxation Office and a range of penalties which affect all taxpayers and influence them in terms of the completion and filing of tax returns. It is to that issue, as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, that the Government has attended. We want to make the tax system more resilient to the problems that the tax administration has faced. I remind the House that we have added 700 staff at the Taxation Office-there has been an increase of 392 in the compliance area-as compared with the decline in staff that occurred in that office in 1978 and 1981. The former Government actually reduced the staff of the Taxation Office. It is no wonder we had problems. As I said at the beginning, in terms of the specifics of the question which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition put and in terms of the length of that review which took place some time ago, I cannot recall precisely what our response to that area was, but I shall refresh my memory and advise him accordingly. Mr SIMMONS —Has the attention of the Minister for Science and Technology been drawn to media reports about the work of a Monash University team led by Professor Anthony Linnane, in which he claims a breakthrough in genetic engineering in the production of interferon? In particular, is it a fact that, as Press reports state, he has been waiting for two years for a decision on further funding from the Federal Department of Science and Technology? Mr BARRY JONES —Professor Linnane's project falls in that no-man's-land between the National Health and Medical Research Council, where health problems such as cancer treatment are researched, the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board, where products which can be manufactured are encouraged, and the National Biotechnology Program, which attempts to fill the gap between research and development. Professor Linnane first approached my Department in April 1983-17 months ago; much less than the two years for which he claims that he has had no response. Since then I have followed the Monash project carefully. Indeed, I launched Professor Linnane's Centre for Molecular Biology and Medicine at a dinner in Melbourne on 30 March this year, an event which may have slipped his mind. Professor Linnane is seeking $1.5m for each of three years. The first year's sum alone would have been exactly twice the amount that we were able to spend in the first year of the national biotechnology program. In addition, in February 1984 the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Advisory Council recommended that the project did not fall within the guidelines under the appropriate Act and suggested that the matter be referred to the Minister for Health and, through him, to the NHMRC. Professor Linnane was then advised of this and he asked for a reconsideration. I proposed that independent referees be selected from Australia and overseas to prepare a report on technical commercial prospects for interferon production. After some difficulty, it was possible to secure an overseas referee, Professor Giorgio Bernardi, from the Jacques Monod Institute in Paris, who was Professor Linnane's own nominee. It is understood that the earliest possible date for Professor Bernardi to visit Australia is in early October. We hope that the reconsideration thing can be processed expeditiously. Professor Linnane also complains that he has not been able to see me. In fact, I am seeing him tomorrow night, an appointment which was arranged some weeks ago. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the honourable gentleman to the decision of the Commissioner of Taxation that, in applying the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Act, the liability of vendor shareholders in transactions involving public companies is relieved where no actual benefit is received. Was the Commissioner's discretion applied to relieve the Minister for Finance from liability under that Act arising out of a sale of shares by Coomel Pty Ltd in Metro Industries because he, the Commissioner, believed on the facts provided to him that the Minister derived no benefit from this bottom of the harbour transaction? Is the Treasurer aware that the registration of the transfer of these shares took place in April 1977, a month during which their lowest price was $1.33? Is the Treasurer further aware that the sale was claimed to have taken place almost four months earlier, on 1 January 1977, New Year's Day, which, incidentally, was a public holiday on which the stock exchanges were all closed? Was the alleged price of $1.12, that is, 21c lower than the lowest price during the month the shares were registered, lower than any price recorded during the whole of 1977? In the light of these facts, will the Treasurer ask the Commissioner of Taxation to re-examine his previous decision to excuse the Minister for Finance from his liability under the Fraser Government legislation which fully recoups tax illegally evaded in bottom of the harbour tax transactions? Mr KEATING —It is very hard for me to recall the details of this particular case, which was some months ago. At the time there was a vicious and unwarranted attack upon my colleague in the Parliament. My recollection is that I referred the matter to the Commissioner of Taxation and the Commissioner communicated to me that there was no liability which might reasonably have been incurred by the shareholders of that particular company, including my colleague, and he gave me correspondence to that effect. I do not see any point in opening up the matter. As I recall it, the Commissioner of Taxation was aware-- Mr Peacock —It is new information. Mr KEATING —How does the honourable gentleman know it is new information? It might be new information to the honourable member, but a lot of things are new information to him. The fact is that the Commissioner, at the time, as I recall, was across all of the issues, and the dates of transactions were known to him. The fact is that anything that is put on the public record in this Parliament-- Mr Howard —What about 'my little mate'? Mr Sinclair —Yes, what about your little mate? Mr KEATING —In terms of propriety, George, you should be the last person to make any mention of anything. Mr Sinclair —You wait for it, little fellow. How are your antiques? Mr KEATING —At least I pay for them with my own money, which is more than I can say for anything that the Leader of the National Party owns. Anything that is said here and put on the public record is a matter which the Commissioner of Taxation can examine in his own right. I remind the House of a point which the former Treasurer reminded the House of on many occasions; that is, that the administration of the tax system is the statute responsibility of the Commissioner of Taxation, not of me. Mr CROSS —Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the Government will continue to assist Mr Commissioner Costigan in every way to ensure satisfactory completion of his final report? Mr HAWKE —I can indeed provide that assurance to all honourable members. Today I have received a letter from Mr Costigan requesting an extension of his letters patent until 31 October 1984. I will take the appropriate steps to secure accession to that request made to me by Mr Commissioner Costigan. Mr Costigan in his letter notes that the extension will not affect the establishment of the National Crime Authority. He also states: I know that you and your government are anxious that I should deliver my report as soon as possible. I share that desire. I have already indicated to the House that the Government is committed to the earliest possible release of the report. That is a matter on which I will have further discussions with Mr Costigan and my ministerial colleagues. I make the point that should the Parliament not be sitting then the Government will seek to take such steps as will permit the appropriate public release of the report of Commissioner Costigan. As I have said consistently in relation to all his previous reports, we are looking forward eagerly to the publication of his final report. Finally, Mr Speaker, I table the letter I have received today from Mr Commissioner Costigan. Mr PEACOCK —In view of the answer the Prime Minister has just given, I ask a question of the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer the Minister to the tabled correspondence between the Government, Commissioner Costigan and Mr Justice Stewart in which Commissioner Costigan clearly expresses the view that the transition to the National Crime Authority is a failure. Is the Minister aware that the investigations of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union effectively were terminated on 30 June when Mr Costigan had to devote all his resources to writing his final report? Commissioner Costigan himself has been unable to carry out those investigations. Is the Minister also aware that the present transition arrangements effectively mean that it is unlikely that the National Crime Authority will be pursuing investigations until later this year? How can the Government justify a handover schedule under which investigation virtually ceases for six months, giving criminals a long reprieve, in circumstances in which the National Crime Authority refuses briefings from Mr Costigan? Will the Minister ensure that the intergovernmental committee reviews the transition dispute with a view to making it effective and to ensure that the National Crime Authority does receive briefings from Mr Costigan, and does not resolutely refuse to receive them? Mr YOUNG —I make it clear to the Leader of the Opposition that the material that was gathered by Commissioner Costigan was handed over to the National Crime Authority via the Attorney-General, as I have already informed the House, on or about 14 July. Mr Sinclair —Nothing has happened since then. Mr YOUNG —I ask the right honourable member to let me finish. That included all the material of the major investigation and evidence gathering undertaken by the Costigan Commission. Nothing that was given to this Government has been withheld from the National Crime Authority. In addition to the material that was handed over on 14 July-it may have been 15 or 16 July, I will check the dates; it was about that time-material on two additional matters has now been forwarded by Commissioner Costigan to the Attorney-General under the Royal Commissions Act and this also has now been forwarded to the National Crime Authority. I have been anxious, as I have informed the House, that the intergovernmental committee should meet as soon as possible. That will depend upon the National Crime Authority reaching conclusions on what references it requires from the matters handed over by Commissioner Costigan. That is very much the decision of the three people who have been put in charge. This involves not only the three people who make up the National Crime Authority; all the senior people who have worked with Commissioner Costigan, all the information that is available to Commissioner Costigan and all the computer programming carried out by Commissioner Costigan are to be transferred to the National Crime Authority. Nothing is missing. There is no missing link in the transition from Commissioner Costigan to the National Crime Authority. In the discussions I held with the National Crime Authority last week it was my suggestion that perhaps we should have a meeting of the intergovernmental committee for the purposes of meeting those people now appointed to the National Crime Authority if it was felt by the National Crime Authority that it needed more time before it could ask for references. I understand that the National Crime Authority now believes that it would require the final report of Commissioner Costigan on top of the material already handed over to it. I also outline to the Opposition, in case honourable members do not understand the operations of the National Crime Authority, that it is not just a matter of the Authority following the one avenue of asking for a reference from the intergovernmental committee; the Authority may set up task forces to carry out further investigations, it may receive references from State representatives who make up the intergovernmental committee or, indeed, the Australian Federal Police, through the Australian Government, may ask for references to carry out evidence gathering and prosecutions that can be brought to bear. Lots of things are being undertaken at the moment. Nothing that has been available to Commissioner Costigan, none of the materials that have been gathered-- Mr Peacock —Why didn't briefings occur? Mr YOUNG —I ask the honourable member to let me finish. As I said, all the senior staff who worked with Commissioner Costigan will be working for the National Crime Authority. All of those people who have been used by Commissioner Costigan will be transferred. It is not a one-man band, as Commissioner Costigan is the first to point out. He has a staff of 120 people. Mr Peacock —Why didn't you even suggest that they have briefings? Mr YOUNG —Much of that staff was given to Commissioner Costigan by this Government. We doubled the resources of Commissioner Costigan in our first year of government. All of those senior people will be handed over. All of those people are able to brief the National Crime Authority on all the operations of the Costigan Commission. It may be that it has taken a little longer than we would have anticipated or hoped for the National Crime Authority to be able to seek references from the intergovernmental committee. They are not the only ones who have had this view. When I had my discussions with Commissioner Costigan and counsel assisting, Mr Meagher, they said that the National Crime Authority will have to be particularly careful in matters that it seeks reference on. They said it is not a matter which they can rush into. On these questions the National Crime Authority has in fact acted in the way in which Commissioner Costigan described to me it would have to act. There has been no hold-up in terms of the material that Commissioner Costigan wanted to go to the National Crime Authority . I believe that material went to the National Crime Authority on exactly the same day as it came to this Government. All the material that is available to Commissioner Costigan will be the property of the National Crime Authority. Mr HOLLIS —Has the Minister for Transport investigated the viability of the proposed high speed railway between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne? If so, is he able to say whether it has any merit and whether the Government is prepared to fund the project? Mr PETER MORRIS —I have received a proposal from a Dr Paul Wild-- Mr Lloyd —We read about it last week. Mr PETER MORRIS —It is a proposal that is being supported by the Opposition. I thought honourable members opposite might like to hear about it because the Opposition is saying that this is a highly innovative proposal and it could provide a real alternative for the economic movement of people and freight between Sydney and Melbourne. If the Liberal Party of Australia does not agree with the National Party of Australia that is its problem. Let me get on with the answer. Mr Lloyd —You don't want to cut government spending. Mr PETER MORRIS —This proposal would add only $4 billion to the Opposition's deficit which would take it from $15 billion to $19 billion. I received a proposal from a Dr Paul Wild for the construction of a high speed railway between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne. I had that proposal subjected to initial assessment by the Bureau of Transport Economics. That initial assessment shows that the proposal is more likely to cost $4,000m than $2,500m. It shows that, if one were to take the capital cost as suggested by the proponents-the $2,500m-it would require a fare of some $275. That fare would be twice the existing economy air fare between Sydney and Melbourne. Under the terms of the proposal it would take twice as long to travel by this supertrain between Sydney and Melbourne as it does currently by air. I point out that the proposal is in respect of the transport corridor that is best serviced already in this country. The total passenger load suggested for the proposal could be carried by two Boeing 767s. I am concerned that the Opposition sees this as a proposal that ought to be supported. I do not believe and I will not so recommend to the Government that resources should be allocated to even do a study on it. Most importantly, since it is to be a new connection between Sydney and Melbourne it ought first to be discussed with the New South Wales Government and the Victorian Government and their approval obtained for that proposal. I do not believe that approval will be forthcoming. If there is a pressing need in this country for improvement in transport infrastructure it is in respect of the national main line rail network. That is the system that needs improving. For a fraction of the cost suggested in respect of this proposal we could halve the journey time between Sydney and Melbourne and double the freight capacity between Sydney and Melbourne, using the existing fleet of locomotives. That is the kind of proposal I would much rather see. If, as has been suggested by its proponents, it is a goer and if, as has been suggested by them, the private sector is interested in it, I would say to Dr Wild that he should take the proposal back to the private sector and back to the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd that he has quoted as supporting it and let them put it forward and fund it. I mention in conclusion that a similar grandiose proposal has been put to me more recently which I know the National Party would support. The proposal is to build a canal from the Arafura Sea down to Spencer Gulf. It was said to me that if we did that the water would flow from that area to the other. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister seems to be getting a long way away from rail transport. Mr PETER MORRIS —Mr Speaker, this is the same classification as the proposal of the National Party. It is a National Party proposal. The proposal states that if we built the canal from the Arafura Sea down to Spencer Gulf we could have energy free transport by sail all the way, which would significantly enhance the environment, do wonders for tourism in the Centre and, most of all, create thousands upon thousands of jobs. In a predictable and unimaginative way I have similarly rejected that proposal. Mr STEELE HALL —I draw the attention of the Treasurer to a document purporting to be a copy of the text of a telex message in the possession of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. It reads: The following is the text of a telex sent by F J Nugan to Les Collings on 250878:For Les CollingsRe your telex 235 Advise following Federal Labor politician would accept offer the Hon. Paul J. Keating, MHR. The telex then goes on to give brief details of the Minister's career and it is signed FJN. Mr Speaker, with the permission of the House I would like to table directly the text referring to the telex. I ask the Treasurer: Is he the person referred to in the telex? Can he advise the House whether it is a correct reference to his activities? I seek leave to table a copy of the text of the telex. Mr SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr KEATING —Mr Speaker, I have never heard of such a matter, to be honest. I will have a look at the telex. It does not seem to make much sense. Mr Young —Read it out. Mr KEATING —I will read it out. Apart from all the telex gobbledegook, when we get down to the issue we see that it states: Keating is shadow Minister for Minerals and Energy. In Whitlam Government was Minister for the 'Northern Australia' which at that time was not a State. Was also youngest Minister in Whitlam Government. This is probably a reasonable description of me, but I-- Mr Tuckey —Did you accept the offer? Mr KEATING —I do not know what offer the honourable gentleman is referring to. The telex states: Advise following federal Labor politician would accept offer. I know nothing about this, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Is leave granted for the document to be tabled? Mr KEATING —I am quite happy for the document to be tabled. Leave granted. Mr KEATING —Mr Speaker, I might add, for what it is worth, that I have never ever met any member of the Nugan Hand Bank. Mr WELLS —Can the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment inform the House of the package of proposals he has offered to the Queensland Government to help preserve the north-east Queensland wet tropics region including the greater Daintree region? Could he also table the report prepared by the Rainforest Conservation Society of Queensland and subsequent legal advice from the Attorney -General? Mr COHEN —I would be very happy to summarise very briefly the package of proposals that the Prime Minister today telexed to the Premier of Queensland which we hope will achieve that objective. Mr Connolly —You borrowed it from the Opposition. It is good to see you accept our policy. Mr COHEN —I would not borrow anything from the Opposition because I would be frightened of what I might catch. The proposals are: Commonwealth assistance for a land resources survey of the wet tropic forest regions of north-east Queensland with initial emphasis on the greater Daintree area to assist Queensland with future land use planning; immediate assistance to develop a plan of management for the greater Daintree area, and immediate assistance to provide tourist facilities, interpretive centres and other relevant facilities in the region. I would like also to table the study of the conservation significance of the wet tropics of north-east Queensland, a report to the Australian Heritage Commission, the referee's report and the advice from the Attorney-General. For those critics who have tried to have a field day on this issue I would like to quote from a transcript of a broadcast from the program The World Today in which Dr Aila Keto, one of those people who prepared this report, was asked: . . . it must be a . . . disappointment to you and other conservationists that the government has not given any commitment to stopping the road in the Daintree , nor including the Daintree area on the World Heritage list. Dr Keto, who is certainly the senior adviser on this question, had this to say: . . . I think you're quite wrong. I feel very heartened by their response. I think quite properly they couldn't unilaterally indicate that they would go ahead with World Heritage listing. They have received a report which provides the scientific basis for establishing the value of the area very carefully, using the criteria of Article 2 of the UNESCO Convention-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Standing order 144 relating to questions refers to the announcement of government policy. This statement has all the earmarks of an announcement of policy. As such, I stand on that point and suggest that the Minister make a statement on it in the proper way. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr COHEN —The transcript continues: . . . using the criteria of Article 2 of the UNESCO Convention for the protection of world cultural and natural heritages. And having done that, then it becomes a matter of consultation and hopefully co-operation with the Queensland Government. Mr Austin then asked: But doesn't the Government's decision this morning basically amount to a rejection of your report and your recommendation that it should be included on the World Heritage list, and that's all there was to it . . . Dr Keto replied: No. What the Commonwealth Government is saying is that it wishes to collaborate with the Queensland Government now in looking towards a proper management of the area for its protection. I think it would be quite inappropriate for the Commonwealth Government to ride rough-shod over the Queensland Government prior to any consultation. Mr Austin then asked: Well Dr Keto it does sound as though you're basically giving up on having this road stopped. Dr Keto's reply was: No-- Mr Connolly —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is quite inappropriate for the Minister to be tabling a document during Question Time when he quite clearly knows that there is provision in the Standing Orders for him to do so at some other time. Why does the Minister not make it his swan song-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I ask the Minister to precis the statement rather than to quote from it. Mr COHEN —Dr Keto's reply was: No, the point is that once the significance of the area is recognised and the processes for nominating the area as a world heritage area are established, then there can be the procedures for rehabilitating the area, such that the extraordinary value, the area can be restored. . . . . The facts are now that the road is essentially through so I think that the proper procedure now is to ensure that there is a co-operative and consultative process established between the Commonwealth and state governments to ensure that we ultimately do achieve World Heritage listing. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Is the Minister for Science and Technology aware that there was a meeting this morning at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Plant Industry-the largest in the CSIRO-of all the staff to canvass the possibility of all members, from the Chief of the Division down, taking up to five days voluntary leave without pay as a contribution to meeting the shortfall in the Division's budget? If this can be worked in so as not to seriously disrupt scientific experiments, the work of the Division can survive. This has been forced by the disastrous cut in science and technology expenditure in this otherwise big spending Budget. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is going beyond a question. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Is the Minister, after all his criticism of the coalition Government and his fulsome advocacy over the past 18 months-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will get to the question. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Is the Minister not ashamed of this disruption to important ongoing basic research-and the Prime Minister, too, who I am told has refused to meet the CSIRO division chiefs? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will either complete his question or resume his seat. Mr BARRY JONES —I congratulate the honourable member for Berowra on being able to persuade his colleagues to give him an opportunity to ask what is now his second question this year. Yes, I was aware of the proceedings at the Division of Plant Industry. I spoke to Dr Wild on the telephone this morning from Melbourne. He advised me of what was happening. I recognise the fact that there is a strong sense of urgency within the CSIRO generally. There is a widespread disappointment within the CSIRO about the Budget allocation, but I take the view that it sees the survival and the strengthening of the organisation as absolutely essential and it will be doing what it should have been doing a long time ago; that is, moving out into the community generally to draw attention to the problems of the Organisation and getting a stronger degree of community support. Part of the problem, as I have said over and over again, is that in this country we have an extraordinary imbalance between the amount of funding for research and development that comes from the government sector and the proportion that comes from the private sector. In Australia 80 per cent of all funding for research and development comes from the government sector. In Switzerland the figures are 20 per cent from the government sector and 80 per cent from the private sector. I put it to honourable members that the Swiss situation is fundamentally healthier than ours. Industry has yet to learn the lesson that its survival does not depend on government handouts but involves getting into research and development directly. It is absolutely correct that the CSIRO should do this. I hope for better things in future Budgets. I recognise that the situation in the CSIRO is serious. Mr Peacock —Higher taxes? Mr BARRY JONES —One way it will not be handled is by higher taxes. I make that absolutely clear. As I pointed out yesterday, when I spoke about my remarks on the World Today program, I was talking about a general situation with governments and I used the phrase, which the Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy have persistently refused to mention, 'This has always been the case in the past'. Those words are absolutely critical and central to what I was saying. Mr REEVES —Is the Minister for Defence aware of claims in the Northern Territory by Mr Everingham that only $3m is to be spent in this financial year on the Tindal Royal Australian Air Force base and that most of this money is to be spent outside the Northern Territory? Are these claims remotely accurate? If not , what is the correct position? Mr SCHOLES —I have been informed of the allegations made by the Chief Minister on talk back radio in the Northern Territory recently. As the honourable member for the Northern Territory is aware, I recently visited the Northern Territory-my visit included an inspection of Tindal and Katherine-where I announced that the Federal Government had given the go-ahead for the development of the Royal Australian Air Force Base at Tindal. The Tindal base will become the permanent home for 75 Squadron following its re-equipment with FA18 aircraft in 1988. This is another display of the Government's commitment to the defence of northern Australia. During my visit to the Northern Territory I met briefly with the Chief Minister and outlined the extent of the Government's commitment to Tindal. As Chief Minister, he welcomed the Federal Government's commitment. It may be that his change of attitude is due to the fact that on talk back radio he was unsure which of his two hats he was wearing. As Chief Minister of the Northern Territory he would welcome the development, but as an Opposition candidate for the Northern Territory seat he is obviously adopting the negative role that is a feature of Liberal-National Party leadership to which he is a pretender. Mr Bilney —Liberal Party what? Mr SCHOLES —Leadership, although I understand that he says that he wants to be leader but not a leader of those two parties. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Minister to ignore his colleagues' interjections . Mr SCHOLES —For the benefit of the Chief Minister and honourable members, I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight. The total cost of the Tindal project is approximately $176m, of which $169m will be for works and $7m for land acquisition. In 1984-85, $4.6m will be spent, of which $3m will be on works and $1.6m on land acquisition. Of this $1.6m, up to $1.5m will be spent buying 60 blocks of land in the Katherine East subdivision from the Northern Territory Government. I assume that the Chief Minister knows about that . In addition, another $1.5m has been allocated to the Department of Housing and Construction for consultants' fees and design costs associated with Tindal. I have been assured that the majority of this work, despite the statements of the Chief Minister, will be undertaken by Northern Territory consultancy firms. It is always unfortunate that members of the Opposition take so much time to understand a simple statement. If they were people of higher intelligence and with more commitment to Australia, this necessity would be obviated. Expenditure on the Tindal base will rise to approximately $25m in 1985-86 and to more than $1m a week in the following two financial years. That will result in major benefits to both Katherine and the Northern Territory. I think that the Chief Minister could do better for the Northern Territory if he stuck to the facts, emulated the present and continuing honourable member for the Northern Territory and sought to act for the benefit of the Northern Territory rather than indulging in cheap politics of a rather low standard. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order in relation to the Minister's answer to the last question. Will the Minister table the public document that he just used and that he made public by reading? Mr SPEAKER —Order! Was the Minister quoting from a document on public affairs? Mr Scholes —Mr Speaker, I table the document. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister has tabled the document. Mr SPEAKER —The Special Minister of State has sought indulgence to add to an answer he gave to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —The initial list of material was handed over to the Government by Commissioner Costigan on 16 July. The material from the Attorney-General was handed over to the National Crime Authority on 17 July. Mr SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of the Parliamentary Library for 1983-84. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 18 of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act 1966 I present the National Debt Commission annual report for the year ended 30 June 1984. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members I present the Government's new water policy, guidelines for the new Federal water resources assistance program and the response to the recommendations of the 'Water 2000' report, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Resources and Energy relating to the papers. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LINDSAY —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr LINDSAY —In a report headed 'Katter Blames Canberra', on page 7 of the Townsville Bulletin dated 10 September 1984, the Queensland Government's National Party Minister for Northern Development and Maritime Services, Mr Bob Katter Jr, claimed that the intensive cane farming areas of Giru in north Queensland fell within my electorate of Herbert. He alleged subsequently that it was a political wasteland, that nothing was being done for these Giru farmers and that the member for the area-naming me-had deserted them in Canberra. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should come to the misrepresentation. Mr LINDSAY —In regard to these neglected Giru sugar growers, for once I agree almost entirely with the Queensland Government's National Party Minister for Northern Development. The Queensland Minister's only error is that these abandoned, forgotten Giru cane farmers- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable should come to the point of the misrepresentation. Mr LINDSAY —They live, not in my electorate of Herbert, as he complains, but in the neighbouring seat of Kennedy represented here by his own father, the National Party's Bob Katter Snr. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has corrected the misrepresentation. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's handling of the tax avoidance issue. 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 HOWARD(Bennelong)(2.54) —If ever this Parliament and the Australian public wanted an example of the hypocrisy and the double standards of the Hawke Labor Government on the question of tax avoidance, it was provided during Question Time today because, instead of having the proper instinctive candour that any Minister responsible for the Australian Taxation Office ought to have and referring to the Commissioner of Taxation the new information that I raised in my question about the activities of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) ran for cover. The Opposition will not allow the Treasurer to run for cover. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has nominated tax avoidance as an issue in the forthcoming election campaign. As far as the Opposition is concerned, we will warmly welcome tax avoidance being a major issue in the election campaign. The Australian Labor Party comes into this Parliament with very dirty hands on the subject of tax avoidance. Nobody is revealed as having greater feet of clay on the subject of tax avoidance than a senior member of the Government and one of the architects of the last Budget, namely, the Minister for Finance, that bottom of the harbour socialist from Fremantle. He has been revealed as having the most monumental double standards that any member of this Parliament has been revealed as having over the last couple of years. After all, he was the person who, in opposition, led the character assassination of decent Australian after decent Australian. Guilt by association was the name of the game when we were in government. All one had to do was to establish the most formal and nominal connection between somebody in the community and some kind of tax avoidance arrangement and that was good enough for the Minister for Finance. It was good enough to say that, if one had any kind of connection with a tax avoidance arrangement, one was dead as far as public office was concerned. That was the standard established by the Minister for Finance. Most importantly, that standard was embraced by the Prime Minister. Ultimately, in any government, it all gets back to the Prime Minister. It was the Prime Minister who embraced the Minister for Finance and said that his hypocritical double standards were okay. It was the Prime Minister who embraced the Minister for Finance and was quite happy to have him in his Cabinet. When this matter was raised initially a few months ago by my colleague from Western Australia, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), of course, we all remember the scornful response of the bottom of the harbour socialist from Fremantle. He said : 'Don't take any notice of the honourable member for O'Connor. He doesn't know anything about it. He knows absolutely nothing'. But within a couple of hours the credit and the reputation of the Minister for Finance had been laid to ruins by the efforts of the honourable member for O'Connor. So much for the scornful approach of the Minister for Finance. Everybody, and undoubtedly most of all the honourable member for Fremantle, the Minister for Finance, would have thought that the end of the matter had been reached when he received a clearance from the Taxation Commissioner which said that because he did not obtain a benefit there was absolutely no liability under the Fraser Government legislation which, incidentally, recoups all of the illegally evaded tax under bottom of the harbour arrangements. What I put to the Treasurer today and what I put to the House is that, according to the information I have received, there was a lapse of four months between the date claimed for the transfer of the shares in question in Metro Industries Ltd and the date of the registration of that transfer. Mr Rocher —Very convenient. Mr HOWARD —How convenient indeed, says the honourable member for Curtin. Because of that gap there was, of course, a differential in the share price. If, in fact , the rate ruling in April were taken to be the relevant rate, there may well have been a benefit received by Coomel Pty Ltd, the family company of the Minister for Finance and there may well have been a liability under the Act. That is what I put to the Treasurer today. That is what he ought to put to the Commissioner of Taxation because that was the standard demanded of us by the honourable member for Fremantle. That was the standard demanded of us when we were in government by the Prime Minister when he sat in opposition. So he must live, as the Prime Minister said in relation to another of his colleagues, by certain standards. He said: 'I think Mr Young ought to live by the standards he established during a debate when he was in opposition in 1982'. I say to the Minister for Finance that he ought to live by the standards he established when he was in opposition in 1982 on the tax avoidance issue. If he lived by those standards he would have been out of the Ministry six or seven months ago. If the Prime Minister lived by those standards he would have kicked the Minister for Finance out of his Government. But of course the Prime Minister , as he demonstrated in regard to the Young affair and as he has demonstrated time and time again, when it comes to a choice between duty and mateship, always forsakes duty and prefers mateship. When it comes to a choice between duty and popularity he will always choose popularity and forsake duty. The Fraser Government did more to kill the tax avoidance industry in Australia than any other government that this country has seen. I, as Treasurer, did more in the last Government to destroy the tax avoidance industry. Mr Dawkins —You keep saying it. Mr HOWARD —Well may the Minister for Finance interject on this subject. We all remember that celebrated speech by the Minister for Finance to a gathering of Sydney chartered accountants. There are two speeches made by Ministers in this Government that will long live in the memory of this Parliament. They were both made this year. The first must be, of course, the immortal comment of the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) on the World Today program three days after the Budget when he said: 'We were not game enough to put tax up three months before an election but if you re-elect us I promise you we will put it up and therefore we will be able to spend a lot more'. We all remember those words. I can promise the Minister for Science and Technology that all members of the Opposition will be reminding him of those words time and again through the countdown to the next election. The other immortal statement-one that I will be very happy to throw back in the teeth of not only the Minister for Finance but also the Treasurer and the Prime Minister-was made in a moment of unaccustomed candour by the Minister for Finance to a gathering of Sydney chartered accountants. When he was talking about tax avoidance-the subject on which he is such an expert from both a practical point of view and a theoretical point of view-he said that the tax avoidance issue in Australia is dead. He said that in March 1984. He could not possibly have been talking about his Government's record in that area because all his Government has done is propose two pieces of legislation in the tax avoidance area. Mr Dawkins —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to table the reference he has just quoted. Mr HOWARD —I would be very happy to table it and I will table a lot more before the Minister has finished. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will determine the manner, pace and nature-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will the honourable member seek leave to table the document? Mr HOWARD —No, I will determine what I will table, not the Minister for Finance. The truth of the matter is that, like his colleague who made a personal explanation yesterday, the Minister for Finance cannot stand the heat. It was all right to use the coward's castle of parliamentary privilege against John Reid and other decent members of the Australian business community. It was all right to go for broke when he was in opposition and to call people everything that he wanted to under the coward's protection of parliamentary privilege. I would be delighted to repeat anything I have said here outside this place because, unlike the Minister, I have not used the coward's protection of parliamentary privilege. He did say to the gathering of accountants, as reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on 16 March, that tax avoidance in Australia was dead as an issue. The Government has introduced two pieces of legislation. One of those was the disgraceful attempt to introduce a retrospective capital gains tax through the bottom of the harbour legislation. Our legislation-the Fraser Government's legislation-recoups all of the illegally evaded tax under bottom of the harbour tax arrangements. The legislation properly rejected by the Senate is an outrageous attempt by the Government to impose a capital gains tax. That is why the Opposition has rejected that legislation. Let me read to honourable members a description of it by Mr Ross Gittins of the Sydney Morning Herald. Ross Gittins has been one of the most consistent supporters of this Government's economic policy amongst the leading economic writers of Australia. He can hardly be accused of being an acolyte of or an apologist for the Liberal Party of Australia in economic matters. This is what he said on 30 May under the heading 'All talk and no action taxes Labor's credibility'. What he was tearing apart was the credibility of the Australian Labor Party on the tax avoidance issue. He said: Labor . . . proposing a second attack on harbour-bottom schemes which went far beyond the bounds of fairness. The legislation went far beyond the bounds of fairness and that is why the Opposition voted against it. If ever the Government wants an example of the hypocrisy and the political opportunism of the Labor Party on the tax avoidance issue, it should look at the so-called cherry-picker scheme. We rejected it for one reason, and that is that it had a retrospective operation to July 1977. Mr Keating —Shame on you. Mr HOWARD —The Treasurer says 'Shame on you'. Mr O'Reilly, the Commissioner of Taxation whom the Treasurer was prepared to have serve and advise him for over a year, advised me in writing in February 1980-I have tabled this correspondence- that he did not even recommend the prospective operation of those amendments from February 1980. Yet the Treasurer has the outrage to come into this Parliament and propose its retrospective operation from July 1977. No wonder the Opposition has voted against the legislation. Now we have this incredible legislation that the Government is proposing which will tear away the corporate veil; it will impose a reverse onus of proof. It has taken the Treasurer 18 months to complete a review of taxation penalties that I initiated in August 1982. According not only to commentators such as Gittins, not only to the Minister for Finance, whom I am very happy to rely on as often as he likes on this subject, but also to the former Commissioner of Taxation, Mr O'Reilly, tax avoidance is dead. Mr O'Reilly wrote to me in March 1983 and he said that Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act introduced by the Fraser Government had brought an end to blatant, artificial tax avoidance arrangements. It was our legislation in that area, the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Bill-the recoupment legislation-that recouped the unpaid taxation liability. It was the Crimes ( Taxation Offences) Act which brought in criminal penalties for bottom of the harbour tax arrangements. It was the 25 to 30 specific pieces of legislation which we introduced in 1977 and 1978 which were the legislative acts that brought the tax avoidance industry in Australia to its knees. It was the Fraser Government that buried the tax avoidance industry in Australia. The truth of the matter is that when the Labor Party, despite all its fulmination in opposition, came to power it found what every self-respecting tax practitioner already knew, and that is that the tax avoidance industry in Australia was dead and had been exterminated by the former Government. What the Labor Party had to do was generate some phoney outrage in the community; so it trotted up two totally unacceptable pieces of legislation that no self- respecting opposition could possibly support. I and others know for a fact that members of the Labor Party were facilitating visits by people lobbying against that legislation when it first came before the Parliament. Some of those people are very close to the Treasurer. So much for the hypocrisy and the double standards of the Australian Labor Party on this issue. The Opposition will not cop this new McCarthyism of the Prime Minister under which one puts up a piece of legislation, no matter how outrageous it is, no matter how immoral or unprincipled it is, no matter how contrary it is to the principles of our legal system, and because it has the label of anti-tax avoidance on it asserts that it is honourable, decent legislation and that we should support it. Members of the Australian public will see through that. They will recognise the Government's hypocrisy, its double standards. They will recognise the Government's embracing of people associated with tax avoidance arrangements and its phoney campaign on this issue simply will not wash. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.09) —Like a dog returning to its vomit, the Opposition returns to tax avoidance. Fancy the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Howard) mounting an issue of tax avoidance in this country when he sat mute for five years-between 1976-77 and 1982-until he was embarrassed by the findings of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and finally forced to take some action on tax avoidance. When the McCabe-Lafranchi report-the first report on tax avoidance- came into the House he vilified and attacked the authors and made a mockery of their report. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the former Prime Minister viciously attacked Premier Cain in Victoria, who, they said, was mounting a political exercise. That is the truth of the matter. They tried to put the McCabe-Lafranchi report down. It is all right for the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) to try to rewrite history, but I, too, was here in those days. I remember his record on tax avoidance. I remember what he was about on tax avoidance. The honourable member was in it right up to his ears. He was protecting everybody in the Liberal Party because he was little Johnnie Howard determined to succeed in the Liberal Party. He was not going to step on the big firms of chartered accountants or the rip-off merchants in business. No; he was there to protect them all. The honourable member had made his way up through the Liberal Party, from the garage, or wherever it was. He had crawled his way up and he was not going to stand on the people who make the Liberal Party tick over. The former Treasurer had letter after letter from the Commissioner of Taxation, and he did nothing. The honourable member has raised the tax issue as a matter of public importance . We say: 'What issue?'. The only issue in tax avoidance in this country is the Liberal Party's continuing protection in the Senate of the tax avoidance industry by refusing the passage of legislation. That is the only issue. Not until the Costigan report came down was the former Treasurer forced to do anything about tax avoidance. However, he then skedaddled off to the International Monetary Fund. He then went off to London. In fact, he accepted any invitation he could get to speak. He stayed away as long as he could. When he came back, like a whimp, he said: 'Oh, there are the secrecy provisions'. Costigan left one line about the secrecy provisions, so the former Treasurer and big Mal-those two people with great big hearts-hid right behind that line and said: 'Oh, well, we did not know because the Commissioner's secrecy provisions prevented us from knowing'. For years, the Commissioner had been writing to them about bottom of the harbour and paper schemes which were defrauding the revenue. Finally, the Commissioner would take no more of it. He published what is now the famous telephone book of letters. The bundle was as thick as a telephone book. It was three inches thick and full of letters to the former Treasurer, imploring him, urging him, to deal with paper schemes and tax avoidance and evasion of the bottom of the harbour kind. Between 1976-77 and 1981-82 the former Treasurer did nothing. He sat and watched avoidance happen. The former Treasurer says that the Fraser Government killed the tax avoidance industry; it was the Fraser Government which let that industry live, breed and grow. That is the truth of the matter. The whole ugly episode of tax avoidance in this country is a result of the former Treasurer's intransigence and failure, as the Treasurer of this country, to protect the revenue. There is no point in the honourable member coming into the Parliament to argue that the Liberal Party has justice on its side in relation to tax avoidance-the whole tax avoidance rip -off was the creature of his Administration. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are now referring to Mr Costigan and, indeed, Mr Gyles in the Parliament. Mr Gyles's whole purpose is to prosecute bottom of the harbour cases . There is no comfort for the Opposition in anything that Mr Gyles might say, because the bottom of the harbour exercise occurred because the Liberal Government was prepared to protect and to coddle the tax avoidance industry. The Liberal Party has a shameful record in that respect. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said here today that he started a review of penalties in 1982. Why did he not start that review in 1976 or 1977 when he became Treasurer? The fact is that he was a soft touch for the constituency of his Party. He knew that all the rip-off merchants in the Liberal Party-all those characters out there ripping off the system-would be on him like a ton of bricks . He was not going to offend anybody, so he did not touch penalties or paper schemes. He would not staff the Taxation Office. In 1978 the staff numbers in the Office contracted, and the same happened in 1981. As I said at Question Time, we are improving the basic building blocks of the tax administration-by having more staff checking taxation compliance and by imposing decent penalties. We are imposing real penalties, not the penalties that we had under the Liberal Government. Fancy imposing a $4 penalty for not lodging a tax return. That penalty was established in 1936. A penalty of two quid or $4-until yesterday that was the penalty in Australia. Now the penalty for committing that offence will be a couple of thousand dollars. That is the difference between this Government and the former Government. The former Treasurer said that he introduced taxation measures on bottom of the harbour schemes. He said that any bottom of the harbour legislation of the kind fostered by this Government is immoral. The fact is that the retained earnings were ripped out of the companies. Had they been distributed tax would have been paid on them. Mr Howard —Retrospective. Mr KEATING —This is a fact. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may want to be dishonest and ignore this fact. Personal tax would have been paid upon the distribution of the accumulations in those companies. The honourable member knows that that tax will never be paid now because the accumulated profits were ripped out. When the Government legislated to tax the accumulated profits-the tax that would otherwise be payable on those accumulated profits-the Liberal Party opposed that legislation in the Senate, four times. The same happened with the cherry-pickers scheme. Tax concessions were given to company proprietors for superannuation schemes for their employees, but the employment of those employees was terminated before they could reap the benefits on retirement. The company proprietors ripped the funds out of the superannuation schemes and stuck them in their pockets after they had sent off the employees without the appropriate superannuation benefit which the Commonwealth provided through the tax system. Those employers have taken the ill-gotten tax benefits and pocketed them. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is talking about morality. He said that we should not have legislated restrospectively. Honestly, the shame of it. The honourable member will be in anything. He has no shame whatsoever. Liberal Party members opposite are like a lot of snotty nosed Libs. They have no shame whatsoever. Where there was once a decent line of conservative thinking by respectable people there is now a party of rip-off merchants, hand-me-downs, used car salesmen, failed real estate agents-all sorts of characters such as those. That is the nature of the Liberal Party these days. Fancy trying to put any purpose and sense of motive in that Party. What a motley collection of has- beens and never-wases we have opposite us. We have never seen such a collection. The former Treasurer tried to take the moral ground on tax avoidance. We shall hammer him into the ground on tax avoidance every time he puts his head up, particularly whenever the sun lamp kid can drag himself away from the sun lamp to get on to the question of tax avoidance. Fancy any former Government member raising a matter of public importance on tax avoidance. Let me take another issue. I have been through the bottom of the harbour and cherry-picker aspects. After my speech the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be up to make a personal explanation, as he does every other day. Mr Howard —Yes, I will. Thanks for reminding me. Mr KEATING —Of course he will. The Opposition threatened to refuse the passage of the legislation on the black economy in the building and transport industries -the prescribed payments system. We had to get discussions with the Australian Democrats moving to get the numbers to carry the legislation. Finally, the Liberal Party dropped into line when it knew that the legislation would be passed anyway. The fact is that the Liberal Party proposed that legislation when in Government but, as soon as it went into opposition, the Party returned to its old colours of protecting the tax avoidance rip-off merchants. The Liberal Party returned to its old colours and decided not to pass the legislation. From the enactment of that legislation we gained $250m in revenue last year and about $ 300m this year. The result is that 55,000 people-this is a very important statistic-who previously never had a tax file number have now applied for one. As a result of that prescribed payments system, 55,000 people who had never even had a file number are now paying tax and many thousands of taxpayers who had a file number are now paying the appropriate levels of tax. The Opposition opposes that. The Opposition could not hold up its head anywhere on tax avoidance. Let me deal with other measures against tax avoidance which the Australian Labor Party has undertaken since it came to office. We have acted against leverage leasing arrangements. We have eliminated tax benefits for short term life assurance policies, which had become a device for tax free investments. We have reduced the tax threshold applying to income splitting of unmarried minors. We have closed the loopholes in section 26(a) and we have announced measures to stop sales tax avoidance schemes. We have taken action in a range of other areas . In other words, as soon as we have seen an issue arise, we have gone straight in to legislate for it. If it were not for the Opposition in the Senate under the tutelage of the Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy, a lot more of this legislation would have been enacted. It would be a lot easier for the Mr Gyleses of this world to pursue bottom of the harbour matters if they had the full legislative force of those amendments, which have now been denied to them by the spivs and rip-off merchants opposite. Let me make this point again: In terms of the whole question of the tax system we are now past the stage of leaving the neglect of the Taxation Office to one side. We are rebuilding the Taxation Office. We are giving the Commissioner the compliance staff whom he needs badly. As well, we are arming him with a set of penalties so that the general administration of the tax system and its basic building blocks are much stronger now than they have ever been in the past. That is what makes a tax system function appropriately. Of course, as the Government has said, we will have a general review of the way in which the tax system operates in terms of fairness, equity and efficiency. That issue is divorced entirely from the issue of tax avoidance and evasion. The fact is that, with decent penalties and a decent level of staffing, the Commissioner is back in the race to deal with tax avoidance. We are legislating to hammer out the last of the paper schemes, the last remnants of the neglect of the Howard years in this Parliament as Treasurer, when he was continually advised to move against bottom of the harbour schemes and failed to do so because of the pressures within his own Party. I hear the argument: 'John Howard wanted to do this, but could not get it through the Cabinet', or 'He wanted to do that but could not get it through the Cabinet', or 'He wanted to do something about tax avoidance but could not get that through the Cabinet'. Being a Treasurer means that you have to get these things through Cabinet. The former Treasurer could not get a piece of wrapping paper through the Cabinet; that is the truth of the matter. It is no excuse to come in here and say: 'I could not get it through. I wanted to float the dollar; I wanted to deregulate; I wanted to fix tax avoidance; I wanted to make the tax system fair, but I could not get them through Cabinet. I had a neanderthal Prime Minister and a group of troglodytes in there'. That is no argument. One has to get the thing through. The fact is that the political will was never there, with Mr Howard as Treasurer, to run the economy, to deal with employment or unemployment, to deal with tax evasion, or to deal with any of his principal responsibilities as Treasurer. Fancy the former Treasurer coming in here with that other gargoyle, the Leader of the Opposition, who was swanning around the east coast of the United States. The best he could do was to haunt the cocktail circuit round Washington and the east coast of the United States of America. That was his contribution in the main years of the Fraser Government. Whenever he had a domestic portfolio, he spat the dummy out so quickly that when he got into industrial relations he resigned. I used to catch him up in the office on the mezzanine level playing cards with Barry Simon. That was his contribution to thought. And he comes in here and tries to tell us how to run a government and a taxation system. Members of the Opposition should be ashamed of themselves. We reject absolutely, as will the Australian people, the Opposition's credibility on taxation. There is not an issue on taxation. If there is any such issue, it is the continuing avoidance of taxation by the Opposition and its shameful support of the tax avoidance industry in the Senate, where it has made a mockery and a swill of that chamber to protect those people who will not pay their fair share of tax. That is the issue on tax. We reject absolutely any credibility on the part of the Opposition on taxation issues. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.25) —It was obvious as soon as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) rose to his feet that reasoned debate on this matter would go right out of the window. But it did not do that; it slumped to the floor and that is where it got bogged down all the way through. Mr Hodgman —In the gutter. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Yes, gutter tactics. On not one occasion during the whole 15 minutes of the Treasurer's remarks did he come to the defence of his Government in regard to its record on the tax avoidance issue. And for one very good reason : He could not do so. He more or less indicated that all the way through his remarks. The Treasurer falls into the same trap as every other Labor politician: He cannot tell the difference between evasion and avoidance, and that is the main difference. When his time should have been spent in defending the Government's record it was spent in vilification of the one person in this Parliament who has done something about tax avoidance. Well before the bottom of the harbour matter raised its head or Costigan came along, there was a major anti-avoidance provision in the legislation which had the major effect of stopping tax avoidance in Australia. This was admitted even by the Treasurer back in 1982 when on talk-back radio he admitted that the tax avoidance industry sprang into life during the days of Whitlam. He said: 'When we were in government between 1973 and 1975 the tax avoidance industry started to move into sophisticated, contrived schemes'. That is when it started. It stopped with the implementation of Part IVA of the Act-the major part which had the effect of dealing with tax avoidance. That followed 30 or 40 pieces of legislation where the former Treasurer acted immediately to cut off areas of abuse that came to his notice. One cannot do any better than that. Let us go back and examine Labor's record not only in this Parliament but between 1972 and 1975. The one thing the Treasurer was able to do was to leapfrog those years when he wanted to attach blame to somebody for tax avoidance. It was the Labor Treasurer, Crean, who said in 1974 in the Budget that the Government intended to legislate to cut out the types of tax avoidance found in Curran schemes. What happened? He did not do a thing. It was also during that period that he and his colleagues in government at that time had every opportunity to try to bring something in as an effective substitute for section 260. What happened? Not a whisper. And the High Court of Australia still continues to rule against the Government and the Australian Taxation Office in that regard. What happened about the penalties the Treasurer is now bringing in? Do we have to forget the period 1972 to 1975 when the Labor Government of the day had every opportunity to do something about that matter? It is not good enough for the Treasurer to come into the chamber for 15 minutes and to try to pull down the character of the one man who has done something positive in this regard. That even goes to the admission of the person who benefited or who has apparently benefited from tax avoidance schemes and duty avoidance schemes when he has admitted before a group of accountants in Sydney that there was no longer an issue. That was last year. In fact, the disappointment of the Labor Party in government was to find that on election its rhetoric of previous years was not to be fulfilled. I can remember Mr Hayden-Whingeing Willie-coming into this chamber and saying that $8 billion was being lost annually to the 'tax avoidance industry'. He did not use the phrase 'tax evasion industry'; he always referred to the 'tax avoidance industry'. It was always with the big companies, the supporters of the conservatives that that $8 billion was supposed to lie. When the Labor Party came into office it was just not there. That $8 billion Labor was going to reap from the cupboard of tax avoidance and evasion just was not there. Why? Because it had already been cleaned out by the previous Treasurer. Those are the facts. When one examines what Labor has done about the position, one sees that all Labor can do is point to two pieces of anti-avoidance legislation. I suggest that only one of those measures relates to anti-avoidance. The other piece of legislation relates to evasion. I am firmly convinced that, if the Labor Party, the Labor Government and the Commissioner of Taxation had the will, they could get those debts and outstanding taxes through other means. What opportunity have they taken to achieve that? The answer is none. The one piece of legislation relating to anti-avoidance, the cherry-picker legislation, was blocked in the Senate in terms of retrospective application. I understand that the Labor Government has not picked that up and applied it prospectively. How fair dinkum is the Labor Party? It is not fair dinkum at all. Mention was made of the prescribed payments program. That is not an avoidance issue. It is a pre- collection of taxation before it is declared in the following year. That is all that is-or, at the worst, it is related to evasion. What has the present Government done in connection with the tax evasion industry? That is the one that Mr Hayden was talking about; that is the one involving the $8 billion. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) knows that. That is the underground economy which the present Government has not tried to catch because it might snare itself in its own net. What about the takings at the Boulevard? Where did they come from? What about the situation regarding the Minister for Finance? All of that constitutes the problem with which this Government is not prepared to come to grips. That is exactly the truth. The underground economy is still the one that has to be attacked. I do not deny that the penalties for tax evasion are absolutely essential, but let us not penalise a person by asking him to prove his innocence . Let us not claim him to be guilty; let him be guilty upon proof. That is the application that will come from the penalties we discussed last night. Let us look at this Government's record in its 18 months in office. It has introduced two pieces of legislation that it has no intention of enacting. As I said in one of my speeches on this matter, the Government knows that that legislation will not pass the Senate. Even the Australian Democrats are awake-up to it. The Government intends to use that as a trigger for a double dissolution should it ever want one. That is the only reason why this legislation was introduced. Otherwise the Government would not have returned it the other times. The interesting thing about the bottom of the harbour legislation about which we are talking is that, each time it has come back, it has come back with a reduced estimate of how much the Government will collect from it. Perhaps we will send it back 10 times and by the time it comes back finally we will find that there was not anything in it in any case. As I said originally, that cupboard from which the Labor Government was expecting to collect $8 billion to $10 billion annually was bare. It has to put up some front for its supporters, some front for the left wing to run with. What is the other alternative? The Treasurer has proudly announced that the Government is increasing the audit staff of the Australian Taxation Office. It is sending out policemen. Will those audit staff tackle the underground economy? No, they will browbeat the person who has lodged a return, the honest taxpayer, to ensure that they get enough money at least to cover the cost of their examination. That is all those extra persons will do. They will be the policemen for the Treasurer in his desperate grasp to get more funds. The interesting thing about that $8 billion that was mentioned so regularly by members of the Government when they were in opposition is that it is precisely the figure that they are taking from the taxpayer this year by other means in the form of additional pay as you earn taxation. That is the big fraud. We hear that the Budget is a great Budget that is giving tax cuts. Is $8m extra in pay as you earn taxation and Medicare a tax cut? If the Treasurer of the day cannot do his sums properly he should get out of the job and give it to somebody who can. Perhaps the honourable member for Hunter would like to leap over to the front bench. I have yet to listen to his contribution, but I am sure that he would come to grips with the problems of the day more readily than has the phoney Treasurer, the pathetic Treasurer whom we have heard once again rant and rave without producing one little bit of evidence to defend the record that he has produced for his Government. If the Government wants to go to the election on this tax record, let it do so. We will match it word for word, day by day. We will also match it with our complaint as to its record-that of the highest taxing government that has ever graced the floor of this House. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(3.34) —The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has already indicated that we emphatically reject the matter of public importance which has been brought forward by the Opposition today. The shadow Treasurer, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), has suggested that the Opposition will not cop what the Government is saying about its record in relation to tax avoidance and tax evasion. Let me assure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that honourable members opposite will cop it not only in this Parliament but also on the hustings. The closer we get to that election, the more we will be indicating to the Australian people the shameful, deplorable and disgraceful record which honourable members opposite had when they were in government and which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had when he was on this side as Treasurer. Honourable members opposite will not be able to escape the reality of this situation. We will make perfectly clear that shameful position, that progressive development that occurred in the tax avoidance and evasion industry during those seven disastrous years when they were in government. Let me put some of this on the record. First of all, in the last year of the previous Labor Government, 1975-76, 861 people and companies in Australia were identified as being involved in tax avoidance schemes. Let us note that figure- 861. Do honourable members know what the figure was in the last year in which honourable members opposite were in government? Whereas we had been able to control this monstrous industry in Australia, with a figure of 861, in the last year in which they were in government the figure was 35,000. Mr Gear —A job creation scheme. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Absolutely. The honourable member for Tangney indicates his obvious and justified surprise, amazement and disgust that such a situation should have been allowed to develop. It is absolutely disgraceful. The Treasurer said of honourable members opposite: 'You people have no shame'. Indeed, they have no shame. How is it possible for people with a record such as that to bring into this Parliament, this national chamber, as a matter of public importance a question of this kind? That was in connection with tax avoidance. They criticise us and attempt to deny, to refute, the amount of money that we indicated was involved in schemes of this kind. The Taxation Commissioner's own official record, the annual report, indicates that in 1982-83 the amount under challenge in regard to the 35,000 individuals and companies in Australia identified as being involved in tax avoidance schemes was $1,600m. That is not peanuts. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, as does everyone else in this chamber and everyone in the Australian community, who made up the difference. We all know who the people in Australia were who were called on to compensate for all of those sharks and crooks who were defended and protected by the political sharks who now sit on the Opposition benches. We know who made up the difference. We know who was required to compensate for that. It was the ordinary pay as you earn taxpayer, the ordinary wage and salary plug out in the community, the ordinary family man trying to pay off his mortgage and keep his family at a reasonable level of material security and well-being. I will indicate when I get to it just how much per week that meant for the ordinary Australian family, how much extra such a family had to pay into the national coffers to compensate for that shameful position which not only developed under those characters on the Opposition benches when they were in government but was actually encouraged by them. Well we remember, although they now claim credit for some of that legislation, the way in which they were dragged screaming into this place to legislate against these tax avoidance schemes. They were literally dragged screaming into this chamber to legislate when the Australian community became increasingly aware of exactly what was happening. A growing degree of inequity, injustice and unfairness was being institutionalised into the Australian community as a result of their reluctance and lethargy and the fact that they dragged their feet. Honourable members opposite were dragged into this chamber to introduce legislation because of the wrath and anger of the Australian people. They knew that the day of reckoning was coming. That day of reckoning arrived on 5 March last year. The Australian people now know the eminent good sense of the decision that they made. They gave members of the Opposition when they were in government repeated opportunities to redeem themselves. At election after election, despite the overwhelming evidence of not only their incompetence, but also their approval, their nurturing, their protection and their defence of injustice and inequity, the Australian people gave them additional opportunities. Of course, the day of judgment was to come. The day of judgment came, and that judgment will be reaffirmed the next time we go to the Australian electors. I have dealt with tax avoidance. Let us look at tax evasion during the time in government of honourable members opposite, and at all of those taxpayers who understated income or lodged false returns. In the last year in which we were previously in government, 1975-76, 25,000 people throughout Australia either failed to lodge returns or understated income. In the last year for which figures are available, 1981-82, under the Government of our opponents, the figure had risen from 25,000 to 44,000. These are the rip-off merchants. Let the Australian people bear in mind that this is no fun situation. It is a question of whether or not all Australians will contribute according to their financial capacity. If they do not make that financial contribution, it is a question of whether the national Government and Parliament will have sufficient integrity and concern in order to preserve and maintain or to restore integrity, fairness and justice, and to make sure that legislative means are available to bring those people to book. There was no genuine concern or response on the part of Opposition members when they were in government. Let us look further at the report given by the Auditor-General in March this year. He referred to the fact that the amount of tax outstanding had risen from $1,000m to almost $3,000m over the past six years. That is a critical period. Which parties were in government during those six years when the outstanding tax rose from $1 billion to $3 billion? They were the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia. What reason did the Auditor-General give for the development of that deplorable situation? He said that tax outstanding as a proportion of collectable tax had risen from 9 per cent in 1976-77 to 23 per cent in 1982-83. He gave as the reason that it was mainly because of the increase in the amount outstanding from taxpayers involved in artificial tax avoidance schemes. We have said that the Opposition has no shame. These claims are made not just by us. Bruce Pascoe, in 1978, referring specifically to 1975, when honourable members opposite were elected to government, said: During the past year or two, tax avoidance became big business in Australia. It became a disease which, being allowed to go unchecked, reached epidemic proportions. What a shameful indictment. I have said that tax avoidance and tax evasion while honourable members opposite were in government was costing the national revenue abut $7 billion every year. That is not my figure. The figures accord with estimates that I have made, too. They are generally accepted figures. What does that $7 billion represent in terms of contributions in extra tax from the ordinary family? It is $30 a week. That is what it was then, and, of course, the situation has deteriorated constantly. We wanted to introduce legislation to pick up some of this money. The last piece of legislation was to pick up $570m from the bottom of the harbour schemes , from the accumulated revenue or capital profits on which tax should have been paid-despite the attempt by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to claim the contrary. Of course tax should have been paid on that, in the same way as it should have been paid on current year profits. Opposition members knocked that legislation back. We cut back the legislation to $270m. They knocked it back again. We cut it back to $35m, just to tighten up their legislation. They knocked it back again. When their legislation was being considered, all the sharks invaded this place to force them to modify that legislation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Consideration resumed. Schedule 2. Department of Primary Industry Proposed expenditure, $175,886,000. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(3.45) —The Committee will recall that just prior to lunch I was discussing the Primary Industry estimates and putting to the chamber the proposal that what is extraordinary about primary industry is that in it we have one group of people who would be prepared to accept less money from the Government. I put that proposal because in primary industry we have a group of people who are not as dependent as are we, the politicians and the public servants, on the public purse. There is one group of people who would be prepared to accept less money from the Government if they could be sure that in accepting less they would see a reduction in the nation's current deficit and see a similar trimming in other Federal departments. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) waxed eloquent about macroeconomics and said that the whole issue of macroeconomics was a matter of concern to primary producers. I wholeheartedly agree with the honourable member. It is the matter of macroeconomics that is of major concern to primary producers . Not only does the President of the National Farmers Federation, Mr McLachlan, agree with me, but also it is the direction of macroeconomics being pursued by the Hawke Government that is causing the NFF so much concern. I have said that the primary producers would be prepared to have a smaller allocation if they could be sure that, by so doing, they would lower the deficit and reduce the enormous borrowing that the Government faces. Why are the farmers so concerned about deficits? Why are they so nervous about taxation? Why are they so nervous about big government? The reality is that they see, as do all other taxpayers, the tax revenue being wasted. They see the milk of human kindness being spilt on the cowshed floor. They see the dependent spouse rebate being handed out to de factos. They see social security benefits being abused. They see single parent benefits being abused. They see warped support from this Government for homosexual relationships. They see this Parliament being enlarged and they say: 'What do we want with more politicians?' Farmers see the absurd proposal to expand this Parliament House in order to accommodate those additional unnecessary politicians prior to the move to the new and grandiose Parliament House on the hill. On that issue alone, the Liberal Party solidly took one line-a line for smaller government. Farmers see tax revenue being thrown around, and they say: 'If you are going to throw it around, thank you very much; we will have our share'. It is that share that we are now debating. In the Primary Industry estimates there are areas that have been welcomed by primary producers. There have been considerations in wool and excise areas that primary producers have welcomed. Mr Hawker —The wine tax. Mr ANDREW —But concern has been expressed by primary industry about other parts of the Budget-the honourable member for Wannon rightly mentions the wine tax-and about parts of the estimates we are debating today. Farmers are concerned, for example, about the proposal to expand the threshold for natural disaster relief from $10m to $18.5m. They are concerned about this because they are the people who face droughts. They are the people who have learnt, as a result of their lifestyle, to be, as it were, the squirrels of society and to be prudent with what they do with their surpluses. No one knows better than farmers that droughts occur, and that they occur frequently without warning. It is worth drawing an analogy in the Primary Industry estimates between the droughts that farmers face and the proposal to expand the natural disaster relief, and what could well happen to this nation were it not for the buoyant times that we are experiencing. I will agree that 1983-84 has been a relatively bouyant year. It has been a bouyant year because there has been a rural recovery and because we have had the benefit of the Fraser Government wage pause. I add for the benefit of the front bench that also it has been a bouyant year because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has successfully engendered consumer confidence. I am not being partisan about this. However, the wage pause and the rural recovery were a major part of this bouyancy. Farmers know that when things are bouyant they should start reducing deficits so that one is trim, lean and efficient for the difficult times. Things are bouyant now, but are we reducing deficits? In fact, we are expanding the role of government. That is entirely unacceptable to primary industry. Much has been said about the Fraser Government deficits. However, from 1975 to 1980 in bouyant years the Fraser Government all but rubbed out the enormous $3.6 billion deficit it had inherited from the Whitlam Administration. The difficult years of the droughts of 1980 and 1983 resulted in the present deficit. This is the time for removing deficits, not for burdening farmers with them. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(3.52) —I thank honourable members for the contributions which they have made to the debate on the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry. The honourable member for Eden -Monaro (Mr Snow) in this debate spoke about feral goats and pigs and fish and made a very worthwhile contribution. The honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) made a very worthy contribution on the economics of the sugar and tobacco industries. I was interested also to hear from the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) who made some substantial points about the economy. I think it is very important that I reply mainly to the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who also made quite substantial points. I think that all honourable members with a strong rural interest understand the essential nature of primary industry and that its survival depends on the macroeconomic management of this economy and the maintenance of international competitiveness. The Hawke Government has made a far greater contribution to the prosperity of primary producers by getting inflation down. Just one percentage point fall in the rate of inflation drops farm costs by $111m. A one percentage point fall in interest rates means that the farmers' interest bill falls by $35m. There was also the underlying theme of the comments of the honourable member for Gwydir who said that we should subsidise farm inputs. To subsidise input costs to achieve results, similar to those we have achieved through constructive economic management, would really not, in the long haul, add to the international competitiveness of the rural sector. The whole problem in respect of the subsidisation of farm inputs is that eventually it capitalises into the land and does not address the question of competitiveness. It also raises distributional issues. More than anything else this Government has achieved a lot with respect to the macroeconomic management of the economy in the interests of farmers. This Government has done far more for farmers in their international competitiveness than the past Government did. We floated the currency which gave us enormous flexibility and enormous returns to primary producers. We brought in off-shore borrowings for the Australian Wheat Board. This saved that industry tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars. That was opposed by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), a former wheat grower. He does not really understand much about these economic matters. The Liberal Party at its conference in May 1982 had a resolution on its books-I do not know whether it is policy now; I never understand the primary industry policy of either the Liberal Party or the National Party-to wipe out the Wheat Board. Under the Fraser Government the cost of fuel rose nearly three times. No one in the Opposition, then in government, really complained much about that. All the dutiful National Party people went along with that and justified it. Under the Fraser Government inflation was about three times higher in Australia than in the countries of our competitors-the people we sell against on the international markets. We have to understand that it is true that about 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the product of the wheat industry, which the honourable member for Gwydir concentrated on, is exported. We are in a very tough international competitive situation. We have done a lot in the 18 months we have been in government to pay attention to the macroeconomic issues. As I have said, we have tried to give our farmers greater international competitiveness. The honourable member for Gwydir also raised questions in respect of the crisis in the wheat industry. I answered a question about that yesterday. There is always a crisis in every industry in Australia; we can always find the statistics for that. The figures of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics-the Bureau surveys most of the major primary industries in this country-show still that the wheat industry has the highest farm cash operating surplus of any primary industry in Australia. In 1982-83 the average wheat grower had a farm cash operating surplus of $61,500. In the drought year of 1982-83 the cash operating surplus was $16,200. In 1983-84 the surplus was $66,441. This is an average over the past three years of $48,000. That is way ahead of the other major agricultural industries. I am not saying that wheat farmers are well off. I am not saying that the cost-price squeeze is not on. I am not saying that I disagree with the Deputy Leader of the National Party that off-farm costs are a major concern. There is no sense coming in here and whingeing and grizzling in any party political fashion. The National Party when in government-which all National Party members fall about slavishly and adoringly remember-is just as bad as any other government in extracting every penny it can from wheat growers and coal miners. Another point which the honourable member raised was in respect of income equalisation deposits. I say very frankly that only 7.44 per cent of farmers have a taxable income over $30,000. They are the people to whom the income equalisation deposits scheme meant a lot under the previous system. That scheme was linked to the taxation rate. Anyone taxed at the rate of 60c in the dollar certainly gained a lot from the IEDs. The problem was that very few people participated in it. Something like 80 per cent of farmers have a taxable income below $20,000. The new IED scheme brought in by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) advantages those farmers more. If I had time I could go through some examples of that. Perhaps I should provide to the Opposition examples of how the new IED scheme benefits smaller producers more in terms of the philosophy and underlying principles behind an income equalisation deposits scheme. We have indexed the fuel freight subsidy. The Opposition has been kind to us about that. We are doing what we can. However, there is no sense in talking about the fact that the Fraser Government raised fuel prices by a factor of about 300 per cent. The honourable member for Gwydir also raised the tariff debate which he has also raised at some recent conferences of the National Party . What he said is true. Our exporting industries do carry the burden of some $4 billion worth of secondary industry protection. I could take him back to the days of Mr McEwen who gave us this great level of secondary industry protection. I point out that many of our primary industries are just as protectionist as our secondary industries. We have only to look at almost every horticultural industry, the sheep meat industry, the dairy industry, the rice industry, the sugar industry-which has an embargo-to see this. The problem we face is that Australia really is not big enough to buy all the produce of the Association of South East Asian Nations, China and Japan. Even if we did devastate our secondary industries, I am rather unsure about the extent to which those countries would buy our goods. What we are proceeding to do in respect of secondary industry is to restructure it rather than carry on with this tired, sterile debate about free trade versus protection. What my colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), is doing is restructuring those basic industries, whether they be steel or cars. We are continuing with the previous Government's policy in respect of clothing, footwear and textiles. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) raised the question of the Export Inspection Service. I will reply to him with a detailed letter in case he really does not understand the situation. He talked about the 22 meat inspectors at Tennant Creek who gave evidence before the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. He said that they were actually receiving additional income for additional services performed. This had nothing to do with meat substitution or any criminal action. Due to the fact that the United States Department of Agriculture has regulations which require the Australian industry to meet certain standards-standards that are practised in the United States- these people were suspended. The problem was the new Northern Territory legal system. It took such a long time to get those people to court, and these were criminal charges. The first people we put up were not convicted by the jury. I will not comment on the decisions a jury or a court takes, but the jury did not convict. It took a long time to get them to court and then the jury would not convict. The advice of the Crown Solicitor was that there was no sense in proceeding against all the other people. Once that had occurred, under the Public Service Act-I point out that under the Public Service Act we cannot sack these meat inspectors, nor can we shoot them-we took them through the proper procedures. Those 19 people were penalised quite severely in terms of their rate of pay and were again employed in the Public Service. The honourable member for Wannon also quoted figures which indicated that 153 people are not employed at present. I will be bringing before the House today legislation on which Cabinet has taken a decision. It will mean that the costs of those people who are not effectively engaged in meat inspection at present are not charged to the industry but are charged to the taxpayer. I point out also that the industry could do a lot more in terms of costs if it chose to do so. If I had the time I would give examples of that. We are working quietly and patiently with the industry to try to find better ways in which it can utilise the meat inspection service. For example, the time of start, the fact that some abattoirs run three concurrent chains rather than chains in sequence-there are lots of ways to save money if the industry is prepared to look at them. The constant labelling of the Export Inspection Service as inefficient really is pretty irresponsible stuff. In earlier periods the demand was put on the Government to take on inspectors. We have to take on people who are trained. It takes about a year to have people trained in the system. They need a basic level of training, probably not as high as in some State services, and then they have to have on the job training. We just cannot switch inspectors on and off. The demand through 1978, 1979 and 1980 was very high indeed and extra inspectors were hired. Then came the downturn of the economy and the breaking of the drought. As I said, we cannot sack these people and we cannot shoot them. I will not tolerate constant accusations that the Service is inefficient. If I had time I would go through all that is being done by the Export Inspection Service in the interests of efficiency in terms of negotiating with the State governments, with industry and with the unions themselves. As I said, I will get back to the honourable member for Wannon with details of that. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(4.04) —I would like to speak on the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry. I am sorry that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) spoke before me; that was a little unfortunate. This morning we heard the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) referring to the Minister as the 'Bob Hawke of the bush'. We bushies refer to him as the 'Bob Hope of the bush' because we do not always take notice of everything he has to say. When the honourable member's colleague the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) visits Leichhardt the only thing he does is go fishing. He is not particularly interested in the sugar industry. He spends all his time out on the reef. I do not know whether he catches any fish but he is certainly not interested in north Queensland. We all know that $175m has been allocated to the Department of Primary Industry . I point out to the primary producers of Australia that, if we take out of that $175m the $90m allocated to meat inspection, it leaves only roughly $85m allocated in the Budget specifically for primary industry. That is one of the lowest allocations in the Budget. I think it is a disgrace. I will be speaking to the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs later today. Well over $200m has been allocated to that Department. I think it is high time that the Government started to realise where its funds are going. Every day in this Parliament we hear the Prime Minister and his boys carrying on as though they are great friends of the farmers. Yet what do we see when the time comes for the Government to help some of these farming industries that need its help, such as the sugar industry? Nothing is forthcoming from the Minister. I believe that the producers of this nation bear the brunt of the deficit and the high interest payment on that deficit. It is obvious that the money will not come from the pensioners, the people on the dole, the bureaucrats and those people in the non-productive areas of this nation; it will come from the producers of wealth. These are the people who are being asked to pay for the increasing deficit. As we know, in this Budget the deficit is $6.7 billion. The total deficit is now about $70 billion and interest alone on that is $5.6 billion. That will bear down on industry for a long while to come. It is also important to point out that $12.5m has been allocated for interstate dairy support. I do not have any dairy farmers in my electorate so I believe I can be a bit open-minded about this. I do not support this scheme; I think it is scandalous that we have to-- Mr Chynoweth —You do not support the scheme for the dairy farmers? Mr IAN CAMERON —I do not support the scheme. Some dairy farmers are coming to Canberra tomorrow and I will tell them so. I do not believe it is necessary-- Mr Kerin —You do not support underwriting? Mr IAN CAMERON —I do not believe it is necessary. This Government has allocated $12.5m in these estimates to underwrite the milk scheme. We only have to look at the trouble the wheat industry is in right now to see that it does not work. Meetings were held at Moree the other day. What it is all about is government interference. I believe that, in the long run, the Government would be better off if it left the dairy industry free. Good God, we are flat out trading as a nation with all the support and protection that exists internationally without trying to protect one State industry from another State industry. I think it is despicable. I cannot say that my State is any better than other States, but I do not believe that this is something we should be encouraging. The Government's provision for wool promotion has gone up $6m. Promotion of wool has proved very successful throughout the world. While I am on the matter of funds to industry might I say that we continually hear the Minister for Science and Technology, the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones), speaking on this subject. I support a lot of the things he said this morning in this Parliament. I only wish that the Department of the Treasury, when forming these Budgets, would make allowance for more private industry to invest in research. Surely there must be more tax incentives for primary industry to get into research. There has been a miserable allocation to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The CSIRO was established 30 or 40 years ago to develop a range of things to help increase production in primary industry. Now the CSIRO gets practically nothing. I see that the honourable member for Lalor is in the chamber. I am a very keen supporter of research. Primary industry is one of the most economic producers in this country. I believe that the Labor Government's funding of the industry is very disappointing. I am disappointed that there has not been more funding for the CSIRO. Meetings are being held throughout eastern Australia on the problems of the wheat producers. One of the worst imposts that we now have is the fuel tax. We know that the Government has finally indexed the excise on fuel but fuel is still super-taxed. Nearly 60 per cent of the moneys from fuel consumption is going to Consolidated Revenue. I have always argued very strongly that we should have our own price for fuel. Our price should be reduced. In my electorate of Maranoa we have recently had large oil discoveries at Jackson and Bodalla. We are now in a position where we are exporting crude oil. What does this Government do? The Labor Government has put a new tax on on-shore oil. Those companies that have found this very useful product, using their own resources, are now being asked to pay an additional well-head tax. I plead with the Government to take off some of these costs. Although the Australian Labor Party claims that it has put Australia back into prosperity, the wheat industry is no longer in a position to meet these costs. The real price for wheat has not risen since 1973. I am sure the Minister knows some of these facts. He has spent some time around the electorate of Maranoa and he has seen the plight that some of these industries get into with floods, et cetera. I believe that the Minister should be spending more money on some of these industries, particularly the sugar industry. The Minister has spoken about meat inspectors in regard to the beef industry. I believe that meat inspection charges should all come out of Consolidated Revenue . It is a health matter. The inspection of beef affects all Australians. These charges should be paid out of Consolidated Revenue. Every other country in the world pays for its meat inspection services out of Consolidated Revenue. The producers are not levied fees to inspect products in any country but Australia. And here is Australia struggling to hold markets. I have recently been to South East Asia. The Brazilians are dumping meat in Asia and are undercutting our produce there. Brazil is selling its meat cheaper in Asia because those countries have now lifted their restrictions regarding foot and mouth disease. We have grossly inflated prices for our oil products and grossly inflated taxes on meat inspection, et cetera. I do not believe that these things should happen to the beef producers. The beef industries in Australia are not booming. There has been a tremendous downturn in the production of beef. The herd has dropped from 36 million to 22 million. There has been an enormous lay-off of workers in the industry. Labor members ought to be interested in this, but of course they are not. There has been an enormous fall-off in employment in abattoirs throughout Australia. Thirty or 40 abattoirs have been closed in the last two or three years. Mr Cunningham —Who caused that? Mr IAN CAMERON —We certainly did not, that is for sure. Because of the excessive taxes and inefficiency of government we cannot compete. I have just said that we had 36 million head of cattle five years ago and we now have 22 million. What has happened to those cattle? We could produce those cattle, we could export that beef and we could be more prosperous. But what do we see? We see excessive taxes, bureaucratic bungling and $90m on meat inspections. The Minister tries to tell me that it is an efficient industry. I have never heard such twaddle. It is absolute twaddle. The Commonwealth meat inspection service is the most inefficient bureaucratic turn-out there is in this country. One only has to see all the extras it gets and all the money it receives for travel. It receives $ 30m for travel. It is a national disgrace. For years the Queensland Government has offered to inspect meat in Queensland and to act as agent for the Federal Government. The Federal Government refused to take up the National Party's offer in this regard. I believe that that is the way meat should be inspected. I do not believe that producers in this country should be charged for the inspection services. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(4.13) —I will keep my remarks on the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry fairly brief. I note that the estimates for expenditure show a fairly significant increase on actual expenditure during 1983 -84. There are a few particular points in those estimates which are of interest to primary producers, particularly throughout my electorate of Bendigo. I must say at the outset that what is important to primary producers, as many of the Government speakers in these estimates debates have suggested and as a number of Opposition members have agreed, is the total macroeconomic environment. Mr Ronald Edwards —Absolutely right. Mr BRUMBY —The honourable member suggests that that is absolutely right. I am glad that he, amongst other members here, has such a good knowledge of what is important to primary producers because macroeconomic conditions, the level of interest rates and the level of inflation, and the setting of the exchange rate are absolutely fundamental to the long term viability of our primary producers. Mr Hawker —We all agree with that. Mr BRUMBY —I am glad that we do agree. If we look at the record of our Government, compared with that of the previous Government, we will see that there have been significant benefits in the range of macroeconomic policies for all of our primary producers. Most importantly, we have seen the inflation rate come down from a whopping 11.5 per cent under the policies of the previous Government to its present annual rate of 3.9 per cent. To put that in dollar terms, what it means for Australia's primary producers is that every one per cent fall in inflation in Australia effectively saves farmers over $110m in their cost inputs. So, when we are talking about inflation coming down from 11.5 per cent to 4 per cent, we are talking about a saving to Australian farmers of $ 750m, and that is more than any government or any opposition could put directly into appropriations or direct payments to primary producers. It increases their profitability and their viability enormously. What is also important to primary producers in the macroeconomic sense is the interest rates. It is estimated that for every one per cent fall in interest rates the debt burden on farmers is reduced by $35m nationally. Again, we have seen significant falls in interest rates and will see further falls in interest rates under this Government. The other point I want to mention is the floating of the exchange rate. Our decision to do that has had a great effect on our primary producers. It ensures that they get a fair and proper return for the goods that are exported and I might say that it is our Government, the Federal Labor Government, which has had the courage to do that after the years of delay and prevarication by the previous Government. The previous Government simply did not have the courage to make that decision. We have done it and I am pleased that members of the Opposition have acknowledged that that is a real plus for primary producers and that, of course, that decision was taken by our Government. There are a number of specific initiatives in this year's appropriations for primary industry. I am particularly pleased to see that the allocation for soil conservation has been increased four-fold from $1m in the last Budget to $4m in this Budget. Certainly that is, only in a sense, a drop in the ocean. It has been estimated that some $1.6 billion would be necessary to bring all of Australia's land up to a reasonable level of resource maintenance. But it is a start and I might say it was the previous Fraser Government which took the Commonwealth completely out of the area of soil conservation. We have put the Government back in. We have increased funding four-fold in this Budget. Mr Ian Cameron —It has all gone to the universities. Why don't you give it to the farmers? Mr BRUMBY —The honourable member for Maranoa, who made a rather ill-informed contribution to this debate previously, suggests that it has all gone to the universities. I had the pleasure some three months ago of visiting in my electorate near the major town of St Arnaud, an area called Burke's Flat where in fact two programs on private property, on farmers' land, are being conducted under the national soil conservation program. If the honourable member for Maranoa is ever out of his electorate or ever in Victoria he is very welcome to come out and have a look at the very effective work that is being done under the national soil conservation program in my electorate. It is being done with the support of and in conjunction with the local farmers. It is being conducted on their private properties. Of course, it works on a catchment basis. It is proving very effective. I am very hopeful that out of this increased funding of $4m per annum my electorate of Bendigo will receive further funding for this very important national soil conservation program. The last point I want to make is on the increased funding that has been made available for wool promotion. I recently spoke on this subject in the Western District of Victoria, in Hamilton. I must say that the increase of $6m that we have made available-it is a 30 per cent increase in money terms for funding wool promotion on the $20m on average spent by the previous Government-has been exceptionally well received by the industry. It puts the promotion of wool funding on a secure and long term basis. Many studies show that that money is well spent, that promoting wool is effective in terms of ensuring increased and enhanced sales for that product. I certainly welcome the increased money as well . Overall the appropriations are very good news indeed for primary producers. A number of other areas, such as increased depreciation allowances on buildings, will affect income producing buildings for farmers such as silos for which they will get the benefit of increased depreciation rates, and our decision regarding the diesel fuel excise and the rebate there. So overall it is a very good Budget . I am very pleased to speak in support of the estimate and appropriation. Mr Ian Cameron —Madam Deputy Chairman, could I make a personal explanation and ask Hansard to withdraw my reference to the price support for dairy products? Mr Chynoweth —Ah, you are backing off now. Mr Ian Cameron —I misunderstood the item. I thought that amount was for the new milk underwriting scheme, but it is not. It is for-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! Will the honourable member be seated. I suggest that he speak to me privately later on and we can discuss that matter with Hansard. Unless the honourable member takes a point of order the matter cannot be discussed at the moment. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(4.20) —We are dealing now with the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry. I do not think anyone in this chamber would debate that primary industry is where all of Australia's original wealth comes from. The leader in this field is the agriculture sector. That is evidenced by some words written recently that point out that the dry land grain industry is strategically important to this nation. In 1983-84 it had a gross income of $5, 100m compared with the income in 1982 of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd of $4,500m and that of Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd of $1,900m. The grain industry is a very substantial industry, and alone is responsible for the employment of about 100,000 people. I take issue with the previous speaker, the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), who informed the chamber of what a wonderful benefit a drop in the consumer price index was to farmers. There are figures which prove that drops in the inflation rate, that is, inflation as it affects farmers, are very important . I think it is running at almost $100m per one per cent. To suggest that a drop in the CPI will have excellent effects on farmers is not true. The CPI is really the housewives or home owners index. It does not always reflect the situation of farmers. This is so particularly in recent times when government taxes on fuel, for instance, are now close to 3c a litre. It is very clear that these sorts of costs do not reflect on the household budget the way they do on a farmer's costs . I do not think farmers yet believe that their inflation rate is going down. I think they are a little like taxpayers who are being told that they are getting a tax refund when in fact they know that their tax refund cheques are much lower this year than they were the previous year. Nevertheless, after having been critical in that regard, I congratulate the Government on its decision to float the Australian dollar. No group is better served by that decision than the primary sector. I am sure that we can all agree on that. I welcome the comments of our shadow Treasurer, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), last night who also congratulated the Government in that regard. We are very short of time and there are matters about which I am concerned relating to my State of Western Australia and to my electorate in particular. I am pleased to say that we are facing an extremely good harvest, probably the best ever. Estimates are that Western Australian wheat growers will produce some seven million tonnes of wheat. Nevertheless, I am particularly concerned about the off-farm costs that have been mentioned by other speakers, how they will affect people this year and how the people involved, such as the railways and their unions and, of course, the grain handlers and their unions, will treat this record harvest which clearly cannot be kept anywhere but in ships' holds as it is exported away to Australia's profit. Of course, this year we have already seen the shameful exercise in New South Wales whereby a group of greedy men who were earning $1,000 a week refused employment to an additional 80 people by the introduction of a third shift. In the process they hit the innocent wheat producers at a cost which they estimate at $17m. That is not a criticism of the Government, although I believe that both State and Federal governments have to learn to be tougher with people of this nature. The fact is that this is a group of greedy men. In my view people who claim that they are disadvantaged by having to drop their incomes from $1,000 to, say, $800 a week are not very honest. The issue has to be addressed. The other issue I raise is a warning. Many people in many parts of Australia are particularly concerned about the proposal that a flat levy will be imposed under the new licensing scheme that will raise enough money to pay for the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. I want it very clearly understood that this is not an anti-Tasmanian statement. It is a pro-mainland, wheat farmer statement. Clearly, the government of the day has the right to subsidise the problems of Tasmania. I do not object to overcoming Tasmania's remoteness. However, great questions have to be asked, such as whether other wheat farmers should be called on to subsidise that freight. I do not believe that that is the way it should be done. I am not one for cross-subsidies of any sort. I protest to the Government in advance of considering those matters. I have already referred to fuel indexation and the problems that it presents to the farmer. I protest to the Government because my clear understanding of the Budget Papers is that in the past there was a ceiling on the fuel rebate. During the Fraser days the amount of money paid was equal to the amount of excise imposed on diesel fuel, which was an input cost at a time when there was no guarantee of income to a farmer. That fuel was then taxed at and rebated at 7. 155c a litre. The situation we are confronted with today is that the farmer is taxed at 9.397c a litre and rebated at 7.155c a litre. Furthermore, the Government promises to return to the indexation of the 7.155c a litre in February of next year after another set of automatic indexation. It is clear that by then farmers will have a differential of excise in excess of 3c a litre. The other fact is that we are then to index them both at the same rate. So we are to index the lower and the higher figure at the same rate. So the higher figure will continue to climb away from the lower figure. Consequently, farmers will pay an ever-increasing amount of excise on the fuel they use to put a crop in the ground, with no guarantee whatsoever of a crop. This was best demonstrated in 1982. I do not think that is the way that farmers should be taxed. They should not be taxed in advance. It is tough enough getting a living out there, as many speakers have agreed. The other issue I touch on, and the Minister for Prime Industry (Mr Kerin) is aware of my great concern about this matter, is the meat inspection charges and their huge cost to Federal revenue, to producers and to many others. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) raised the costs that could be saved by the Queensland Government. Time and again I have brought to the Minister evidence that local government inspectors in Western Australia provide their services for even less than the Queensland Government inspectors do. In my view, basic inspection does not need Commonwealth involvement. It involves a huge cost. The Commonwealth could purely provide supervisors and let its inspectors become employees of the abattoirs, supervised by our people who could be well paid and, hopefully, above corruption. Included in the present arrangement is the inspection and the slaughter of meat that is to go to Muslim countries, the halal slaughter arrangements. In recent times a religious monopoly has been established according to the terms of a group known as the Australian Federation of Islamic Councillors. Recently, Mr Trevor Dare of the Department of Primary Industry was sent a telex of which I will read part. It was dated 28 June 1984 and was signed by Mr B. L. Dwyer, the Managing Director of Melbourne Cold Stores in Brunswick, Victoria. It states: As of today we regret that we will no longer be able to handle Halal export meat. Gaafar Abdalla Mohammed, self-appointed Victorian Chief Supervisor of Halal Export Establishment has decreed we employ our resident Muslim only on supervisory duties. Other duties such as labouring are demeaning to his gifted status as an expert administrator. I skip a paragraph. The telex continues: As our total meat exports per week are presently less than two containers we cannot afford the luxury of $520 per week for a so-called supervisor, who would work approximately 2 hours per week at supervising Halal exports. For the last 4 weeks Gaafar Abdalla Mohammed has been attempting to blackmail DPI licensed Victorian meat export establishments into employing one of his henchmen as a supervisor at unbelievable rates such as $500 cash plus illegal perks for 2 hours work. We also intend to inform the Taxation Department of instances where Mohammed has openly incited transgression of Australian tax laws by his supervisors. The telex goes on to talk about criminal blackmail. AFIC is an organisation that operates within Australia. It has made arrangements through its religious connections in certain countries. At the moment, if Australia wishes to export to those countries, it is obliged to use these people. One can see what it is doing to the industry. It has forced a considerable increase in costs. It is time that the Minister addressed the issue. The only way he will do that is for the Government to have the courage of going to the importing countries and saying: 'We have the responsibility to guarantee you that this meat is killed in the proper way. We will issue an export certificate and that export certificate will be issued by us and by persons of whom we approve'. The fact is that these people will not let people employed under their certificate be employed by anyone else. It is a shocking monopoly which is doing great harm to the potential of the Australian meat export industry. It should be stopped now before it gets any worse. That is only an example of what is going on. I can give other examples of companies having to close because they have been unable to handle the increased costs and ridiculous pressures imposed by these people. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —Madam Deputy Chair, I would like to make a personal explanation. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Does the honourable member seek the Chair's indulgence to correct a figure? Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I will grant that indulgence if you correct the figure which you mis-stated without entering into argument. Mr IAN CAMERON —In my speech I quoted the figure $12.5m by mistake. I should not have used any figure because I was referring to the new arrangement that the dairy industry has come to with the Federal Government in relation to stabilising the sale of milk interstate. Mr PORTER(Barker)(4.31) —The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) suggested during his earlier contribution to this debate that his Government was aware of the problems relating to our international competitive position. I do not believe that his Cabinet does understand the problems which this Budget creates in the erosion of our international competitive position. Primary industry is largely reliant on exporting. The ability of our farmers to compete on overseas markets depends on the cost of production in Australia compared with the cost of production of our competitors overseas. Farmers, therefore, have a deep concern with the overall impact of the Budget, what it will do to the domestic cost of production and what it will do to interest rates and to our exchange rate and what the overall effect will be on our international competitive position. As exporters farmers are not price setters; they are price takers. We do not and cannot control international prices. Mr Gear —We can. Mr PORTER —'We can', says the honourable member for Tangney. I wonder whether he will fill us in on how we can. I think that is the problem with the Australian Labor Party. It believes that it can do these miraculous things and it bases its policies on that. If there are cost increases at home they will directly reduce farmers' returns. Unlike many domestic manufacturers selling on the domestic market, farmers cannot increase their prices to recover increases in costs of production. I give this very basic outline of the economic situation because for primary industry it is basic to an evaluation of this Budget. There is no doubt that this is a very big spending Budget. In fact it is the largest spending Budget since World War II. Government spending will account for some 31.1 per cent of gross domestic product. To put this increase in spending in perspective I refer to the increase in spending by recent governments. Under the Whitlam Government the real average annual increase in government spending was 10 per cent and farmers will readily recall the effect that had on farm incomes. Under the Fraser Government the real average annual growth rate in spending was 2.2 per cent. Under this Hawke Government the average annual growth rate in outlays is around 6.9 per cent. That is in excess of three times the growth rate of spending of the Fraser Government. Of course this enormous increase in outlays has to be funded and under the Hawke Government there have been very large increases in the rate of growth of both taxes and the deficit. For example, the average annual growth rate in real terms of personal income tax collections under this Government is double the growth which occurred under the Fraser Government. The two Hawke Budget deficits of $8 billion and $6.7 billion are grotesque compared with the largest Fraser Government deficit of $4.3 billion. This situation is made even worse when one considers that there are a number of once-off elements in the Budget which will reap extra revenue for the Government this year but will not recur next year. For example, as a result of the breaking of the drought provisional tax collections are expected to rise dramatically this year. A massive increase of 44.7 per cent in provisional tax collections is expected. On the other hand the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has forecast a 30 per cent fall in farm incomes ; so clearly that surge in tax recoveries will not be repeated next year. That highlights the fact that, whilst there is a big spending, big taxing, big deficit Budget this year, next year the Australian community, under this free spending government, will inevitably be faced with very substantial tax increases. The concern of primary industry is that the burden of such profligate spending will be felt most by farmers and other exporters. The Government should have recognised by now the impact the farming sector has on the economy. Last year the Government reaped the benefit of the increase in farm spending following the breaking of the drought. This year it will reap the benefit of a substantial increase in provisional tax from farmers. Yet in this Budget the Government has jeopardised the future of primary industry with its big spending, big taxing and big deficit which will erode our international competitive position. The Livestock and Grain Producers Association said after the Budget: The deficit will hold interest and therefore exchange rates at levels higher than they otherwise would be. This will continue to damage Australia's international competitiveness. The Budget was a negotiated deal between big business, the big unions and the big Government. The deal ignores the interests of the majority of Australians, the consumers, small business, private entrepreneurs, the exporters and, in particular, farmers. The Government had a golden opportunity to use the surge in revenue to reduce the deficit and reduce taxation. Thereby it could have laid the foundation for sustained real economic growth by allowing the private sector to expand and by laying the foundation for an improvement in our international competitive position to assist our exporters. Instead, it has sought short term political gain and bowed to the socialist dogma of greatly increasing spending, increasing the size of government and inevitably increasing the size of the tax take. In the words of the National Farmers Federation after the Budget: The opportunity to lower interest rates substantially and so improve our international competitive position has been lost by this blatant election budget . The plain facts of the matter are that this big spending, big taxing, big deficit Budget will mean that our inflation rate, our interest rates and our exchange rate will be higher than they would have been with an economically responsible Budget. As a result we will lose some of our competitive advantage on world markets, leading to a further reduction in farm incomes, a reduction in domestic economic growth, a reduction in employment opportunities and a lower Australian standard of living.The farming community is being realistic, sensible and consistent in its approach to this important economic issue. It is not seeking a substantial increase in Government handouts and at the same time calling for a reduction in the size of government and the size of the Budget deficit. I believe it has adopted a responsible attitude. Its pre-Budget submission to the Government stated: Consistent with its request for a substantial reduction in the budget deficit NFF is not proposing a real increase in outlays to the rural sector as a whole. Notwithstanding the fact that the Government has withdrawn a number of rural sector benefits over the past 12 months NFF considers the problem of the Budget deficit to be of such magnitude that all sectors must be prepared to share the burden of restraint. The Government's failure to address properly those fundamental economic concerns will have a serious and damaging effect on the future of primary industry. As if the Government's short-sighted Budget strategy was not sufficient to break the heart of the hard-working horticulturalists, in this Budget it imposed a 10 per cent tax on wine. The Government has sacrificed long term economic growth for supposed short term political gain. All Australians will suffer from this ugly grab for power. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.41) —Many of the things that honourable members have said about the wheat industry are true. Over the past few years wheat prices have not increased but costs have. The problem is that the wheat industry has to absorb those cost increases by productivity increases. Although we export 85 per to 95 per cent on the export market, we are price takers. Basically, the United States of America determines the price. We cannot get into the business of competitive subsidisation. The scope for further productivity increases-particularly with respect to our wheat breeding program and the scope for productivity increases per hectare-is giving all people in the wheat industry much concern. I shall raise only a couple of quite serious matters and points that need to be corrected. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) stated that Australia is the only country that imposes a meat inspection charge. I shall go through some of our major competitors and set out the facts. The Food Safety and Inspection Service in the United States recovers costs incurred in providing an export inspection service when those services exceed the basic services provided for mandatory inspection for domestic consumption. In Argentina, a charge of approximately 80c per head, plus 0.8 per cent of the sale price on all stock, is levied. Inspection fees in Eire cover most of the costs of meat inspection. The United Kingdom local authorities were authorised in 1976 to make changes that were necessary to recoup costs, subject to ministerial approval that those costs were reasonable. While charges vary between States in West Germany, the ultimate aim is to recover all costs for inspection and supervision services. In France, a health tax is levied on all meat, but there is no assurance that it is sufficient to cover all inspection costs, and there is a tax for the organisation of meat markets. The Netherlands inspection service is financed by charging users fees based on a sliding scale while the Government meets the deficits. The inspection service in Sweden is entirely self-funded. In Japan, prefectural and municipal authorities are responsible for meat inspection and all charges. In New Zealand since 1 October 1978 there has been no charge for meat. However, there are licence fees and slaughter fees on a headage basis which are unrelated to inspection costs. Those fees are used to help to support the Pork Industry Council and the New Zealand Meat Producers Board. That brief recitation of some countries' meat inspection charges very clearly indicates that other countries impose charges for meat inspection. The honourable member for Maranoa and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) mentioned the business of handing export inspection to the Queensland Government or letting the local government in Western Australia perform the job. There are virtually four systems of meat inspection in Western Australia, including the non-inspection system of inspection. The problem is that the countries to which we sell set certain standards. The standard that is taken as the basic one is that of the United States Department of Agriculture. Standards for the European Economic Community are set by a body called the Third Country Veterinary Directive. It is all very well to say that local government inspectors in Western Australia or meat inspectors in Queensland could do the job; the problem is that we have to sell our products on the export market. Those countries lay down the rules governing whether we are to obtain access to their markets. They are the customers and they buy our meat. Honourable members lose sight of the fact that it is very important to have a national meat inspection service so that we have flexibility and can avoid some of the problems associated with people not being employed for certain periods. I will not tolerate this constant accusation by the Opposition that the Export Inspection Service is inefficient. We are dealing with people who have to travel to seasonal sheds. They are real human beings with wives and children. Wives have to go to all sorts of places that are hard to live in; this must disrupt their children's education. Suddenly the honourable members on the other side of the chamber think, because they believe that they are born to rule and because of their hatred for the work force, that those people are not to be treated in the ordinary way. The 22 inspectors from the Tennant Creek abattoir who were suspended and did not work for nearly two years suffered devastating emotional problems because of that suspension. They faced marriage breakups and all sorts of other problems. It reflects very severely on Opposition members to regard those people as less than human. The honourable member for O'Connor raised the matter of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. The problem is that we are not dealing with a Christian country. We are not in the position to make a decision on the proper Islamic ritual for the slaughter of meat. Meat industry members need to act together to correct some of the abuses that are alleged to occur. Since the Australian Labor Party has been in government we have tried to get the whole question of halal slaughter into an organised, regularised framework. We have set up a fees tribunal, and we are negotiating constantly with AFIC. We have been to the countries concerned which make arrangements with AFIC in this country or with other Islamic communities for the purpose of halal certification . At the Department of Primary Industry level we have since l January this year issued a certificate certifying that the meat has been halal certified-in other words, there is an extra check. We are making progress with this whole question via the process of quiet negotiation with AFIC. Recently, the people in that organisation have changed. We are reaching a point of understanding of the problems that are alleged to occur in the meat industry. I shall briefly address a few comments to the contribution by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) who made the sweeping statement that farmers cannot pass on their costs. Most farmers cannot pass on their costs, particularly those who are price takers on the international market but, of course, many farmers can. There are large consumer transfers in the dairy, egg, sugar, dried vine fruit and deciduous canning fruit industries. The honourable member for Barker focused also on the deficit. We need always to differentiate between the structural and the cyclical parts of the deficit. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. If it wants the deficit to be much lower-$5 billion or something like that-the Opposition cannot at the same time say that the tax cut is not real, because it would then also have to cut the deficit. Would the Opposition tax more? Would it wipe out Medicare and what we are doing with housing? Would the Opposition wipe out what the Government is doing with respect to employment creation? The fact is that the previous Government was a taxing government; it was not an axing government. What the previous Government did by increasing fuel prices by 300 per cent is pretty firm evidence of that. The level of debt has been emphasised. Over the seven years of the terms of the previous Government the debt rose from $20.3 billion to $39.1 billion. That is the reason why we are in so much trouble. The level of our deficit with respect to interest rates is very important. We have got the deficit down by $1,200m. I point out to honourable members that I believe that the level of the United States deficit and what is done in that economy affects interest rates in this country far more than anything we do in this place. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Industry and Commerce Proposed expenditure, $203,692,000. Department of Science and Technology Proposed expenditure, $554,514,000. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(4.50) —An outstanding feature of these Estimates and the Budget is the Government's failure to realise the importance of small and medium sized enterprises in the Australian economy. The Government fails in the Budget to recognise that small business is the big employer in Australia. There are some 750,000 enterprises in Australia, 93 per cent of them employing fewer than 10 people-that is, 700,000 firms in Australia out of 750,000 are generally regarded as small businesses. This Government in the Budget has totally ignored them. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) did not even mention the importance of small business to the economy in the Budget Speech. The Department of Industry and Commerce estimates refer to an initiative, an upgrading of the small business program, and one sees the figure of $200,000. That is a charade because last year's estimate was $100,000. All that is said in these estimates about the importance of small and medium sized enterprises in the economy lies in the reference to a small business program. That is very worthy, but I would have liked the Government in the Budget to have given attention to its pre-election promises. Some 18 months after coming to office, none of the Australian Labor Party's pre-election promises in the area of taxation relief for small business has been put into effect. It is worth remembering that before the election Labor promised full retention of profits to small companies where the funds were used for genuine business purposes. Labor promised small business the option of provisional tax to be paid in quarterly instalments. Labor also promised small business that it would amend the Sales Tax Act to allow a full month for remittance of tax owing, extending it from 21 to 30 days. Another pre-election promise not honoured in this Budget was to exempt from tax industrial research and development grants to small and medium sized enterprises. In two Budgets and one mini-Budget none of those tax promises to small business has been honoured. The importance of small and medium sized enterprise, which is at the heart of the Australian economy, has been ignored in these Budget estimates. Small business is not looking for handouts or for subsidies. It is looking for the opportunity for a fair go. It is looking for room to breathe and to operate. A large deficit in this Budget is a death blow to entrepreneurship in this country. It is well accepted that, because of the former Government's wages policy, the United States recovery and the breaking of the drought, there is some recovery occurring in the Australian economy and that this is the time to make a good harvest and not to blow it. In this Budget by expanding the deficit the Government has ruined the opportunity for small and medium sized enterprises throughout this year and next year to grow and to invest. The Government has blown it in this Budget. The Government does not realise that small and medium sized enterprises are the key to economic growth and to the health and wealth of the economy. This is a big-union government-and big unions are not concerned about small firms. This Government, through the prices and wages accord, has locked small business out of its thinking and out of its Budget. The fact that the Treasurer did not once mention small business in the Budget Speech makes me realise, as I hope Australia will realise, that the needs and requirements, the proper climate and environment for small business to grow and prosper in this country were not even taken into account in the Cabinet room. In the Cabinet room the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the union movement, told the Government what it ought to do. Small business, I bet, was not mentioned-and that comes through in the fact its importance was not once mentioned in the Budget Speech. That is outrageous. I believe that this Government has a hit list for small business. The wine tax which was imposed in the Budget hits the smaller firm hardest of all. I refer to the small family winery which is so characteristic and typical of the industry and which produces the higher quality and higher priced wine. That type of business is hit hardest of all. The same is happening in this Budget as occurred in the last Budget. In the Cabinet process in consulting the trade unions as to what the Budget should contain, no reference is made to the importance of small business. It is not understood. Therefore, last year the tax on fortified wine was imposed and struck at the smaller family wine firm. This year that attitude is displayed in the composition of a wine tax. If one examines what the Government has done in the Budget, the previous Budget and the mini-Budget one sees that the Government by its hit list has attacked small business. For example, the indexation of excises is a Budget item, with six-monthly automatic cost increases in excises on fuel, liquor and cigarettes. I have already mentioned the tax on fortified wines. There was a broken sales tax election promise in respect of retreaded tyres, which hits the truckies as well as the bus and coach operators-many small businesses. The new tax on superannuation lump sums fails to appreciate the importance of investment in small business by people retiring. The present Government does not appreciate that it needs to consider the effect of every measure it brings in in creating the right healthy economic climate for a prosperous small business sector. The Government amended the tax status of section 23F superannuation funds-again, an anti-investment move affecting investment in small business. Again, the assets test discourages people who retire from having investments in small businesses. The Government also abolished the dividend rebate-a rebate which encouraged private ownership of shares by employees in firms, a trend one would have thought this Government would have sought to encourage. One of the most outrageous things done by the present Government is to support the jobs protection case of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This Government, together with all the State Labor governments, supported the ACTU's application in the job protection case. This has imposed an enormous burden on every small and medium sized enterprise as well as every large enterprise in Australia. Every firm must put aside large sums of money for redundancy payments. In fact, the value of many firms is wiped out by this decision of the Arbitration Commission, wholeheartedly supported by this Government. The decision will choke many small businesses. Furthermore, it will reduce the opportunity of those small businesses to employ people at this time of high unemployment. It will also choke any economic recovery. The job protection decision is a positive disincentive to small and medium sized firms to take on more employees. There will be great unemployment next year. The opportunities for next year's school leavers will be hit very hard by that decision. Firms will not take on, and are discouraged from taking on, new employees because of the amount they have to set aside in their books for redundancy payments. I see that the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) is in the House to listen to the debate and to hear what this Government has not done for small business. The Minister is always asking about our small business policy. I say to the Minister that the Opposition is developing the most comprehensive and sensitive small business policy in the history of this country. We have gone out and consulted small business. The Labor Government has ignored small business, the Treasurer has insulted small business publicly and every small business organisation in Australia-or every one that I have seen-has condemned this Budget. As part of the consultative process the Opposition held a successful national small business conference to provide input into its policy and to create public awareness. I hoped that the Minister had read some of the Press comments. Mr John Brown —Yes, we did. Mr SHIPTON —Then I wish he had taken some notice of them. He does not even have the influence to get the Treasurer to mention the words 'small business' in the Budget. The honourable member gets up in the House and says that he is a successful small businessman-successful under a Liberal administration, I might point out. I am glad that the honourable member was successful. But why does not the Minister go into the Cabinet room and get the Government to honour some of its taxation promises to small business? Small business would have liked to see even one or two such promises brought to fruition, but none of the Government's taxation promises to small business have been honoured in the Budget. That is an outrage. I ask the Minister to do something about it. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(5.00) —It was interesting to hear the speech of the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton). I am sure that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, would recognise that, in the series called The Ascent of Man, Jacob Bronowski, speaking about Hitler, said: 'Dogma is something that if you repeat loudly enough and often enough you come to believe. Then it begins to rattle around inside your empty head until that is all you understand'. That is just what we have had. I know that the Minister understands that. We on this side of the chamber certainly understand it. Mr Barry Jones —But there is a difference; he doesn't believe it. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The honourable member for Higgins does not believe it. We had this enormous output of repetition. The difficulty when we are talking about small business is that the picture runs very much against what the honourable member for Higgins has said. We have to talk about the general economic picture. Let us go through it very quickly. The general economic picture in Australia is a better one than was facing business under the previous Government. If the honourable member for Higgins had chosen to stay in the chamber he would understand that there was a record level of bankruptcies under his Government. After the depression there was a record level of bankruptcies in small business. That is exactly what happened. Honourable members opposite have to face that. Many people lost their livelihood because of the incompetence of the previous Government. It is no good now embracing the failed John Stone and having John Stone and John Howard in some absolutely fruitless marriage trying to make out that they can predict the economic future for us. Honourable members opposite bankrupted the country and the people know it. Small business was absolutely crushed under the former Government. What has happened under this Government? Let us look at the cost side of small business. We have a lower rate of inflation-that is the first thing-and a wage structure in which we have an effective system of wage indexation, and we have a substantially reduced rate of industrial disputes, the lowest for 20 years. Leaving honourable members opposite in charge of industrial relations was literally like letting arsonists loose with kerosene. They really made a mess of it. We have managed to get the show back on the road. Let us keep going on the costs side. Something that honourable members opposite absolutely neglected-I notice that the honourable member for Higgins did not point this out-is the issue of workers compensation. Some of his mates in the legal industry make a lot of money out of workers compensation under the current common law arrangements. One of the crippling things facing small business is workers compensation costs. Honourable members opposite never address that question because they are locked into the antiquated system which looks after the insurance industry and some of the lawyers but does nothing for small business and certainly does nothing for industrial safety and accident reduction . Workers compensation is something that we are prepared to address. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has already said that we will work towards a single insurer, no fault compensation scheme, and that will be a major gain for small business. Let us look at the demand side. The demand side of small business is something that honourable members opposite never understood. Again, with that failed Treasury head, John Stone, they felt that they could drag the economy further into recession and that somehow some revival might come out of it. It did not work. They had larger numbers of bankruptcies. We have decided to move the economy upwards, to work for economic growth. Honourable members opposite succeeded very well! They had minus 2.5 per cent economic growth. That was a great achievement! They really had to put their best efforts into that. That was wonderful! Mr John Brown —That was one of their better years. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Yes, that was one of their better years. They really worked hard at it. We have turned the situation around. We have 10 per cent economic growth. The facts tell a very convincing story. Honourable members opposite ought to understand that the tax cuts that we have now brought in will substantially affect consumption spending and that will be a big boost to small business. The other thing to which I refer in terms of small business is this most awkward situation in that there is a substantial recovery in the housing industry. Members of the community know it-they are now getting into homes-and so do the people who build the houses. The commencement rate under the previous Government was 105,000 per annum and the commencement rate in the first year of operation of our scheme was 135,000. Again, the facts tell a very convincing story. As I said earlier, honourable members cannot get away with a dogmatic statement by simply repeating something loudly enough and often enough and hoping to convince people that they are telling the truth, because the facts do not run with it. The honourable member for Higgins must understand that. He is just not telling a convincing story. What we have in terms of an approach to small business is a recognition that we can do something on the cost side. I have talked about the impact on interest rates. For example, the 90-day and 180-day bill market is now 5 per cent below what it was when this Government took office from honourable members opposite. There has been a 5 per cent reduction in the cost of money that small business has to get. We also have a substantial improvement in terms of industrial disputes. We have the economy moving again in terms of general economic growth. Also, our attitude to industrial disputes represents a much better approach to industrial relations. People now know that they will not be knocked over by other people in an absolutely incompetent effort to manage industrial relations, as was the case under the previous Government. With respect to attitudes towards the market and the taking on of issues such as financial deregulation, we are the ones who have shown that we understand something about the operation of the economy. Honourable members opposite, unfortunately, have shown that they do not really understand it. I am suggesting that it is not good enough for the Opposition to say that our attitude to small business is wrong. In fact, the figures tell a very convincing story. I make two observations with respect to science and technology. The first is that the Minister for Science and Technology deserves a great compliment because , for the first time in Australia since the recovery after World War II, someone is giving the general community a sense of direction and purpose. That is a major role that can be played by a Minister in government. It is something which was totally lacking under previous Ministers and which has emerged under this Minister. The interesting thing is that the research continues to show that. The people out there respect his integrity and his intelligence and believe that he is providing some leadership. It is interesting when people opposite jump up and down and make a lot of noise in this place that if we try to think of the Ministers of the previous governments who provided any leadership or any contribution whatsoever we find that there is a lamentable lack of people. Honourable members opposite have to face that. I say again that it is no good Opposition members bleating loudly and repeating the same thing over and over again in this place, because they are just not right. All they do every time they open their mouths is convince us that they are further in error. I am suggesting that here we have someone who has provided some leadership. The community knows it and we in this place know it. That is why Opposition members are at great pains at Question Time. The Minister has something to say, which is more than I can say for those opposite. I wish to leave a couple of questions with the Minister concerning the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Floreat Park laboratory. I wish to raise three issues. The Minister is aware that there are some problems with respect to occupational health and safety at the Floreat Park laboratory. Firstly, with respect to the Budget appropriation of $8.1m for repairs and maintenance of the CSIRO's plant, equipment and buildings, no amount is specified for urgent repairs at the Floreat Park laboratory. The best figure we can come up with is the sum of approximately $265,000. If we were to undertake the sorts of repairs and maintenance that are required at the CSIRO's Floreat Park laboratory, we would certainly need a much larger appropriation than that. One of the questions that I would be pleased if the Minister could answer with respect to this area is what is proposed with respect to the expenditure by the CSIRO upon upgrading the laboratory where, as I have said, there is an occupational health and safety problem. The second point that comes out is that there is an urgent need for an epidemiological study at the Floreat Park laboratory. I know that a panel of four people has been nominated for that area. I believe that it is very important that we know very soon who will head up that study. One of the people who worked in that laboratory, Mr John Hill, is suffering from motor neuron disease. We are facing the reality that we have to deal with a compensation matter whilst we still have the person involved alive. I am very concerned that if we do not commence that epidemiological study very quickly we will have some problems there. Thirdly, we need a wide ranging occupational health and safety study, not just an epidemiological study, at the Floreat Park laboratory. There are a lot of interrelationships between organic chemicals and many problems have arisen in that laboratory. Certainly, many complex issues have arisen with respect to the plumbing and the air conditioning which can be addressed only by an occupational health and safety study. As far as industry and commerce is concerned, this Government has a very good policy on small business. I refute what members of the Opposition said. We have a Minister who has provided leadership in science and technology and we will have a much better future because we have someone who is capable of looking into the future. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(5.10) —I should like to refer to the latter remarks of the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards). I have previously acknowledged that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has contributed much to lifting awareness in the country of science and technology. But it is also important-in just those circumstances, even more important-to deliver the goods. That is what the Minister has not done. His predecessor, the Hon. David Thomson, certainly delivered the goods. In the science and technology statement that the Minister put down in this Parliament yesterday, one sees that in the five years from 1978-79 to 1983-84 expenditure on government funded research and development increased by 3 per cent per annum in real terms. This year we have had a standstill in money terms and that amounts, in effect, to a cut. Mr Hodgman —An unkind cut. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —A very substantial cut. Mr McGauran —On the Minister's own admission. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —That is right. Whether one reads the journal of the Australian Academy of Science or the very respected weekly Computer World, one finds that the Budget is referred to as the worst science and technology budget on record. Mr Hodgman —They gave the Minister a vasectomy. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —His effectiveness has been reduced in some way or other. There has been a positively outrageous treatment of basic science, which is a foundation stone of the economy and fundamental-- Mr McGauran —They gave it to sport. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Sport and recreation was up by about 60 per cent. It is a big ticket item at that. The fact is that the total budget for science and technology increased by only 1.6 per cent, in this big spending Budget, with a 13 per cent increase overall. One could add, as an important technology initiative, the taxation expenditure involved in the management and investment companies, which gives one another several points of increase. But still one does not get an increase for science and technology that even keeps up with inflation. It is totally short-sighted and unacceptable. With respect particularly to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Australian research grants scheme, it is an outrageous Budget. A government that can come up with this sort of result stands utterly condemned. What is particularly galling is that this allocation for science and technology has taken place, as I have said, in the context of so many large increases elsewhere, increases of 60 per cent to 80 per cent or more in a large number of big spending, big ticket items. Even if the tax cut had been $7.25 instead of an average of $7.60, that would have provided enough for science and technology to have expanded a little in real terms and, with that, to expand the long term job security of Australians. But when the big unions crack the whip, the Minister gets trampled on. Under items of expenditure on government administrative services, which the Committee considered earlier today, there has been an increase of more than 20 per cent in real terms over the two Labor Budgets; that is, the actual deployment of real resources, public servants, cups of tea and so on, has risen by 20 per cent over this period. It is a nice ironic touch that 'General and Scientific Research' appears right next to 'Administrative Services' in Budget Paper No. 1. Expenditure under 'General and Scientific Research' shows a decrease over the two Labor years of 10 per cent in real terms. I could mention many other items, such as the Parliament House Construction Authority, for which there is an increase of just about $50m, or just short of 80 per cent, with $41. 7m of that being for the 35 extra members and senators that the Government insisted that there be. One could go on and on. The cost of all that largesse in items that I have just been mentioning, in this typically socialist Labor, big spending, financed by big taxes and big borrowing Budget, is that the CSIRO, Australia's premier research organisation, has to cut by over 4 per cent its mainstream areas of basic research, which have long been, and will continue to be in this increasingly technological age, a foundation stone of Australia's long term economic health. Mr Hodgman —It got a funding vasectomy too, did it? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Without doubt. The CHAIRMAN —It is a bit rough that the honourable member for Denison keeps interrupting the honourable member's flow. That is not helping. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —My colleagues are supporting me, Madam Chair. Only this morning, as I mentioned in Question Time, there was a meeting at the CSIRO's Division of Plant Industry, the largest division of CSIRO, of all the staff to canvass the possibility of all members from the Chief of the Division down, taking up to five days voluntary leave without pay as a contribution to meeting part-I stress 'part'-of the shortfall in that Division's budget. Another aspect of the cutback is the loss of 19 positions in the Division. The Chief put to the members of the Division that, if this could be worked in so as not to seriously disrupt scientific experiments, the work of the Division could survive. What a deplorable, outrageous state of affairs it is that Australia's internationally recognised effort in science, which really is a jewel in our crown and a fundamental building stone of the long term economic health of Australia, should be treated thus. Particularly affected also is the Australian research grants scheme-the ARGS- the key research funding scheme in Australia, particularly in respect of the universities. The allocation to the ARGS has been increased by just 6.5 per cent to $23.88m, which, with the escalating costs of equipment, means a virtual standstill. At the last election, the Labor Party solemnly promised-and the Minister was most vocal about it-that the funding of the ARGS would be increased by 10 per cent above the inflation rate each year under a Labor government. So much for that promise, among many other Labor promises. What the lack of funding for the ARGS will mean in 1985 is that only two out of every 10 worthy, world standard, new proposals for scientific research in Australia will be funded. Furthermore, 140 out of 1,037 projects approved in previous years and meriting continuous support will have to be terminated. In all, 732 worthy projects cannot be financed for 1985, as compared with only 361-and that was bad enough- currently. The Australian Research Grants Committee has gone to the length of introducing a category of 'nil grant', which is not a sick joke but a means of underlining the fact that these projects are in the front rank by world standards but there are simply no funds available. Instead of $23.88m, what the Committee needed was at least $49m. If I thought that such a move had a ghost of a chance of getting up, I would move that the appropriation for the ARGS be increased by $10m, which would be commensurate with the Minister's pre-election promises and perfectly feasible within this big spending $63,900m Budget. That would go some way towards meeting the needs of Australia's top researchers. The bitter reality is that, as things stand, it is impossible for Australia to keep up with technological and scientific developments here and abroad. The Minister should resign. The fact that, as a man of integrity, he does not resign gives credence to the proposition that the situation will be 'rectified' next year and in future years. That can mean only one thing. Having upped so many existing programs and introduced new ones, and with others such as science and technology to be restored, the Government has substantially lifted the Budget outlay total overall. Consequently, should the Labor Party form the government next year, there will have to be either a significant increase on the revenue side-that is, high or new taxes-or a big lift in the structural deficit, another big deficit, another big addition to the national debt. Government members interjecting- Dr HARRY EDWARDS —With some appreciation percolating through of the dangers of that latter course we can be sure that what will happen is that there will be substantial lifts in existing taxes and there will be new taxes. The leopard-I refer to this Labor Government or any other Labor government-has not changed its spots. It is a great shame that science and technology is the sacrificial lamb. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders)(5.20) —I rise to speak on the estimates for the Department of Science and Technology, a very vital department within the Australian Government. Science and technology is one area of the Budget that I feel could have been granted a better deal than the small increase it received. Under Labor, the Department of Science and Technology has initiated many new ideas and brought them to fruition and action. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has been advocating for many years a better deal for science and technology and the future. I am certain that he, just as I am, is disappointed with what has been allocated in this Budget. Science and technology are major factors which will determine the directions and standards of Australian society in the future. These directions and standards can be achieved only by looking ahead and projecting into the future the effects of the products which are being developed now and which may be developed. I repeat that science and technology is the area which will determine our future. Not enough people within this Parliament and the surrounding bureaucracy care to look at the future. They are reacting to today's issues-the issues which some journalist has seized upon and beefed up to become a major item of interest. For many years we have been supporting ailing industries by giving them many millions of dollars in various ways. Those old industries are receiving money to prop them up. This money should be used for research and creating new industries . The Department of Science and Technology must be the catalyst. It must be given the opportunity to update our industries through new technologies before our manufacturing industry is destroyed and we become a nation of assemblers. People are not putting together long term, forward plans. They are not setting targets for the future. One only has to look at how the budget for science and technology is allocated. It is for one year only. To me this is ludicrous. Technological research can take many years. Those projects must be given long term budgets to make certain that their efforts come to fruition for the benefit of all. The Australian research grants scheme has been allocated about $23m for the year-only a 7 per cent increase. To me this is not enough. It must be increased. If we are to have an Australia which is not devoid of our own designed and manufactured technology much more research is needed. If we do not act quickly, Australia as a nation will never gain independence from a few high-tech nations which will, without a doubt, exert their influence over our destiny and over the lives of the people of this nation. The Minister has raised the visibility of science and technology. People are looking towards it as a way to generate new jobs. This cannot be done if we do not do our research now. The ARGS has had the largest increase in applications for grants since its inception. However, many such applications cannot be funded because of the limited money granted to this area. I have been told that over 700 worthwhile projects cannot be funded. Therefore, the benefits that they could have given will be lost. Some 14 per cent of projects under way now will have to be terminated because of a lack of funding. Applicants have only about a 20 per cent chance of obtaining a grant. Worthwhile projects are being rejected. Skilled technicians will have to leave Australia to seek work in their professions overseas. This is not good enough. The Budget allocation in this area must be increased. As all Australian industry will benefit from research done by the Department of Science and Technology it is incumbent on private industry to do more research and also to assist the Department in its own research. If Australia is to look forward confidently to future horizons which will increase the standards of living of all we must rectify the lack of funding to the area of science and technology. A small investment in this area will recoup a huge dividend for Australia. We must have a significant increase in the Budget next year. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(5.25) —Having listened to Government members speak in relation to the appropriation for the Department of Science and Technology, I am reminded of Mark Antony's famous words of some time ago when he said: I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. In this instance we should turn that round and rephrase it to say: 'I come to praise Caesar, not to bury him'. There is not an honourable member in the chamber who does not know that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) is dead and buried so far as his standing within Cabinet and his ability to obtain sufficient appropriations for his Department are concerned. No matter how many crocodile tears members of the Government cry, we know that the reality is that the Minister has been done-to use a colloquialism-like a dinner. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Chynoweth), who I understand is hunting around for another electorate, stressed very strongly the need and importance of funding for the Department of Science and Technology. Yet whose fault is it that there is not sufficient funding? It can be no other person's responsibility than that of the Minister. I only say to the honourable member for Flinders-who may shortly become the former member for Flinders-that I agree entirely with every word he said, bar his first paragraph which was in praise of the Minister. The Minister is deserving of no praise. He is deserving only of some very strong condemnation for failing to fulfil the principal responsibility of his office. His principal responsibility is to ensure sufficient appropriations for his Department. All the grandiose schemes in the world and all the pie in the sky inventions do not make up for the lack of funding. The shadow Minister for Science and Technology, the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), pointed out to the Committee that the previous Minister for Science and Technology, the Hon. David Thomson, was successful year after year in obtaining increases in real terms. Is there any honourable member on the Government side able to contradict that? Is there an honourable member on the Government side, having heard those simple statistics, able to continue to praise the Minister? There is nobody I have a greater personal admiration for in this chamber than the Minister. However, I am not, like my colleagues, going to sit here and listen to false praise from one speaker after another heaped on the Minister who is deserving of nothing but condemnation for letting down his Department and, in doing so, letting down the cause of research and development in this country. I refer specifically to a project which illustrates better than any other the failure of the Minister to obtain sufficient funding. I refer to the Project Aquarius which had three purposes. The first purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness or otherwise of fire bombing of fires by the use of large air tankers. The second objective was to compare the use of fire bombing tankers with conventional fire fighting techniques. The third technique was to carry out a cost benefit analysis of bushfire suppression in Australia. Mr Simmons —Smokey and the Bandit. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I invite the honourable member for Gippsland to ignore the interjections. I ask interjectors to stop interjecting. Mr McGAURAN —Mrs Child, how does one ignore interjections from honourable members of the Government about fire fighting particularly as it relates to Victoria. I remind the honourable member that 65 people lost their lives during the Ash Wednesday fires. If there is any honourable member of the Government who will minimise the importance of developing fire fighting research let him say so clearly and openly rather than by way of sleazy, gutter interjections. Government members interjecting- The CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask honourable members on my right to cease interjecting. They are interfering with the flow of the speech of the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr McGAURAN —Not at all, Mrs Child. Unlike the honourable member who interjected and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) who seems to find this matter as amusing as his colleagues, I place great importance, as does the shadow Minister, on developing the necessary research techniques. Project Aquarius was based at Nowa Nowa in East Gippsland. Some 16 blocks, each of which is 100 hectares, were properly prepared for a lighting so that the effect of a bombing by the Canadian DC6 aircraft which was to be filled with water or retardants and various chemicals could be tested. Regrettably severe wet weather in East Gippsland in the middle of last year prevented those experiments from going ahead. We are now at a crisis point. The preparation of those blocks, each of which is separated by a clearing, will be ineffective within the next few months. In other words, unless the project receives $900,000 within the next few months so that the experiments can be conducted next February and March 1985, most of the research done to date will be wasted, not to mention the opportunity of learning more about fire fighting techniques. In 1980 the Fraser Government commissioned this project so that we could evaluate the effectiveness of fire fighting by fire bombing. It may be that the methods are not as effective as we would have hoped. For instance, it has to be admitted that one conclusion already drawn by the scientists working on the project is that the fire bombing would not have assisted to any great extent the ravages of Ash Wednesday. It must be remembered that the purpose of the project does not simply encompass fire bombing from the air. A whole range of other experiments are also taking place, such as the movement and control of fire fighting, reaction of body heat to fire, and the deployment of fire fighting crews on the ground. Unless we complete the project we will not know, first, the effectiveness of the fire bombing and, secondly, the answers to a whole range of other associated questions which need to be answered if we are to face up to and deal with the problems of fire fighting effectively. Mr Hodgman —It is a scandal involving human lives. Mr McGAURAN —It is a scandal as the honourable member for Denison interjects because human life is at stake, a great deal of property is at risk and there is the question of the environment and damage to the whole areas of forest. My electorate of East Gippsland, which is heavily timbered, suffers bushfires almost every year. We have not suffered to the same extent the loss of life that other parts of Victoria and New South Wales have suffered, but it is something that I very much fear as do many East Gippsland residents. I ask the Minister for Science and Technology who is seated at the table why the Government has stopped this project when we are so close to completing it. The project needs $1.2m to be completed. Three hundred thousand dollars is in hand; so only $900,000 is needed. We will then clear up, probably once and for all, a whole range of questions which need to be answered. But time is against us. We need to organise the whole team-it is a very complex logistical exercise- as well as order and transport from Canada the necessary plane. I find it disappointing, given the tragedy of last year, that we will not allow this project to be completed. I realise that the States, to a very great extent, have abdicated their responsibility. The Minister certainly has my sympathy in dealing with the Victorian State Government which shows little or no interest in East Gippsland. I am unable to advise the Minister whether it is a matter for him to obtain the necessary funding from his Government or from his Labor Party colleague in Victoria. But I can advise him on the merits of this project. I have a great deal of data at my fingertips. If the advice that the Minister is receiving is that the project need not be completed I would strenuously argue against that. I know about and, indeed have sighted, a paper from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Forest Research that has gone to the Minister arguing against the necessity to complete the project. Again I would be able to argue against all those points raised. I urge the Minister in the strongest possible terms to complete this project and, in so doing, to ensure to a far greater extent than we have enjoyed to date the protection of lives, property and the environment in East Gippsland. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(5.35) —I wish to address my comments to the estimates for the Department of Industry and Commerce; a total Budget figure of $203.6m. This Department has a uniquely co-ordinating role for Australian industry; I know from experience that it puts in an enormous amount of effort. Some of the things which have occurred in the last year, and which certainly will occur in the future, are matters of concern. While the Australian economy has had a substantial pick-up, those who are positioned in the manufacturing sector have not caught the gravy train. While very many of these corporations have slimmed down and have run down their stock figures to more operative levels, they are still caught in the squeeze of the inflexibility within the Australian labour market. Add-on charges are very prevalent in the manufacturing sector as is the imposition of an excessive government regulation, which primarily falls within the State government sector. These corporations have to operate in a relatively small domestic market with high transport costs. This makes the job of the manufacturing sector particularly difficult. These are things to which I know the Department would be only too willing to pay some attention. What I think is of significance and what I ought to talk just a bit about is the question of imports. In recent times we have seen the dramatic effect of the European Economic Community dumping in other countries. Some corporations certainly use the appeal of dumping as another form of assistance where a very significant distinction is drawn between them. Certainly in my experience the Australian Customs Service is in dire need of extra staff in the area of dumping . The process of establishing a dumping case is very complex and has to be investigated outside Australia. It is extraordinarily difficult to find the relevant information. I understand the problems there. I urge the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) to see what can be carried out by placing more officers outside Australia rather than continuing the system which we seem to have of flying people out on precise tasks. In one case this did not afford the officer concerned an opportunity to pick up the local feeling or to find what might really be going on in the country in which the export took place. I thought we were in error in that case and I still believe that to be true. However, we have to be on our guard at the same time to see that some manufacturing concerns do not use dumping as an all-embracing excuse for lack of competitiveness within the Australian market. So a fine balance must be maintained. This brings me back to the position of the Australian manufacturer. It is important that we recognise the significant capital investment in these companies. They have to run stocks, they have to be in the market-place and they have to be competitive. At the same time they must be profitable. Without a truly profitable corporation there is no way in which we will get the capital investment or the initiative that is required to keep that company going at the level expected by us. So entrepreneurship comes into it. How best can government assist besides getting into the regulatory areas, making the labour market more flexible and allowing competition within the Australian economy? In my view depreciation is the answer to this matter. It is time we addressed ourselves to the adequacy of depreciation. Indeed, it is my view that one-year depreciation would be a step in the right direction. While there are certainly cost factors, it would give the corporation or the entrepreneur the ability to make the decision according to his own cash flow of capital investment, holding stock or holding debtors. That, in itself, would give corporations an enormous advantage and ability to withstand the rigors of economic swings from year to year. I hope that depreciation will become a significant area which we can all look at. My time is rapidly running out, but I wish to address myself to a number of other areas. Firstly, developing country preferences has always been a matter of contention within the Australian manufacturing sector. The Australian manufacturer will see the most modern manufacturing techniques employed in some countries particularly Taiwan and Korea. It has always been very hard for me to explain why those countries are advantaged by a DC preference. What has happened to the 1982 review of DC preferences? We are now at the end of 1984 and the Government still has not come up with an answer to this question. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten me as to what is happening in that area. If it is the age old conflict between industry and commerce and the Department of Trade I suggest that it be resolved because it is not assisting Australian commerce at all. The next point is the question of quota trading. I have never been able to quite accept why we have entrenched certain areas of interest here and are allowing them today to get quota premiums of up to 178 per cent up from about 141 per cent last year. These quota trading practices, which automatically come about when we impose a quota, certainly give an excessively strong position to the people who are no more than agents at the time of the imposition of a quota. The user of footwear ought to be the accredited quota holder rather than the agent at the time the quota is imposed. In retrospect, that may have been a matter which we overlooked, but saying that does not right the wrong that exists today. I hope that in the next 12 months the Government will give some consideration to determining the best approach to what has become a very expensive item for Australian consumers, namely, trading quotas. I turn now to the question of industry councils. I have always been an advocate of close association with business. An enormous amount can be gained from departments such as the Department of Industry and Commerce having very frequent and close associations with the business community they serve. It is yet to be seen whether the industry council which has been set up at a substantial cost is worth while. Frankly, I am of the view that personal associations beat any council. I hope that those members of the Department who have had that experience in the past will continue to pursue it. While I am doubtful of a good return from the very substantial costs voted in the Budget for these items, which run into some millions of dollars, I look forward to seeing the result of that expenditure against what has occurred in the past. Finally, I commend the work of the Secretary, Tom Hayes, and his officers. This is a very substantial department which runs over not only industry and commerce but also the whole area of Customs. We read quite a bit about the Australian Customs Service; indeed, I have had some personal experiences with it. I hope that the Government will not allow the Customs area to become understaffed or underserviced. That is one of the areas in which the change that is occurring will be thrown up. A lot of the old hands-the people who have been brought up with a whole generation of Customs officers-are leaving and will be replaced by a group of young people who do not really have the same association or sense of loyalty that the old retirees had. They are more the professional officers of the civil service rather than the Customs Service. I hope that the Government will keep the Service in good heart as it has been in the past. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.45) —I will be very brief because I know that we are pushed for time. I think it is incumbent on me to make a few comments about the debate that has taken place on the estimates of the Department of Industry and Commerce. I am pleased to note that the former Minister, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), in his usual thoughtful and reasonable fashion made some very constructive criticisms which will, of course, be recognised by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). It is not surprising that the honourable member for Ryan behaved in this fashion-it is his normal way of approaching these matters. I should make a comment or two on a couple of those issues, particularly relating to the review of developing country preferences. It is a fact that most trading nations, particularly the United States of America, have been reviewing their approach to a generalised system of tariff preferences for developing countries. Of course, whatever review we are undertaking, it has to take into account the views of our other trading partners. To date the review has revealed some fairly strong conflict between various trading partners on this issue. However, we are proceeding with it. I hope that in the near future an announcement will be made as to what the position will be. The last major review of the developing preferences scheme took place in 1976. Since then there has been an enormous change in the whole domestic and international trading regime. Developing countries in both bilateral discussions and the multilateral fora are seeking improved conditions under preferential tariff arrangements. So we will just have to keep working on that matter. It is not an easy matter, as the honourable member knew when he was a Minister. I can assure him that we will come up with a very reasoned approach-- Mr Hodgman —He was a very good Minister too. Mr JOHN BROWN —He was an excellent Minister, yes. I was pleased to hear his comments on the Australian Customs Service. If ever anybody had a reason to be bitter about the Customs Service, I guess it would be the honourable member for Ryan, the former Minister. He suffered very badly over a very minor indiscretion which was not of his own making. That he can still speak very highly of the Customs Service probably says as much about the honourable member as it does about the Customs Service. I assure honourable members that we do hold the officers who run the Customs Service in very high regard, as we do the rest of the Department under Tom Hayes. The honourable member for Ryan may rest assured that whatever good work he did in the Department, which should not be underestimated, has been carried on by the Minister. I cannot make the same flattering remarks about the other spokesman for the Opposition, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) who, in his normal rumbunctious and quite irrational style, stood up here and abused the Government about its failure to recognise the importance of small business. I will not dignify his comments with much of a response. I merely say that most practitioners in the small business area realise that while we may not have fulfilled the promises we made specifically in that area as yet I am quite confident that in the next couple of Budgets a lot of those tax reforms will be introduced, but they will be introduced in a total package of a review of the tax system generally. It is fairly obvious to people who can think rationally that to just introduce some form of tax change to suit small business would not be in the best interests of the economy generally. I think most practitioners in the small business area-I have been one for many years-will agree with me that the best thing that the Government could have done to help small business was to improve the economy generally. Most people of reasonable mind will agree that that has happened. I think that most reasonable members of this Chamber will be very pleased that what we read in the papers these days about business is increased profits, instead of what we read of in former times, that is, an increased number of bankruptcies. So I would not like to dignify the comments of the honourable member for Higgins any more than to say that his comments have been noted. A couple of days ago, in this Chamber I read a quotation from the director of probably the most eminent of the small business councils in Australia who was very disappointed that the Liberal Party, the Opposition, had not formulated at that stage any sort of rational policy with regard to small business. He said that in fact the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Higgins, exhibited appalling ignorance of the small business area and did not know what he wanted at all. So I will dismiss the remarks of the honourable member. Mr Hodgman —That is not fair. Mr JOHN BROWN —It is fair. Mr Hodgman —He is a hard working and dedicated shadow Minister. Mr JOHN BROWN —He is a hard working and dedicated shadow Minister who accumulates an enormous amount of information and comes up with the wrong conclusions all the time. I do not think that anybody was impressed with his ravings and rantings in here. We knew that he had to rush away to catch a plane because his position in his seat is pretty doubtful. I can understand that he would need to get back there and a do a fair bit of electioneering. So I will not worry too much about him. Standing here on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, I think I can say that in a very short period he has achieved a lot of the things that I know the former Minister and the former Minister Assisting the Minister in this area would have liked to have achieved. In fact, the former assisting Minister, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), stood up here one night and praised very much the steel plan that this Minister has been able to introduce. I am sure that everybody who is interested in the long term future of the manufacturing industry in Australia would agree that the steel plan has been an outstanding success. I am sure that when the car plan is finally put in place, and that is not too far off, it will be just as big a success. I am happy that there is that accord between the Government and the Opposition, particularly between reasonable people such as the two honourable gentlemen I have mentioned who are concerned with Australia's future and are prepared to put aside petty politics in order to see the economy restored to its full prosperity and to see that Australians get jobs. I put that in stark contrast to the rantings and ravings of the other honourable gentlemen. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(5.54) —First I will take up the detailed points raised by the honourable members for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) and Gippsland (Mr McGauran), and then deal with the general situation of the Department of Science and Technology. I may need to get some additional material for the honourable member for Gippsland about Project Aquarius. There is a serious misunderstanding of the situation, compounded by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television program Nationwide on 9 August 1984 which claimed that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation was terminating Project Aquarius and other activities in bushfire research. That is not correct. CSIRO corrected the statement by the following telex which was acknowledged by the ABC on 10 August: CSIRO will continue with Project Aquarius in 1984/85 and will retain most of the Project team. Although no aerial bombing is planned for this summer, the Project Aquarius team will undertake further field studies of bushfire behaviour and control. CSIRO will also continue other important research directed towards the protection of homes from bushfires. While the trials will not involve the use of aircraft to drop fire retardant and water, as occurred last summer, they will be designed to provide important new data on bushfire behaviour in the medium to high intensity range with accompanying infra-red and meteorological observation. This new information will be used to improve existing predictive models of fire movement. The CSIRO executive has no intention of terminating the Organisation's activities in bushfire research when Project Aquarius has been concluded. While the Organisation's effort would then have to continue on a reduced scale, this would include basic research into bushfire behaviour as well as work directed towards protecting houses from bushfires, together with longer term studies on the ecological impact of bushfires upon the Australian environment. I think I am correct in saying that the next round of work in 1984-85 will be carried out in the Nowa Nowa district. If there is any information additional to that I will advise the honourable member for Gippsland, who I know takes a keen interest in this matter, by letter. The honourable member for Stirling, with a very long and keen interest in the affairs of CSIRO's Floreat Park laboratory, asked a number of specific questions . He was concerned that the sum made available for repairs and maintenance at Floreat Park during 1984-85 is comparatively minor, $266,438. The simple explanation in the view of the CSIRO executive is that simply to patch and repair Floreat Park will not really resolve the fundamental problems. They have to undertake rebuilding. The very highest priority has been put on creating new buildings. Indeed, provision will be made in this Budget for two new buildings to be erected. A number of other projects are to be referred to the parliamentary Public Works Committee. There is a recognition of the importance of the rebuilding program. We cannot overcome the problems by just patching and repairing. There have to be fundamental changes to the whole building regime. The honourable member asked about the appointment of an epidemiologist to examine the claims of very serious illnesses by people who have worked at Floreat Park, a matter of very great concern. After some consultation with me and after four specialist neurologists were nominated, the CSIRO executive has chosen Professor James McLeod, Professor of Medicine at the University of Sydney and a graduate of Sydney and Oxford universities. He was my first choice. The executive was responsible and made its own choice. He was clearly the best available. Professor McLeod has proposed an initial examination of five staff members who appear to have been the worst affected. He indicated that he would need to examine their medical histories and would then carry out a full medical examination followed by nerve conductivity tests and neuro-psychological tests where warranted. If evidence of a chemical-related disorder were found, biopsy samples would be taken under local anaesthetic. Staff association representatives concurred with this approach. One of the difficulties, of course , is that people as eminent as Professor McLeod are under heavy demand. He has been overseas and will not be able to carry out his full examination until October. I will keep the honourable member informed and commend him for his consistent interest in this area. A number of honourable members raised the question of the Australian research grants scheme. It must be recognised that we inherited a very serious situation on coming to office. Seven years of neglect of our research capacity had led to a decline in the relative value of ARGS grants. The ARGS Committee has had a very difficult dilemma to resolve. The horns of the dilemma were whether it should reduce the number of grants and maintain the average value or alternatively, increase the number of grants to reflect the fact that there is more demand with an inevitable reduction in the average value of each-- Dr Harry Edwards —We could give them something more than a mere one and a half million increase; one and a half lousy million. Mr BARRY JONES —I hear the words of the shadow Minister. No doubt, if the roles were reversed and he were in office he would be given an opportunity to prove his mettle and secure the additional funds. I know that the honourable member speaks with authority on this matter because he was once a member of the ARGS Committee. I cannot say whether his transition to this place represents an advance, a lateral move or retardation. In 1966 there were 406 grants, but the equivalent average grant value in 1984 dollars, not in 1966 dollars, was $46,871 . By 1984 the number of grants had increased to 1,313, but their dollar value had decreased in 1984 dollars to $17,075. There was an increase of 323 per cent in the number of grants and a decline of 275 per cent in the value of the grants . The value of the grants held up in relation to the very significant increase in the number of grants. The most disturbing factor is that the number of quality projects not funded increased significantly from 50, which was 3 per cent, in 1979, to 361, or 18 per cent, in 1984. I have to acknowledge the strong probability that the 1985 figure will be considerably higher. We do face the serious risk of brain drain in this country, perhaps even a massive haemorrhage. This is something the community will have to face; it is not just a government responsibility. The whole of the Australian community must face up to the question of the priorities that it gives to the development of the highest quality research. We have inherited a cultural tradition where we bought many of our ideas and much of our technology off the shelf. There is a long anti-intellectual tradition in this country which dies very hard. Dr Harry Edwards —We have a long tradition in excellent basic research. Mr BARRY JONES —We do have an excellent tradition in basic research, as I have often said. We have produced the same number of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences as the Japanese but none of them have been through the ARGS. We do have a remarkable reputation in basic research. Because of our reputation it makes it very easy for our scientists to hop on a plane and not come back. That is the problem we may face. If it continues we may reach an irrecoverable situation. I am sorry that today is not a broadcast day. I want to treat the Committee to a piece of eerie prophecy. On Wednesday, 19 May 1982, I spoke to the Royal Australian Chemical Institute at a meeting at the Australian National University . I was then the Australian Labor Party spokesman on science and technology and I made five prophecies. The first prophecy was that we would win the next election. The second prophecy was that we would inherit from the out-going coalition Government an economic shambles. The third prophecy was that we would develop science and technology strategies that would receive wide acclaim from the cognoscente. The fourth prophecy was that because of the new Government's need to tackle pressing social and economic problems our science and technology strategies would receive little support in the Budget. The fifth prophecy was that the consequence of modest Budget support would be a backlash from those who supported our strategies and whose business is science and technology. All of this has come true. The old adage about prophets being without honour in their own country is absolutely right. But as a nation we have to face up to the implications of this, and they are very serious. Comparing last year's figures with this year's figures there are four changes that should be noted. There are three matters funded last year that did not have to be funded in the 1984-85 Budget. The first is Landsat which was transferred at my request from my Department, which did not use it directly, to the Department of Resources and Energy which was its primary user. The second is Interscan Australia Pty Ltd which had finished the research and development phase and was moving into the commercial development phase so it was not funded by my Department any more. Third, the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory, that basic research organisation, had ended its construction phase, which was enormously expensive. That is a major factor in the reduced overall figures for CSIRO. As the honourable member for Berowra conceded, the management and investment companies were responsible for $20m of revenue forgone. Notionally, one should tack this on to my figures which makes the situation look slightly better. The situation is that we have been wounded but not lethally, I hope. The other factor is that there are some other players in the game who were not there two years ago. We can take some credit for that. First are the States, and the second is the banking system generally. The Australian Industry Development Corporation has taken a much higher profile in science and technology matters than previously. The private banks have too. They did not want to touch it. They always took the normal conservative banking maxim that one lent money only to people who could prove that they did not need it. Dr Harry Edwards —The amount for the combined commencement and project grants is less than what was spent last year. Mr BARRY JONES —I thought that the honourable member for Berowra was wrong in saying that the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board had been adversely affected. I do not think that is the case. AIRDIB finished up with the figure that it wanted in the Budget process. Dr Harry Edwards —But the amount is less than the amount actually spent last year. Mr BARRY JONES —Last year we found that we were not quite able to spend the amount that was allocated. The figure we have is almost identical-I would not care to be nailed to the wall about the precise figure-to the figure that it thought was satisfactory. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Social Security Proposed expenditure, $760,043,000. Department of Health Proposed expenditure, $666,915,000. Department of Veterans' Affairs Proposed expenditure, $837,017,000. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(6.08) —Firstly I voice my appreciation of the action of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) who graciously ceded to me the right to speak in view of the changed arrangements relating to the Committee's sittings this evening. Probably in common with a number of members I have been somewhat inconvenienced by the change in arrangements. We accept, of course, the right of the Leader of the House (Mr Young) to determine things in accordance with the business of the House. I appreciate the action of the honourable member for Mackellar and his characteristic generosity. There can be no doubt that one of the most serious health hazards within Australia today is to be found on a localised basis within the major capital cities of our country, namely Sydney and Melbourne. I refer, of course, to the hazards resulting from exhaust emissions from an ever-increasing number of motor vehicles. As an aside, I make the observation that it is rather ironic that in a mere 200 years man, in the pursuit of his reasonably legitimate expectations, has converted what was once recognised as an environmentally exquisite location- Sydney Harbour and its surrounds-into what is now virtually an ocean of asphalt and concrete besmirched by various effluents concomitant with modern man's existence. In 1981 the Federal and State Ministers for transport met as the Australian Transport Advisory Council to address the serious atmosphere pollution problems in the metropolitan areas. It was evident at the time that the New South Wales Government had unilaterally committed itself to motor vehicle emission controls regardless of collective considerations. As a result of the meeting of that august body-the Australian Transport Advisory Council-a program was initiated to bring about the introduction of unleaded petrol by 1 July 1985. Unleaded petrol, more commonly referred to as ULP, is suggestive of a digestive impediment which might well prove, in the ultimate, to be something that the broad community will find difficult to swallow. It is surprising to learn, even at this substantial stage of the tooling-up for the program, that the average citizen seems delightfully oblivious of that which awaits him. Estimates of the total cost of the transition from existing fuels to ULP range to a peak of $3, 000m. From 1 January 1986, all new motor vehicles manufactured within Australia or imported must be tailored to the new fuel requirements. Present owners of motor vehicles with a utilisation expectancy substantially overlapping the 1 January 1986 deadline will be obliged to modify their vehicles by installing catalytic converters at a cost estimate varying from some $250 to $600. Reports from America suggest that a substantial external fire hazard has been experienced with vehicles so equipped if they have occasion to move into dry grass areas. A further penalty exists in the drop in motor efficiency with greater wear and tear, and this is really where lead becomes a significant element in the whole debate. Despite arguments to the contrary, it is generally accepted that lead content in the atmosphere, as measured in the capital cities, is not outside tolerable levels as affecting human health. Lead plays an important part in reducing valve wear in particular, but its sin relates to its destructive effect on the noble metals, mainly platinum, within the catalytic converter thereby unacceptably shortening the life span of the converter. Therefore, lead, for the general convenience of the proponents of the scheme, suffers an ignominy inconsistent with the real facts of atmospheric pollution. The argument has been strongly advanced that the crux of the matter really is not so much the problem of lead in petrol as the problem of exhaust emissions finding their way into the atmosphere. John Stansell, in the issue of the New Scientist of 20 November 1983 wrote: The US and Japan introduced unleaded petrol fuel to cut emissions. Neither did so primarily because its people were worried about the effects of lead on their health. Nor did West Germany have the future brainpower of its children in mind when it announced in 1983- as reported in the New Scientist of 28 July 1983- Its intention to require all new cars sold after 1 January, 1986, to run on unleaded petrol and to be fitted with catalytic converters. Germany's anxiety is over acid rain that results partly from oxides emitted from cars. Writing in Business Review Weekly of 14-21 February 1984, Bill Tuckey said: Australia will be only the third country (Japan and America changed eight and ten years ago) to make ULP mandatory. Most, if not all, new cars will be fitted with a complex, heavy, expensive and heat-generating catalytic converter. The converter largely eliminates the main emissions-carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. It is not there to eliminate lead. Unleaded petrol was made mandatory simply because the coating of noble metals in the converters is destroyed by any lead in the fuel. Bill Tuckey went on further to say: The main aim in going to ULP was to counter high ozone levels in Sydney and Melbourne. However, these have fallen dramatically-some claim to below 1976 levels . . . The oil and motor industries, committed to the introduction of ULP, have virtually shrugged their shoulders, told the various governments, 'You'll be sorry,' and got on with the job of doing it . . . In short, there are a lot of unanswered questions about unleaded petrol; a lot of misconceptions about a complex subject and the well-meaning government authorities who thought it seemed like a good idea at the time may have their work cut out explaining to the non-expert public that it really will be good for them after all. What does ULP mean to the average motorist? The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria said: Introducing ULP onto the Australian market will not be easy, despite the fact that planning is well advanced. Fleet operators and others with their own petrol dispensing mechanisms (particularly farmers) will need to plan carefully their ultimate changeover to ULP. RACV, through the Australian Automobile Association, has actively opposed the introduction of ULP. The club feels the cost penalties of such a move outweigh any supposed benefits it is expected to bring. The Club asks: 'Has Australia sufficient levels of atmospheric pollution to warrant such a move? Is the motorist being asked to pay too high a price for fairly intangible benefits? Only time will tell.' The Royal Automobile Club of Queensland also has expressed doubts about ULP. It said. In Europe there is a strong movement by Ford, which claims the catalytic converter is the wrong solution to cleaning up exhaust emissions. Ford believes that 'lean' or 'fast burn' engines, now being developed, produce acceptable emissions without converters or complex emission control equipment. These could be designed to operate on either leaded or unleaded petrol. Depending on which side of the fence you stand in the debate, cars designed for ULP will have marginally better or worse fuel economy and performance than cars currently running on super grade leaded petrol. Both sides can quote overseas experience with unleaded fuel to back their claims but probably only time will tell as the new generation of cars are run under Australian conditions. At this stage nobody knows how much ULP will cost in relation to super. Because of the extra refining involved, ULP will cost about two cents a litre more to produce, claims the oil industry. But the Government wants ULP to be cheaper than leaded petrol to encourage its use. One solution could be an 'excise' on super to make it more expensive at the petrol pumps than ULP. But as this move would mainly hit ' battlers' who drive older model cars, it would cause political problems for any government which sought to introduce them. We will have to wait and see. Similarly, while getting on with the job in accordance with the Australian Transport Advisory Council's recommendations, the oil industry has not exhibited any great enthusiasm for ULP. The executive director of the Australian Institute of Petroleum, P. S. Parkin, indicated that in an article titled 'unleaded petrol not greatest thing since sliced bread' in the Institute's 1984 Autumn issue of Petroleum Gazette Mr Parkin wrote. The oil industry does not and will not, pretend that unleaded petrol is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's not as though motorists driving 1986 model cars are going to get twice as many kilometres to the litre from the new fuel. The introduction of unleaded petrol does not follow from a great technological breakthrough by the oil industry. It follows from a decision by Ministers. Time denies me the opportunity to expand fully on this matter, but I would like to say that this is very much a health issue and that it is very important. Considering the cost involved, it is perhaps not too late to give thought to the wisdom of proceeding with this measure. We could undertake remedies by self-help , traffic restrictions and alternative travel by rail. It is apparent that if the movement of motor vehicles were restricted by 25 per cent when travelling between prescribed hours, with cars having only one occupant, there would be an immediate 25 per cent reduction in total emissions. That is a little simplistic, but I must ask whether the cost involved in this exercise is warranted by the inconvenience caused to the general public. At present, Birdsville has to pick up the tab for Brisbane, Silverton has to pick up the tab for Sydney and Mildura has to pick up the tab for Melbourne. I earnestly advise the Committee that it is not too late, even though there is a degree of resignation about the introduction of this matter, and I recommend that it have another look at the problem for health's sake. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(6.18) —I shall address that section of the appropriations for the Department of Social Security that relates to the payment of pensions. Members of this Government are committed to increasing pensions to a decent percentage of average weekly earnings. That cannot be achieved overnight. The Government has taken another step towards the goal by increasing pension payments in this Budget to those who most need them. In this Budget, the Government has considered the particular needs of disadvantaged groups in our community-the aged, the unemployed, single parent families, the disabled and the homeless. All disadvantaged groups will receive additional help this financial year through increases in pensions and benefit rates, but those who will receive the most will generally be those who suffer the greatest need-families and single parents on very low incomes, living in privately rented accommodation. Payments and allowances for children will be increased, as will private rental subsidies. For example, from 1 November 1984 a single parent pensioner or sickness beneficiary with one child, renting privately, will receive up to $11. 50 a week more in social security payments. From 1 November 1984, married pensioners and beneficiaries with one child will receive up to $11.20 a week more, if renting privately, with an extra $2 for each additional child, and married pensioners and sickness beneficiaries with two children will receive up to $8.20 a week more if they own their own home or &13.20 a week if they are renting privately. The single adult rate of pensions and benefits will rise by $2.50 a week, and the combined rate for married couples will rise by $4.20 a week. From 1 November the base rate single pension will be $91.90 a week and $153.50 a week for married couples. The Government has begun to close the gap between the single adult unemployment benefit and the single rate of pension and sickness benefit. In the 12 months to November 1984 the single adult unemployment benefit will have risen from $68.65 to $81.10-an increase of $12.45. The single under 18 rate of unemployment and sickness benefit will increase by $5 to $50 a week from 1 November for people without dependants who have been in continuous receipt of payment for six months or more. From November 1984 the maximum rate of supplementary rent assistance paid to pensioners and long term sickness beneficiaries who rent privately will be increased by 50 per cent to $15 a week. If we are to continue to provide a system of adequate care for those in greater need, we have to look at where we can save money in other areas of lesser need. For that reason the Government had to make the difficult decision to impose an assets test. This Budget is allocating funds for the introduction of the assets test to begin on 1 March 1985. After constant consultation with the community, the Government has now decided on a form of test which will not affect over 70 per cent of pensioners, but will affect those with large amounts of assets who are in a financial position to provide for their own retirement. There is no need for pensioners to fear that anyone who needs a pension will lose it. But pensioners are being frightened-deliberately-by the irresponsible and mischievous tactics of the Opposition. All sorts of groundless fears are being whipped up, and they must be demolished . Let me give some examples. One is that it has been falsely put about that a pensioner's pre-paid burial plot will be included as an asset. It will not. No matter what its value, it is specifically exempted from the test. Another is that one of my constituents was led to believe by a supporter of the Opposition that his medal of valour awarded him in the Second World War would be listed as an asset. Such awards made to a pensioner are specifically exempted from his or her assets. A rumour spread widely through Sydney-through the medium of a radio commentator-that pensions would no longer be indexed. The fact is that the rise from regular indexation this November would have been small as a result of the lower consumer price index figures since Medicare. The pensions have been specifically raised now to offset that. The increased pension will continue to rise with indexation. Worst of all is the fear of intrusion into pensioners' homes and this fear has been whipped up by the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in his televised speech on the Budget: 'Labor's assets test means putting the aged through the wringer of interference , confusion and anxiety. It means intrusion into their homes, valuing their personal possessions and filling out forms. Never in the history of this country has any government allowed bureaucrats the right of entry into every pensioner's home simply to check the valuation of their personal possessions. As the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) said in answer to a question I raised in the House on this matter: The claim made by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech is probably the worst example of the exaggerated and irresponsible statements that he and others have been peddling about the assets test.' The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Social Security Act does not contain the authority for departmental officers to enter premises. He knows that his statements are misleading, designed to whip up fear and anxiety amongst old people. The advertising campaign which the Opposition has employed is a disgraceful example of how the Opposition will distort the facts for shortsighted political gain. In no circumstances will officers of the Department be permitted to enter a home to check or value assets. Pensioners will make their own assessments. The Social Security Act contains authority to require a pensioner or any other person to provide correct information which may affect the grant or payment of a pension. This will also apply to the assets test. This has always been the case. Of course there are penalties in the Act for any person who gives false information. These penalties for deliberate fraud have always been there, and I am sure that most pensioners will be glad that they are there to protect them and to prevent fraud. It is the people who complain most who usually complain that the regulations are not strong enough. I refer to the people who constantly ask: 'Why do you not catch the dole bludgers who have a job on the side? Why do you not catch the single parent who has somebody providing for her?'. Those are the people who constantly complain that the social security penalty provisions for fraud are not strong enough. Now they complain that there is any provision for fraud at all. One has only to imagine what would happen if the provisions were not there. It would allow gross fraud to go unchecked. It would allow the sort of person who could not possibly expect government money in a pension to be able to claim a pension no matter what assets they had. I cannot believe anybody does not want those provisions to check fraud. There has been much discussion by some pensioners on the statement of assets. Pensioners will be sent a form but very few of them will even have to fill in the form. After much consultation the Government has designed a form that will be clear and simple. It is not an easy decision for this Government to take to introduce this assets test. But as long as we have a needs-based pension system we will always require people to give some indication of their financial status. How can it possibly be more fairly implemented than by the Government putting trust in the pensioners themselves to advise the Government of their circumstances? I add one remark, because this matter still has not been cleared up. If pensioners have difficulty in assessing assets they can request help from departmental officers. They can seek an interview to sort out their problems. All sorts of people ask the most extraordinary questions. A pensioner rang my office in the electorate today saying: 'They are going to take my engagement ring'. The Department is not going to take that lady's engagement ring, but questions like that can be answered on request. I repeat for the final time that no officers of the Department will be permitted to go into the pensioner's home to make that assessment. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(8.00) —I have 10 minutes within which to speak about the expenditures of the two departments in which I have an interest-the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health. I transgress slightly by saying that we are scheduled not to be here on a Wednesday evening. The sitting hours appear to have been rescheduled because of some concern about an early election. Despite all the remarks of the Government about running this Parliament in a more satisfactory way, it seems that the way in which it is being run is even worse than it was when we did it, and I was one of the most strident critics of the way in which the Parliament was managed during the previous regime. I think the Parliament should be run in a more civilised manner. I have a very strong view about that. I think the present Government is going down even worse paths than did the previous Government, and I think it is time we did something about it. The first matter about which I wish to speak is the Health estimates, particularly relating to the increases in expenditure as a result of Medicare. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has come up with an extraordinary new discovery. He, unwilling to acknowledge that in this Budget Budget receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product are higher than they were in the last two Howard Budgets, has put forward an accounting concept previously unknown in national or international accounting. He says that because health expenditures were previously a private expenditure which were paid for, partly at least, by private insurance but are now included as a Budget item, they should not be included when calculating the percentage of GDP represented by government receipts. I must say that applying this novel approach, which says that when something is nationalised or taken into the public sector we no longer count it as part of the Government expenditures as a percentage of GDP, to the national accounts of, for example, the Soviet Union, one would have to exclude all items nationalised since the revolution of 1917 and reclassify them as private expenditures. I think the Treasurer should promulgate his approach more widely. He will have to start with his own Budget. The Budget Papers curiously fail to acknowledge his contribution to accounting practice in the tables on pages 355 and 364 of Budget Paper No. 1. Beyond that he will need to recast all the international comparisons of receipts and expenditures prepared by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the various organs of the United Nations. Perhaps debt could be reclassified under a Keating system which would enable Third World countries simply to ignore the effects of any prior actions by their governments. However, until this new international accounting order, the NIAO, becomes universally recognised it will be necessary for the Opposition to continue to point out that the second Keating Budget pushes Budget receipts and outlays to their highest ever percentages of GDP. The point I wish to make about Medicare is quite simply that expenditures on Medicare represent an increase of $2,021m over expenditures under the previous system. The Medicare levy of one per cent brings in $1,191m, leaving a shortfall of $830m. The explicit levy, the levy of one per cent that is trumpeted back and forth by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), therefore brings in only a proportion of the additional cost of Medicare under this Budget. An amount equal to 0.7 per cent of taxable personal income is being taken in addition to that one per cent levy to pay for the additional costs of Medicare. So the one per cent levy relates to no particular expenditure. It is a meaningless figure. It is there only to make Medicare look cheap. The Minister's promise to maintain the levy at one per cent is a meaningless promise. It merely means that any additional money required to pay for Medicare will come out of taxpayers' other pocket, the ordinary tax pocket. Mr Blunt —It is not cheap, just nasty. Mr CARLTON —It is not cheap, it is just nasty, as the honourable member for Richmond so correctly says. That point has to be made over and over again. Senators put this point to the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, in the Senate Estimates committee hearings. Senator Grimes admitted that the Medicare leaflet was wrong where it said: 'Medicare will be paid for by a one per cent levy on your taxable income'. The Minister for Health keeps accusing me of inaccurate mathematics or making various claims which cannot be sustained. He has authorised the printing of a pamphlet which says: 'Medicare will be paid for by a one per cent levy on your taxable income'. That statement is absolutely wrong on any analysis at all. If we are talking about the whole health system, the one per cent levy bringing in just over $1 billion pays for no more than about one-eighth of total health care. On the narrowest definition of the additional cost of Medicare, it does not even pay for the $2,021m; it is $830m short. The statement 'Medicare will be paid for by a one per cent levy on your taxable income' is as false as the promise by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his policy speech in 1983 that nine out of 10 Australians would pay less in health costs under Medicare. Mr Blunt —More false advertising. Mr CARLTON —It is absolutely false advertising, as my honourable friend says. This Minister has to maintain this fiction day after day in the community. I hope he feels easy with it. The other matter to which I wish to refer in the very short time remaining to me is the assets test. The honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh), who holds a very marginal seat in Sydney-it is one that has a tendency to swing with changes of government-became very emotional about this question of the assets test. Members of the Government have to understand that we will not let up on this question of the assets test. Once the family home was taken out of the assets test, against the recommendations of the Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test, the whole thing became an absolute sham. Let us talk about what this really does. Pensions in Australia cost $7,253m. Nobody begrudges that amount of money because the pensions are paid to people who are elderly and who need assistance. The Prime Minister, in answer to questions the other day, said that unless the assets test was brought in the amount of money payable to pensioners would be far less than it ought to be. He said that unless this assets test was brought in there would be no equality and there would be an enormous increase in the cost of pensions. When we examine the Budget figures we find that this is an extraordinary claim. Once the assets test is operating it will bring in only an additional $45m in a total expenditure on pensions of $7,253m. Once it is actually working it will bring in $45m which, spread over all the pensioners, will give them an extra 57c each. That is what this measure will mean once it is actually operating. Mr Blunt —It creates work for 1,500 inspectors. Mr CARLTON —Before it operates, as my friend the honourable member for Richmond rightly points out, we will have to employ 1,500 public servants to administer it. The costs of bringing it in are $25m, which has already been spent, and another $30m in this Budget in net cost. That is a total cost of $55m. Mr Milton —Rubbery figures. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member for La Trobe says that the Treasurer's figures are rubbery. That is most interesting. With a seat such as La Trobe, one cannot afford to attack one's own Treasurer. But we have 'rubbery figures'. Maybe they are higher than $55m. Mr Milton —I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I did not refer to the Treasurer. The CHAIRMAN —Order! That is a personal explanation. If the honourable member wishes to make a personal explanation, he should wait until the honourable member has finished. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member will wait all right; so will I. With the $55m worth of expenditure saving $45m, why on earth is the Government doing it? It is no wonder that the honourable member for Phillip was upset about it. Her own Government is bringing in a dreadnought to attack pensioners for a lousy $45m saving in a total Budget cost of $7,253m-0.62 per cent; that is what this whole assets test is all about. It is an absolute nonsense, but it is also an outrage. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(8.11) —I intend to confine my remarks to a couple of aspects of the Budget in regard to welfare payments through the Department of Social Security. It is important that at the outset I make brief reference to the speech of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). It was just another of the growing number of examples of desperate attempts that Opposition members are making day after day in this House to dredge up issues on which they can mount criticism against this Hawke Labor Government. They are doing it, unfortunately, in a way that is bringing fear into the minds of many elderly citizens. If Opposition members had any decency in them, surely they would agree that the elderly citizens of Australia deserve better treatment than that which Opposition members are inflicting upon them by their ill-founded criticisms of the welfare budget. The Budget is another step along the way of implementing the Government's social welfare program. On this occasion, the Government's priority in the 1984- 85 Budget is to increase assistance for needy and disadvantaged families. It puts the lie to the Opposition's false criticisms that this Government has not shown any concern for the needs of the underprivileged and the disadvantaged in our community. I will shortly give just a few illustrations of where Opposition members' criticisms of the Government in that respect are so falsely founded. Expenditure on social security this year is estimated to be $15.34 billion. It represents an increase of 8.7 per cent on last year's expenditure of $14.11 billion. All adult pensioners and beneficiaries will benefit from an increase in rates of $2.50 a week for single people and $4.20 a week for married people, from 1 November. This represents an increase in real terms in line with the Government's policy to increase pension and benefit rates relative to average weekly earnings. Extra assistance has been specifically targeted to help families with children in greatest need-pensioners, single parents, particularly those living in privately rented accommodation, the unemployed, and others on low incomes. Some concern has been expressed that not enough has been done in this Budget for the disadvantaged and the poor. However, a comparison of the increases in welfare payments during seven years of the Fraser Government and during the 20 months of this Hawke Labor Government shows the real concern and effort that this Government is making, very satisfactorily, for those disadvantaged sections in our community. By way of example, the supplementary rent allowance will rise by $5 in November this year, bringing it to $15, which means that under the Hawke Labor Government it has increased as much in 20 months as it did in the entire seven years of the Fraser Government. The dependent child allowance rose by 33 per cent under the Fraser Government; that is, $2.50 in seven years. This Budget provides for the allowance to rise by 40 per cent, or $4, in November. Under the Fraser Government, the unemployment benefit for single adults over the age of 18 with no dependants increased by $25.65 in seven years, to $64.40. Under the Hawke Government, increases in 20 months bring this benefit to $81.10 as from November this year. This is already an increase of 26 per cent on the previous Government's benefit. Furthermore, there will be an additional increase of $2 in this benefit, payable from May next year. The unemployed who are under 18 fared no better under the previous Government. The benefit was increased by $ 4, an increase of 11 per cent. That slight increase came nowhere near to keeping pace with the increases in the consumer price index over those years. Had it done so, the benefit would have been $72, not $40. But the Hawke Government has already increased this benefit by $5 in its first Budget-by $1 more than the Fraser Government gave to those people in the seven years during which it was in control of their destinies. It is no wonder that they, like the rest of the electors of Australia, so anxiously went to vote in March 1983 and dismissed the Fraser Government. The present Government has introduced, in addition, income supplements, the spouse carer's pension, and remote areas allowances, and has also extended some of the limits of eligibility-for example, income tests for unemployment benefit. The Government's commitment to relieving some of the hardship of those disadvantaged in the community is reflected in the allocations in this Budget and those increases in benefits since the previous Government left office. The Government has taken a caring and very responsible attitude in its approach to welfare in this Budget. It has recognised the importance of achieving a balance between providing for those in need and stimulating the economy to ensure that recovery continues to a point at which enough revenue is created, which will, in turn, allow for further increases in welfare payments. If this is done too quickly, too soon, the economy will not be able to sustain the level of recovery that it has shown. There is a need to stimulate economic growth. If the growth rate is low, unemployment rises, and the economic and social problems which follow gradually become more and more intractable. The Government also continues to expand and upgrade welfare services for the aged and the disabled. The introduction of a home and community care program, a new three-year cost-shared program with the States and Territories, will incorporate some existing programs and a wide ranging initiative in community care for the disabled and those needing home care services. Presently, services for the aged and disabled are often oriented more towards institutional care. This program will include a comprehensive range of integrated community care services and will provide realistic alternatives to institutional care, plus expanded assessment services to help aged people and their relatives to choose the most appropriate care for their individual needs. These services include home help, delivered meals, home maintenance, home nursing and paramedical services. Consideration will be given to funding of additional services, such as personal care, transport, linen and laundry services, and community based respite care. This scheme will give much needed financial assistance to a group of the community often previously neglected. The format of the proposed scheme is to be commended as it will co-ordinate many of the services already offered by different groups in the community on a voluntary basis. This scheme not only provides needed funds but also considers the social aspects and problems faced by the aged. It will allow aged and disabled people to continue to live as independently as possible in their homes, close to their families, while ensuring that they receive all the services that would normally be available to them in nursing homes, homes for the aged or hospitals. In this Budget an allocation of $10m has been made to the home and community care program. That money will be distributed on 1 January 1985 to those participating States which finalised agreements with the Commonwealth. It is planned that a further $300m will be put aside for the program over the next three years. All in all, in those few examples I have given, I am sure that I have shown the Committee how excellently this Budget is targeted to assist the disadvantaged in the community and how it puts the lie to the claims of the honourable member for Mackellar and others on that side who seek, by their fear tactics once again, in the period between now and the next election to gain cheap votes from the community. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(8.22) —It is interesting for a representative of a large rural electorate to follow a speaker such as the honourable member for Bowman ( Mr Keogh) who has confidently and in a superficial way told the Committee that this Budget, insofar as it relates to social security and health, assists the disadvantaged. I wish only that the honourable member for Bowman and indeed, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), would accompany me throughout Gippsland for just one day so that I could point out to them how the Budget does not assist rural people, people who are removed from the large metropolitan areas. In the context of those remarks I will address my speech to the effects of Medicare. The greatest problem for rural people in regard to Medicare is the insufficient number and the location of Medicare offices. That is a matter on which I and my National Party of Australia colleagues have made several representations to the Minister for Health. Those representations have fallen on deaf ears. The latest representation I have made is on behalf of the Shire of Maffra. I was contacted, rightly so, by representatives of that shire who wanted to know why residents of the shire, which has a large population but which is somewhat removed from the Princes Highway, the main thoroughfare through Gippsland, had to travel up to 50 or 60 miles to reach a Medicare office. The answer I have received from the Minister is totally unsatisfactory. To paraphrase his answer, it is to the effect: 'Let them eat cake'. Another great problem experienced throughout Gippsland, and I understand in other rural areas in Victoria, is the fate of our bush nursing hospitals. I will not forget very easily the night of the introduction of the Medicare legislation . At about 2 a.m. the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) and the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), both Victorians, and I drew the problem of bush nursing hospitals to the attention of the Minister. I certainly will not forget the surprise on the Minister's face which indicated that he had not properly considered how bush nursing hospitals would fare under Medicare. I remind the Committee that patients resident in bush nursing hospitals receive a $20 a day subsidy from the Government but must insure privately for some $80 a day. When those two sums are added together it totals $100. But it must be remembered that the bed costs in bush nursing hospitals are in excess of that amount and are in the region of $130 a day. Therefore, those hospital residents must take out a second level of private insurance. That means that not only are those people paying their one per cent levy, as do all Australian taxpayers, but also they must take out two levels of private insurance. That is the disadvantage of living in a rural area. After all, many rural people, particularly in Gippsland in the regions Mirboo North, Toora, in South Gippsland and Heyfield can attend only bush nursing hospitals. Other practicalities are involved such as the fact that these people may not wish to be away from their families in the major public hospitals in Sale or Traralgon or Foster. Their families and friends must travel some distances to visit them. That is simply impractical. Another problem being encountered throughout Gippsland is the shortage of nursing homes. This has a resultant effect of causing overcrowding in public hospitals throughout Gippsland. By that I mean that long term patients, who ought rightly to be in nursing homes, because of the unavailability of nursing home beds, must reside in public hospitals; thereby causing something of a crisis at certain times for hospitals when they do not have sufficient beds for acute care patients. Twice this year at the Yarram Hospital there have been no beds whatsoever for emergency admissions. This is a 39-bed hospital and 25 of those beds are taken up by long term care patients, even though the Health Commission of Victoria recommends that only 14 beds be allocated to the care of long term patients. I welcome in the Budget the extra appropriation for ancillary and home care services. That is a very forward looking and imaginative program which certainly has my support and, I think unhesitatingly the support of my colleagues. But it is ridiculous for the Minister to think that there is no need whatever for nursing home beds. I know that the Minister has not afforded funding for nursing homes since he came to office. Although a number of nursing homes have come on stream since he came to office the funding was from the previous Government. We welcome the ancillary and home care services program . But it must be borne in mind that nursing home beds are urgently needed particularly in the country where again we have the problem of distance and remoteness. One cannot expect relatives and friends to travel long distances to visit someone in a nursing home or public hospital. Why is it that no matter how many times I draw this to the Minister's attention it does not seem to register? I again invite the honourable member for Bowman, who in a pious platitude told the Committee that this was a Budget allocation which assisted disadvantaged people, to visit Gippsland for only half a day, if he can spare the time. I will certainly point out a great many areas in which this Government's policies in health and social security actively discriminate against country people. I turn now to the appropriation for the Department of Social Security. Of course, we know that the assets test is simply nothing more than a cruel hoax on hard- working, enterprising farmers. Mr Ronald Edwards —Ha, ha! Mr McGAURAN —We can hear the mocking laughter of the honourable member for Stirling. Let us remember that he represents a city electorate. Previous speakers from this side have pointed out in the debate-and others will later tonight point out-the deficiencies of the assets test as it applies to pensioners and residents of metropolitan areas. Let me stress on behalf of my electorate the damage that the assets test will do to farmers. It is a problem that does not apply to the honourable member for Stirling and the Minister for Health because they do not represent people who have invested a lifetime of capital and work in the land. The simple fact is that there is not one farmer in this country operating a commercial farm who will receive the pension. There is no question about that. The reason is that the cut-off mark is some $100,000, excluding the value of the farmhouse and curtilage. Mr Cunningham —Are you fair dinkum, Peter? Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for McMillan who purports to represent a rural electorate is indicating his support for the Government's assets test. I will simply allow the electors of McMillan to make their judgment on how sincere and how close to his heart he holds the interests of his constituents. I suspect that, like so many members of the Government who represent rural areas, they have sold out their principles to follow like blind sheep behind the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). The assets test hits at farmers who receive very little income from their properties. It is a test which ignores the percentage return on the investment. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics predicts that this financial year, 1984-85 , there will be at least a 30 per cent drop in rural incomes. That does not apply to the dairy farmers of Gippsland where the drop will be substantially higher. But that is the average. It gives a very clear indication of the fact that farmers throughout this country are battling to make a living. On top of this they are now being told that, despite a lifetime of paying taxes and a lifetime of initiatives, they will not receive a pension as a matter of right, as other Australians receive a pension. For that reason this Minister and this Government stand condemned as does every member of the Government who supports unquestioningly that policy of the Government. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(8.32) —Tonight I would like to take up the matters just raised by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) when he challenged me, as the member for McMillan, to put the case on behalf of the people in my electorate. Let us just get down to the facts. He said that no commercial farmer would be able to get a pension. Any person in this country running a commercial business would be expected to be making a profit. It was never intended that the pension system of any country would be designed to give an income to people in commercial business. Let us get down to some of the real facts regarding people who have retired or who have a block of land or a small farm which, in most cases, they are able to rent out. Having a farm of my own I know exactly the value of the land if I want to rent it out for cattle raising, dairy farming, potato growing or any other commercial exercise. But if a retired person who is renting out a property has a certain income coming in, that person is eligible to take off certain costs. If the income from that farm is not sufficient to live on that person has to come back and have a look at the value of his property and go through the assets test to see whether it is possible to get a pension or a part pension. In most cases one would find that a couple are allowed to have $100,000 and they can have their residence in which they are allowed to live. So they can take their residence and the piece of land around it off the value of the property. By the time they have taken into consideration the value of the assets they are allowed to have there would be not too many farms of that size where people would not be able to be assisted and get a part pension. If we talk about people with 300, 400 or 500 acres, as the honourable member for Gippsland has mentioned, those people who can really rent out land can get a lot more than any pensioner could ever get in income. So the pension system of any government in this history of Australia was never designed to give an income to commercial operators who are capable of making a living, whether it be off the land, from renting out a business, or anything else. This Government is not in that type of business. There are enough needy people in this country who are in a position where they have to be assisted. This Government is perfectly aware of those in the community who need assistance and will continue to receive assistance. The honourable member for Gippsland has said that I am a part of Gippsland as he is. I have had pensioners come into my office and we have done the sums. It is only the very wealthy farmer who is getting a good income off his property who, at this stage, will be deliberately avoiding what he could earn off the property by renting it to somebody at $5 an acre instead of the $50 or $60 an acre which it is capable of being rented at. By all means, at that stage he would be getting a pension by what I and most people in Australia would consider to be devious means because he is not earning off his property to the capacity that he should be. In fact, he is transferring the pension from the Government to himself via the person renting his property. That is totally unjust. This Government is not in the business of transferring public funds by that method to people who are quite capable of generating an income for themselves by renting out their properties at a reasonable amount. I repeat: There are not too many rural people who, by the time they excise the value of their property, the piece of land around it and take the value of the assets they are allowed to have, will be drastically affected by the assets test and the measures of this Government. So it is a lot of rot for anybody to stand up in this Parliament and try to put across another false impression to the public of Australia. We are on air; we are broadcasting. People will be getting once again a very false impression from the Opposition of what the assets test is all about. The assets test is there to make money available for people in need. It is there to ensure that people who have excessive funds and who are not using them effectively do not hide their incomes. It is there to create a situation where those people will be asked to declare, themselves naturally, what they are renting their farms for. If they put down $5 an acre and everybody in the district knows that that land is worth $50 an acre we will not need inspectors to find that out. Everybody would know that that person would be deliberately avoiding the incomes situation and this assets test will overcome that. We intend to transfer that sort of money to those in need. I am sure that the public of Australia, the people who live in country towns, will support us very strongly on that. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(8.37) —Almost every submission which the Government received from women's organisations in respect of this Budget stressed the importance of child care facilities and the funding for them. The Government outbid the Opposition at the last election by promising to increase greatly child care funding. But, it has betrayed the trust of those who may have voted for it on those grounds. I remind honorable members in this chamber of what I said in my speech during the second reading debate on the Budget. I said: The Government's proposals on child care are most inadequate. They do nothing to increase the availability of part time and occasional child care, and so do not meet the needs of women wishing to re-enter the work force on a part time basis or who may be in need of temporary relief from full time parenting. That is, occasional child care. I also said: Even the provision for full time care falls short of the expectations created by the Government at the last election. As well, they are inadequate for the actual needs of children. For example, in New South Wales there are currently over 70,000 under five who have working mothers but who are not placed in licensed child care centres. The newly announced centres in this Budget will provide places for only 1,800 children in New South Wales. So there is a huge gap from 70,000 to 1,800. There is a desperate need for child care. This Budget fails to meet that need. What assistance is provided is targeted for fulltime care only. The Budget does nothing to assist the occasional or part time care and does not even try to assist existing centres to improve or extend their facilities. Mrs Child, as you would know, there is a great need for extending those facilities to children under the age of two years. The Government says that it is committed to equality of opportunity yet it has failed to take adequate steps to make further progress towards eliminating the greatest barrier to the exercise of that equality of opportunity by overcoming the grave shortage of child care. Published surveys by J. Walter Thompson Aust. Pty Ltd and John Clemenger Pty Ltd make it quite clear that child care and permanent part time work are major priorities for women. The Government pandered to those needs at the last election but it has ignored them substantially in this Budget and in the previous Budget. The next most important issue for women is for there to be an increase in the family allowance. Every women's organisation asked the Government to increase the family allowance but the Government has refused. As a result it has added insult to injury by extending the dependent spouse rebate to men in de facto relationships and claiming it to be of benefit to women. Many women feel particularly incensed about the failure to increase family allowances. Some women's organisations asked the Government to remove the dependent spouse rebate and transfer the money to family allowances. Even those women's groups which did not agree with that recommendation will be appalled at the Government's sense of priorities in granting the dependent spouse rebate to males with de factos instead of increasing the family allowance. As we know, quite simply family allowances are designed to assist in the nurturing of children. The allowance has been eroded by inflation and the Government has made no effort to increase the allowance. Rather it has given a rebate to males to support de facto spouses regardless of whether they have any children at all as a result of that relationship. As the family allowance assists in the care of children whether at home or in full or part time care or at school, it stands to reason that the only regular income of some women will be the family allowance. Very sadly, some married women find that even husbands on high incomes do not provide adequately for their wife and children. That indeed was the reason why the previous Government introduced this method of payment and by failing to increase it the Government has ignored the views of every organisation speaking for women. The Government also seems to have ignored other views put to it by women's organisations. For example, the Council for the Single Mother and her Child referred to the survey of the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research which showed that many social welfare recipients have earnings below the poverty line and yet they pay tax. For example, the poverty line at December 1983 for a single parent with two children was $158.40 and yet the tax threshold was approximately $90. The benefit for such a person was $125.90, the difference being $32.50 a week. Such a beneficiary is entitled to earn $30 extra before losing the benefit plus I think $6 for each child before they begin to lose the benefit by a scale, as the Minister for Social Security (Dr Blewett) reminds me. This means that some recipients will be taxed on earnings which are below the poverty line. If they earn the maximum allowable $30, plus the $6 per child, they will be approximately on the poverty line. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) claims that the special rebate will ensure that needy women living on social security benefits will be saved from having to pay tax this financial year. Yet in the women's budget program announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) it is acknowledged that only a small proportion of the estimated 25,000 full year maximum rate beneficiaries will be women. Therefore, it is very insulting for women to be told by the Government that this is a major benefit to them. It is in fact a very minor benefit anyway and few women will receive even that minor benefit. Moreover the Government has given no incentive to welfare recipients, the majority of whom are women, to work their way out of the welfare system. The permissible income levels should have been raised so that people could make the transition from welfare to self-reliance. Instead, welfare recipients have every incentive to remain on welfare because they face loss of benefits and incur tax if they earn above the limited range permitted. An illustration of this is found in a letter written by a Leanne J. Connell from Northcote in Victoria to the Age on 7 June. It states: Richard Yallop's article Single Mothers Cheat To Survive ('The Age' 31/5) raised the issue of the disincentive to work caused by Social Security's rule that single parents may earn only $30 per week plus $6 per child before the pension or benefit is reduced by 50 cents in the dollar. The disincentive to work is however, a combination of this rule and the PAYE taxation scheme which in many cases results in a disposable income lower than the level of Social Security benefits for the working single parent. I am a single pensioner with a 20-month-old daughter. I recently made inquiries about a part-time job which would give me a break from full-time child care, provide external involvement and stimulation, give my child the opportunity to develop some independence and have regular play at a creche, and which would provide some extra income. The job I applied for is 20 hours a week and pays $9 a hour or $180 a week. At this rate my pension would be reduced by $72 per week ($180 - 36 = $144, divided by 2 = $72). After tax, I would receive an additional income of about $40 per week. From this bonus I must deduct the cost of child-care. At present I cannot obtain subsidised child-care in a creche in the municipality where I live (demand far outstrips supply) at a reasonable cost of $25 for 20 hours per week. In private child-care, where I have again been unable to find a vacancy, the cost rises to about $45 per week. In effect, by taking a part-time job, losing a large proportion of my pension, paying for child-care and transport I would reduce my income to below the level of the pension-about $120 per week with allowances. Can I afford the luxury of a job? Can I afford to reduce my disposable income below the pension over the next 12 months for the sake of a $700 sole parent tax rebate at the end of the financial year? The final insult is that the Taxation Department provides a rebate of some $200 more for the dependent spouse in a two-parent family. Perhaps two-parent families do not receive the additional concessions provided to single parent families by Government subsidised child-care centres-in which we are unable to place our children. There is, very clearly, a strong case for increasing the $30 per week which the average beneficiary may earn without losing the benefit. An amount of $30 per week is an insufficient margin to enable one to gain a permanent part time job which would increase the skills and work experience of the beneficiary and, as a consequence, the beneficiary's employability in full time work, his or her self- esteem and the capacity to be self-supporting. Such persons should pay tax on their total income, including their benefits, but the margin of additional earnings should be much greater especially in view of the position I have referred to regarding the taxing of incomes below the poverty line. I do believe there are many other issues that one should refer to, not least of them women's refuges. In the circumstances, because my time is short, I will conclude my remarks by saying that the Government, when in Opposition, and particularly during the last election campaign-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.48) —I want to take the opportunity of talking tonight on the estimates of the Department of Veterans' Affairs which are some of the estimates that we are considering at this time. When I spoke on the education estimates last night I mentioned my concern that some Ministers in the Government were not prepared to defend the decisions taken by the Government in a Budget context. I have been quite surprised at the way in which some Ministers have tried to avoid the responsibility for the decisions that the Government has taken. I refer honourable members particularly to the address of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) at the annual meeting of the Returned Services League of Australia held on Monday, 3 September, a short period after the Budget was presented. The Minister, when he was addressing the National Congress, offered some views on business interests. I draw honourable members attention to the first part of the Minister's speech which states: I would ask the Congress to note that, despite the concerted pressure from certain powerful employer groups to impose a drastic and unrealistic cut in the Budget deficit, the Government has increased needs-based welfare payments. In other words, what he was saying was that the Government had fixed and established its own priorities and, notwithstanding certain pressure, the Government had increased, in accordance with the Government's priorities, needs- based welfare payments. The Minister then referred to a matter where he was not successful. He was not prepared to justify the decisions reached by the Government. He did not go to the Returned Services League and say: 'Look, the Government has a view that needs-based welfare payments should have been increased. We are terribly sorry. We thought that was of greater priority than improving the funding arrangements and conditions for defence service homes loans'. That is not what he said. He had the gall to go along and say: Unfortunately, we were not successful in this Budget in gaining increased funding and improved conditions for defence service home loans-- not that I am sorry, but they were our priorities- But it remains for me, as it does for the RSL, an issue of the highest priority , and this the Government has recognised by referring it to the recently established task force on Service housing, which is considering the proposals of a firm of consultants for reform of the scheme. We in the Government remain acutely aware of your overriding concern that the scheme be overhauled. However, I should point out that, while I fought very hard to get support for the new scheme, the cost to Government of liberalising the existing scheme by raising the maximum loan to $40,000 and abolishing the waiting period would exceed $150 million in the first year. It may therefore be appropriate to consider the calls by many business groups for further Budget deficit reductions, and to realise that it is demands and pressures from these sources that impede my efforts to improve the defence service homes scheme. I would welcome statements from you in opposition to such demands from these business lobbies for further immediate cuts in the Budget deficit. I have never seen a greater cop-out in my life than that statement by the Minister. Surely he would have had the courage to come in and say, as Ministers in previous governments did, that the Government had ordered its priorities and had determined those areas which it saw had greater needs and admit them accordingly, but that is not what this Minister was about. He wanted to be friends to everybody. He wanted to be friends to the RSL but to make it appear that the businessmen were in some way to blame for the priorities that he had established. That is not good enough. The Budget is about priorities. It is about saying where one would make expenditure cuts and where one would put one's emphasis. This is an appropriate time to consider some of the areas in which it may be appropriate to give a slightly different emphasis from that which the Government has chosen. The Government has, in its wisdom, decided to impose an assets test. The Opposition is of the view that the assets test will cost a great deal of money to implement, although the argument of the Government is that over time it may save a little. However, the fact is that unless there are further developments and refinements to the assets test to increase the amount of money that the Government might save-it is not prepared to argue that-unless we are to get assets test Mark I, II, III and IV, the assets test will cost money. It would be very easy for the Government to scrap the assets test proposal, put it to one side and use the money to meet other areas of expenditure. If it were prepared to scrap the assets test and save the money that is available immediately, I can suggest to the Government one area where that money could be used. It is one of the areas that has been mentioned in the report of the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review as well as in the report of the Independent Enquiry into the Repatriation System. We see in Volume I of the June 1975 report of the Independent Enquiry a reference to the plight of seamen who saw service in Vietnam and who were unable to obtain service pensions . I recount one situation that was mentioned on page 106 of the report of which I think honourable members ought to be aware. In relation to service in Vietnam, the report said: One such case concerned a soldier and a sailor both of whom were injured in the same accident while assisting with the unloading of 'H.M.A.S. Sydney' in a South Vietnam port. The soldier, having been allotted for 'special service' was covered by Repatriation legislation, whereas the sailor was not. A similar situation often existed with members of the Royal Australian Air Force during transport operations between Australia and Vietnam and between Butterworth and Vietnam. Instances were also cited of individual personnel who actually served with operational units but who were not allotted initially for 'special service' . That issue of the plight of servicemen, particularly seamen who served in Vietnam, was referred to on page 63 of the report of the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review. Under the heading 'Eligibility', in paragraph 10.5, this further example is cited: . . . eligibility arising out of the Vietnam War is related to whether or not a person was allotted for service and not in fact related to actual service. If a veteran has not been allotted for service in Vietnam then he is eligible for service pension even though he is eligible for compensation if injured as a result of enemy activity. There has been considerable debate on the eligibility of persons who served in Vietnam. Certain people, particularly who served in the Royal Australian Navy, who were in the Vietnam zone but were not allotted to service are excluded. That is the point of the matter. The report mentions that very few people are affected by the exclusion. Quite clearly we have a very clear inequity which, for a small amount of money, could properly be addressed. I think that if one were giving consideration to genuine priorities, whether one needed to spend all this money in implementing an assets test which is unlikely to save any substantial sums of money, unless it is substantially modified by the Government -I am not encouraging the Government to take that course-and we see the assets test Mark IV, no substantial savings will be involved. The savings that could be made by scrapping the assets test now could be used to extend these benefits. I mention one other matter which is of concern to me. It relates to the Government's election timetable. It appears from an answer given in another place by Senator Gietzelt to my colleague Senator Scott concerning the foreshadowed veterans entitlement Bill that the implementation of that Bill may be postponed on the altar of the Government's early election timetable. It is important that we see this legislation. The Government promised that we would see the legislation during this session of Parliament. There is a great deal of concern amongst ex-servicemen that this proposed legislation may contain proposals that are unacceptable to the ex-service community and that the Government may seek to hide it away in its pre-election atmosphere. We may not even know that it has in mind proposals to vary the onus of proof in relation to injury. If that is to be the case, if the Government is to try to hide this Bill away so that it will not see the light of day, on the rather spurious basis put by the Minister, Senator Gietzelt, that he is having correspondence with the RSL , I think that will be extraordinarily disappointing to the ex-servicemen and women of Australia. Quite frankly, we need to see that legislation. The Government could easily put aside its early election timetable to ensure that matters such as this are before the Parliament, are able to be seen and are able to be properly analysed- matters such as the report of the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. There is no need for an early election. It could be held at any time until next year. If it is a choice of either having this information before the people or having an early election, quite frankly, I would be for having the information available to us all. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(8.58) —My memory goes back to two or three years ago when the Estimates committees involved members from both sides of the House gathering in the committee rooms around this Parliament and there would be a horde of public servants sitting there ready to answer questions directed to them regarding the administration of their departments. It is rather a shame that we have reverted to this system. Tonight we have half a dozen departmental people representing the three departments which are under discussion in this Estimates debate, fairly secure in the knowledge that nobody will throw up a curly one at them, probably having to sit and listen more to political exercises than to their own departments being subjected to examination. So be it. The old system has passed at the moment. Earlier tonight one of the speakers on the Government side made a fairly plaintive speech, referring to the fact that some constituent of hers had rung up and asked whether the Government, under the new assets test, intended to value the ring on her finger to determine her eligibility for a pension. The member opposite assured her constituent who was making the inquiry that that would not be so. I guess that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) who is at the table heard that. Did the Minister? He did. He agreed with her. He is shaking his head and not arguing with me on that. I wonder whether in view of that advice I should recommend to the pensioners of Australia that they now go out and buy diamonds and whack them round their fingers-- Mr Ronald Edwards —Or in your nose. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member for Stirling said: 'Or in your nose'. That is an indication of how the honourable member feels about the aged of this community. He does not care about those people at all. It is absolutely disgraceful. Mr Ruddock —I think that is racist. Absolutely. It is a racist comment. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Someone is suggesting that it is a racist comment. I do not wish to create unnecessary problems in this chamber. I wonder whether the Minister at the table will now confirm that it is a proper course of action for pensioners to avoid the assets test by buying diamonds to place on their fingers . We have been told by him tonight, by the shake of his head, that rings on fingers will not be subjected to scrutiny in terms of valuations. Frankly, I do not believe it. One of the great tragedies of the implementation of the assets test is that the Government has acknowledged that it simply cannot balance the books. Last night in this place I spoke at some length about the procedures being implemented to drag middle income earners into the higher income tax ranges. Yet the Government is still overspending by billions of dollars. I know that not all pensioners have been fortunate enough to acquire assets, but not all who have assets and who have put away for tomorrow were necessarily born with a silver spoon in their mouths. Many of those people have gone without in the belief that it would be best if they put aside something to supplement the amount which the Government gave them to ensure that their old age, their twilight years, was more comfortable. What the Government is now doing is clamping down on that and saying: 'You will pay a penalty for that because we cannot cope'. I believe that , if the present Government continues, it will not cope any better in the future than it has in the last few months. I believe every person in Australia is entitled to view the implementation of the assets tests as only a beginning. It is a test that has been prepared for this election. If the Government is re-elected, because of its high spending policies it will be forced to screw a bit tighter. The Government cannot stop spending. Therefore, it will have to resort to every measure to wring as much money out of the people as it can. If Australia were unfortunate enough to have the Government returned at the next poll and the Government's economic management was as bad as it has been, it would be able to put up a case for saying that those with $100,000 are very well off. Incidentally, I do not think there is any promise of indexation of the figures which have already been implemented as upper limits. The Government may well adopt the attitude that with inflation, the value of property and so on will go up, so that more pensioners will be pushed into the higher assets category anyway. That could be the way the Government will do it. It will be interesting to hear the Minister at the table answer those questions. When we talk about the plight of the aged everyone seems to concentrate on the assets test, but there are other aspects of the tightening up on the aged to which attention should be drawn. Last night in this chamber I referred to the fact that if the $16,500 taxation threshold that applied in 1979 has been moved in accordance with inflation, and were 46c in the dollar taxation applied, the figure would have been up to $26,500. I said that the previous Fraser Government had paid some price for what was perceived as insufficient activity in coming to grips with the escalation of taxation in this country. The previous Government moved the threshold from $16,500 to $19,500, but it suits the present Government to leave it at $19,500. The brickie, the carpenter, the nursing sister, the motor mechanic and many others are being pushed into this 46c in the dollar income tax bracket. That suits the Government because it is a big spending government. It wants the money. What has the Government done for pensioners since it came to power? It came to power on a promise that it would raise the taxation threshold for pensioners. That was the promise in 1983. What has happened? A pensioner receiving the full pension and earning an additional income of $20 a week paid $20 tax in 1982-83 the last year of the Liberal-National Party coalition government. Probably such a person was earning an additional $20 a week by ironing a few shirts-she may well have even been ironing the Minister's shirts-or doing a bit of house cleaning. She was paying $20 a year in tax. But this year that person will face a tax bill of $109, which is an increase of $89. So the Government is even screwing the aged to get in the money to finance its high spending policies. In 1982-83 a pensioner receiving a full pension and earning an additional $25 a week paid $132 a year in tax. This year he or she will pay $211. If this Government cannot administer this country, cannot manage this country without belting down into the ground the middle income earners, without ripping the rings off the aged pensioners, without taxing those older people who are fortunate to have good enough health to do a little extra work, it should get out at the next election. The Government is already showing the signs of incompetence. It is non- discriminatory in terms of where it fires its gun to get its money. All it has is an obsession to spend money and introduce programs which will cost many billions of dollars more than the programs which existed prior to its election on a bag of false promises on 5 March 1983. If I were a pensioner I would not trust any government in terms of where such schemes will stop. Once these schemes are put in place they are very hard to undo. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.08) —I am pleased to support some of the comments that have just been made by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) in this debate relating to the Department of Social Security. We have all debated the argument about the needy and the greedy for a long time. When one looks at income-money earned or money received-it is pretty easy to come to some assessments. Most governments, past and present, have been able to put down requirements as to what establishes the needy and the greedy when it comes to turning to the government purse. However, when one gets to assets all of that changes. It is interesting, when we try to define the needy and the greedy to ask ourselves: 'Who, at retirement, is needy and who is greedy?'. Is someone who has earned, say, $500 to $1,000 a week, who has, for instance, attended the races, every Saturday and lost two-thirds of that, who has led a very extravagant life and who has approached retirement with no assets and no income, needy? Or is someone who has earned, say, the basic wage, who has raised a family, been very careful with his money, managed to buy superannuation, saved a little money and gone without all the extravagances of life but ended up with a few assets and some form of income and applied for government assistance, greedy? Is such a person greedy because he has forgone a lot in his life to achieve that position? I sometimes wonder when we talk of the needy and the greedy whether we should talk of people's assets and income when they retire or the results of their working life. That would create all sorts of difficulties for government. It is nice and simple to look at people's situations upon retirement. But it is a fact that when one looks at assets one creates a very difficult position. Although many governments have tried to address the question-all of them, I believe, have made the judgment that people who have resources should not turn to Government for assistance in their retirement-all have failed to come up with a sensible and equitable proposition as to how those people should be treated. Let me say that this particular attempt is no better than most of the previous ones that have failed. I can give all sorts of examples about how inequities arise. Within my electorate I know of a married couple, both in their 80s and both not very healthy, who occupy the family home which happens to be on part of a farm that they operated for many years. They have town planning problems which dictate that the smallest area of land on which they can reside is 90 acres. They are able to lease it, but the income they would receive only equals many of the outgoings, such as rates and taxes. So it is not a very attractive proposition. But it is very attractive to a certain type of person called the hobby farmer. So this little package of land and house is worth $150,000. The Government, to my mind, has not addressed itself in great detail to what is the value of a house situated on a farm. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) believes that a house on a farm is worth nothing. That is not so. People buy farms on the basis of the amount of acreage that is available. Someone will work out what is the notional value of the house. But anyone who has dealt in farming property knows that the value of the house is not what sells the farm. In fact, a person could have a farm on which is situated a beautiful house and a heap of rocks. If someone is trying to buy the farm, he will not pay much for the house. The reality is that it is very difficult to place a value on it. Quite clearly, the married couple in the example which I have given will not qualify for a pension although they have no income. So they have the choice of starving or of relocating. The Government can say that they could borrow against their farm or it could give other examples as to what they could do. But their solution is to sell up and move to a town which in this case happens to be 30 or 40 miles away. I would advise them to buy a house in the town. That leaves them, as a couple, with something less than $70,000, and not $100,000, because they are both infirm and one of them may pass away in the near future. That means that they would be eligible for a pension. The Government will not give them a pension if they stay on the farm. It demands that they move out of the family home in which they raised their family and at an age when they would prefer not to move. But by making that simple decision to sell out and buy a more expensive home, they become eligible for the pension. All that this achieves is major pressures and major dislocation. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) should not continue to shake his head because it is a reality. We already understand that a couple of new industries will be formed as a result of this Budget, one of which is significant in this area. We will have the 'buy yourself a de facto' tax avoidance industry. There is no way that a government, other than by massive intrusion of privacy, can establish whether someone has a so-called enduring relationship. I hope the Minister will find the time to define to me what is an enduring relationship and tell me how he would establish it. A bloke can be asked to produce his marriage certificate. But how does one ask him for his enduring relationship certificate? What a joke! It will be a wonderful business. Every single person will have a de facto relationship. There is no way that the Government could find out whether a couple has an enduring relationship other than by intruding on people's privacy. Dr Blewett —You did it under Social Security. Mr TUCKEY —I tell the Minister that we never granted the spouse rebate to de facto spouses and I am giving him a very good reason why it will not work. The Minister will have his opportunity to speak at the end of this debate. He can tell me how he will establish what is an enduring relationship and how the Australian Taxation Office will deal with defining who is eligible for the rebate, other than knocking on people's doors and asking: 'Did you sleep with this lady last night and at least three times this week?' That will be a terrible situation. We are talking about dollars and cents, and I can tell the Committee that the scheme will not work. I say, with due respect, to the pensioner community, particularly people in my electorate who are burdened with assets whose value never represents income capacity, that they are disadvantaged and that the Government's scheme is inequitable. It is easy to talk about social security and what one gives. It is easy to say that this is the situation in which one takes away. However, none of us ever argues that a good tax is equitable, simple, certain and-I add a word which Australian Labor Party members deny-visible. Members of the Labor Party are the specialists in taxation by stealth. If I am ever sufficiently influential in this place, I shall demand that taxes be visible, because I believe that governments should be able to show clearly to simple people how they pay their taxes; but very few governments of either political persuasion would agree with me on that issue. Let us have it straight. There are many problems with the Government's assets test. It is inequitable and it fails on the principle test. Therefore, the Government has gone in other directions, and that is what worries me. I have been around. I have worked in industries and in places in Australia where many things happened and many people tried to escape to southern areas and, in fact, did so in de facto relationships and in many other ways. Previously Australian laws made divorce and remarriage difficult. That position does not exist any more, and people can decide to be divorced without experiencing the trauma that they were once obliged to suffer. Why is it necessary for a government further to encourage people not to be married and not to make traditional decisions? The Government will find that, in time, those actions will drag us down considerably . I wish that I had the time to address myself to my great concern about continuing to finance people to have children outside of marriage and, more importantly, beyond responsibility. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! That is not at all pertinent. It might be the end of the honourable member's speech, but the Committee is debating the estimates. The honourable member will stick to the point. Mr TUCKEY —I am talking about the estimates. We shall spend half of the Budget's allocation on social security. I shall run out of time in which to speak, so I say only that we should not let ourselves become involved in our personal little worries when we are talking about this matter. Is there anything more important than the $2 billion that the taxpayer has to pay? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(9.18) —I hesitate to speak in this debate because I know that honourable members want this debate to progress rapidly, given that the House did not adjourn until 2.46 a.m. today. I wish to address myself to the efficiency of the House and the departments. Earlier, we heard the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) defend the assets test and argue that people who held assets, particularly in rural communities, could lease or rent them and achieve a viable return. I should like the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), on behalf of the honourable member for McMillan, to justify the efficiency of the assets test. We are aware already, from the estimates supplied with the Budget, that some $25m has been spent on the assets test. It is predicted that another $ 30m will be spent in implementing the test. We have learned also that the test will raise a total of $45m. Where is the efficiency of the assets test? Where is the return on investment? How does the Minister justify employing 1,500 additional public servants to administer that test? I might be a little old fashioned, but I think that the Parliament has a responsibility to the taxpayers of Australia to produce some sort of return for the money that the Parliament is spending on their behalf. I do not think that $55m to raise $45m and the employment of 1,500 public servants means that we are exercising our responsibilities in stewardship on behalf of the people of Australia-that is, unless the assets test scheme really belongs in the community employment program area and has somehow been put into the wrong area. I am concerned also about the efficiency of Medicare. I will not delay the House at length with my remarks on Medicare as we have heard many speakers tonight go through its major shortcomings and costs, but there is one area I am particularly concerned about, and that is the area of efficiency. We have set up another bureaucracy, another mechanism to administer Medicare. Medibank Private and the other private health funds are still operating. Why was it not deemed appropriate to use the existing structures as a mechanism to run Medicare? I do not know whether the Minister looked at the relative efficiencies of the private health funds or at how the former Government chose to administer health care or health insurance facilities for the vast majority of Australians, but they did it on a very efficient basis by employing far fewer people per member than the Medicare arrangements do. They used chemist shops and people who were used for other purposes-such as sales assistants and people working in other occupations- to provide this additional health insurance facility. Why was this Government determined to cause retrenchments so it could set up another bureaucratic mechanism to administer the Medicare operations? Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(9.21) —In listening to this debate we realise the problem that the Opposition faces. We had a long diatribe from the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) against the spending of money by this Government. He said that we are a high-spending government. Some of the other honourable members who contributed to the debate, such as the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), said that we were not spending enough on nursing homes. This year we are spending $1 billion on recurrent expenditure for nursing homes, an increase over last year of 18 per cent-three times the rate of inflation-yet we are condemned for not spending enough money on nursing homes, while the honourable member for Moreton says we are spending too much money all round. Somehow the Opposition has to get its act together and decide whether it wants the welfare provisions this Government has introduced, or whether it wants to remove them in order to achieve a low deficit. But it cannot put both arguments, as it has in this debate tonight. This is just one example of the Opposition's attitude. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) said we were not spending enough on children's services. We have increased spending on children's services in this Budget by $44m, or nearly 50 per cent. The Opposition may say that we are an overspending government, but it cannot have it both ways and also say that we have not spent enough on children's services and nursing homes. We have increased funding to nursing homes by 18 per cent, which is three times the rate of inflation, and to children's services by 50 per cent yet we are condemned for not having done enough. I turn to the assets test issue which has run through this debate. Not one member of the Opposition has addressed the essential point of the assets test. All of them made short term comments about the particular costs in these opening years. But what the Opposition has to answer, if it is to be regarded as credible by anyone in the community, is whether it believes in a needs based welfare system. It said it did for seven years. How can we have a fair needs based welfare system unless assets are tested as well as incomes? It is totally unfair that some old people should be denied a pension because they have a level of income that cuts them out, when people with assets which give them far more basic resources and far more to fall back on are not tested? The Opposition has to answer that question otherwise its criticism of the assets test will not be acceptable. To make a needs based welfare system effective we have to supplement an income test with an assets test. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and other Opposition speakers on the assets test issue did not face up to that. The Government and I have accepted that in the short term the assets test will bring us in little money. Anybody who has studied the problems we shall face over the next 20 years will recognise two things. Firstly, there is a large increase in the number of aged people in our community. If the proportion of old people whose pensions are reduced by the assets test does not increase at all in absolute numbers, it will increase because of the rapidly increasing proportion of the community who are aged. Secondly, those people who are aged have lived through the most fortunate period in this society-the boom years of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s in which they have managed to build up levels of assets which most old people in the community in the past have not been able to do. That must be considered. This Government is making decisions not just for the short term, not just expediently in terms of the next 12 months, but decisions that will benefit our children and our children's children in the next 20, 30 and 40 years. Those are long term decisions. One reason why we are in government, and will stay in government, is that Labor has the courage to tackle questions of that sort. I wish to deal with a couple of points before I come to Medicare. There are some items that have been sliding around this debate with which I want to deal. The honourable member for Dundas raised the issue of the defence service homes scheme. There was some disappointment about the decision that we took in that area. As I think the honourable member is probably aware, we have established a task force to review the programs of housing assistance to the Australian Public Service and to the defence forces, which includes and therefore covers the defence service homes scheme. It would have been pre-emptive to make decisions about that scheme before we got back the recommendations from the task force, and before we had given full consideration to consultation with the representatives of potential recipients. We have that task force going. The report will be examined by the Government and we will discuss it with those who represent the recipients. I am hopeful that in future years we will be able to address the problem which, I admit, we did not address in this Budget. I have tried to explain the reasons for so doing. I turn to a couple of the minor points about Medicare before I deal with one argument, and then I will bring this debate to a close as I know we have all had a long period on this debate. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) argued that somehow there was something wrong with the accounting of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) when he sought to point out that the Medicare levy was a substitute for private contributions. I shall come in a moment to the accounting practices of the honourable member for Mackellar who quite clearly has fiddled the books. He made this charge against the Treasurer. The point made by the Treasurer will be understood by all Australian people. The Medicare levy is a substitute for the private levies, the private insurance, the private contributions made by people in the past. That is clear and, I think, obvious. That was the point the Treasurer was trying to make. The honourable member for Gippsland raised the question of the provision of Medicare offices in many areas. First we must try to have a relatively efficient system and that point was discussed by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). Perhaps I could deal with the honourable member's arguments in relation to efficiency. His argument was contradictory. At one stage he said that Medicare operated with more people than did the old private insurance system. In the next instance he said that as a result of Medicare we were threatening people with retrenchment. The honourable member can solve those logical dilemmas . Let me give him the figures. In the last full year of the private health insurance system of the Liberal Government, it cost $163m in administration and advertising to deliver a medical benefits system under private funds. In the first full year of Medicare it will cost $114m-with a saving of $49m because it will be a far more efficient system. One of the reasons for that efficiency is that we have a smaller branch network, with less offices to support. That is the most costly part of a health insurance system. I have to point out, though, that there are numerous ways in which we have dealt with that problem. For instance, people do not have to go to Medicare offices. They can do it through 'pay doctor' cheques which are being turned around within three to four days of the time claims arrive in a Medicare office. Again, in every State anybody can phone from any country area directly to the Medicare office in the capital city for simply the price of a local call. That service remains. Of course, we are examining the network of offices and trying to identify areas which may be poorly serviced in terms of the cover we can provide. At the moment we are looking at two things-extending services through post offices and local hospitals. We are determined to deliver as good a network as we can but also remembering that we want to keep the system cost efficient as far as possible. I will now take the major issue which was raised by the honourable member for Mackellar and which has run through nearly all of the Budget debate about Medicare. I want to examine the charges that he made. First of all, he claimed that the Medicare levy covers only a small part of the health cost of this country. We have never claimed anything else. Just as the private insurance system under the Liberals covered only a small portion of the health costs of this country, so the Medicare levy covers only a small proportion. There is no difference between it and the previous scheme in that respect. Nobody has ever claimed that private health insurance covered all the health costs of this country; we are not claiming that the Medicare levy does. What we are saying is that the Medicare levy and other savings cover, or nearly cover-I will come to that point-the extra costs of Medicare. That is the only claim we make and have ever made. Let us deal with that quite fairly. Secondly, the honourable member for Mackellar is a great one for making comparisons about how much Medicare is costing the Australian public. In every speech he has made in this Parliament, in every speech he has made in public, he has ignored entirely all those people who pay only the levy. Fifty per cent of the Australian population now pays no private insurance. I admit that a significant proportion of those- Mr Donald Cameron —What percentage paid it beforehand? Dr BLEWETT —A little over half of those never paid for health insurance before and they do not have to pay it now. But the remaining three million people pay no private insurance now. I have already spoken to the honourable member for Mackellar and I wish to submit a table which shows the savings made by those people by paying only the levy and getting their basic health cover and what they would have had to pay if the Liberals scheme had still been in operation. I seek leave of the House to incorporate this table in Hansard. Mr Porter —I would like to see the table. Dr BLEWETT —The table has been shown to the honourable member for Mackellar. Mr Porter —Did he agree? Dr BLEWETT —Yes. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMPARISONS OF HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS UNDER FORMER ARRANGEMENTS AND MEDICARE-IN RESPECT OF A FAMILY OF A MARRIED COUPLE WITH TWO CHILDREN-AUSTRALIA (WEEKLY)- LEVY ONLY Projected Savings/ old scheme additional Taxable income of income earner* Levy payable tax rebate (a) costs $ $ $ $ 200 . . 10.68 *10.68 250 . . 10.68 *10.68 300 3.00 10.68 * 7.68 350 3.50 10.68 * 7.18 400 4.00 10.68 * 6.68 450 4.50 10.68 * 6.18 500 5.00 10. 68 * 5.68 600 6.00 10.68 * 4.68 800 8.00 10.68 * 2.68 1,000 10.00 10.68 * . 68 1,400 13.46 10.68 * 2.78 (a) Medical contribution rates based on 13 per cent increase in Schedule fees over 1 November 1982 fee levels and hospital charges of $140 a day. * One of couple only earns income * savings * additional Dr BLEWETT —I now come to the key point. The honourable member for Mackellar talks simply and only about people who pay the levy plus private insurance. Here he simply descends to mendacity. He talks of a secret additional levy. He talks of a secret levy of $830m, a secret levy of 0.7 per cent of taxable personal income, supposedly $2.69 a week for a person on male average weekly earnings. He has a notion that somehow everybody is paying a secret levy as well as the public levy. That whole edifice, his whole argument, is based on a pattern of lies and dishonesty. The calculations are rotten because at base they are simply mendacious. I agree that the figures are difficult. No doubt the honourable member for Mackellar, in his rather slippery way, believed that we would not start to analyse them and that it would be too complicated to explain. What can be simply explained is his dishonesty. What he has done is to point out that when calculating the real cost of private insurance under the old Liberal system one has to allow for the effect of the tax rebate on health insurance to get the real figure. We have been honest and we agree. In all the tables we have put out we have recognised this. We have always made allowance for the old health tax rebate but the honourable member for Mackellar does not tell us that that was a cost to government, because a lot of revenue was forgone to provide it. The estimate of what it would have cost this year to maintain that health tax rebate is $630m. The Liberals, in order in maintain their scheme , would have had to spend $630m this year. The accurate way to state it is that they would have had to forgo that $630m. They attack us for removing that tax rebate but they ignore utterly the fact that the savings must be shown on the Medicare revenue side. If they are to have any shreds of honesty they will concede that. We cannot count it on one side of the books and not on the other. If we are not spending that money that is a saving that helps to underwrite the Medicare program. What the honourable member for Mackellar has done is a simple accounting trick. He showed the figure on the side that favours the Liberals and neglected utterly the figure on the side that favours the Government. A person who practised that sort of accounting in the real world would go to gaol. The proper accounting removes in one blow most of the secret levy and the whole dishonest edifice of costing that has built up. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table that shows the costing quite clearly. Leave granted. The table read as follows- 1984-85 COSTING OF MEDICARE $m Additional expenditure- Medical benefits 1,011 Hospital payments to States 854 Increased payment to private hospitals 54 Community health 20 *Administration 114 Total 2,053 Additional revenue- Levy 1 per cent taxable income 1,191 Health insurance rebates 630 Reinsurance pool 80 Total 1,901 Net outlay 152 * The figure shown is the Health Insurance Commission's gross management expenses for administering Medicare. The net cost of Medicare's administration is $10 million less ($104 million) because of savings in the Department of Health. The Department is no longer involved in the payment of direct billing claims for pensioners, unemployed and low income earners. Dr BLEWETT —Because we are rather different from the Opposition, we will admit that there is still a small deficit. There is still a deficit of $152m in a $2 billion program. One of the reasons why it is slightly higher than we anticipated is that people have voted with their feet to support the public hospital system and our success with inflation has meant that the levy return has not been as high as originally estimated. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table which is the clearest refutation of what the honourable member for Mackellar has said and which shows what people are paying when they take out the levy and basic private insurance, making proper and fair allowance for the effects of the tax rebate. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMPARISONS OF HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS UNDER FORMER ARRANGEMENTS AND MEDICARE-IN RESPECT OF A FAMILY OF A MARRIED COUPLE AND 2 CHILDREN-AUSTRALIA (WEEKLY) Levy and Private Insurance Projected Savings/ Taxable income of Levy February '84 Levy and old scheme (a) additional income earner* payable basic hospital basic hospital -tax rebate costs $ $ $ $ $ $ 200 . . 6.15 6.15 10.68 *4.53 250 . . 6.15 6.15 10.68 *4.53 300 3 .00 6.15 9.15 10.68 *1.53 350 3.50 6.15 9.65 10.68 *1.03 400 4.00 6.15 10.15 10.68 *0.53 450 4.50 6.15 10.65 10.68 *0.03 500 5.00 6.15 11.15 10.68 *0.47 600 6.00 6.15 12.15 10.68 *1.47 800 8.00 6.15 14.15 10.68 *3.47 1,000 10.00 6.15 16.15 10.68 *5.47 1,400 13.46 6.15 19.61 10.68 *8.93 (a) Medical contribution rates based on 13 per cent increase in Schedule fees over 1 November 1982 fee levels and hospital charges of $140 a day. * One of couple only earns income. * saving * additional Dr BLEWETT —Honourable members will see that Australian families are better off up to between $400 and $500 a week in family income. I am quite happy to have the chamber and the country judge the fairness, the accuracy and the honesty of our Medicare calculations by those tables. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Attorney-General's Department Proposed expenditure, $242,880,000. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(9.38) —There are a couple of issues that I want to take up concerning the estimates for the Attorney-General's Department. One concerns the administration of the bankruptcy section of the Department. I have not been involved in any great detail in the bankruptcy area professionally or in any other sense but I have heard over the years a significant amount of criticism of the administration of bankruptcy in this country. This was brought home to me very recently when a couple came to see me in my electorate office in Burnie, Tasmania, to explain to me the problems that they had encountered during a bankruptcy. I wish to relate very briefly to the House what happened. A lady and her sister went into the operation of a small retail business on the north west coast of Tasmania. One of the sisters was conscientious and diligent, on the evidence that I have available to me, whereas the other sister was, it appears, much less responsible. There is some evidence of dishonesty on her part . The irresponsible partner, if I can call her that, started to use partnership funds for private purposes. She also neglected her business and private affairs in other ways. So, as one would expect, in time she became bankrupt. She did not tell her sister. In fact, there is some evidence that for a period she was not told even by the authorities that she was bankrupt. Some time later, as a result of the business debts accrued in the operation of the business, the conscientious sister, the other partner, was forced into bankruptcy. I will go on to talk about the Estimates in a moment or two but one of the points that I want to make is that because of a lack of communication on the part of those responsible, the conscientious sister was told by the authorities that she could not continue to manage the business and that it should be left in the control of the other partner, her sister. The stock which had been valued at around $6,000 was reduced in value to about $510 when the business was finally closed as a result of bankruptcy. One of the problems was that one of the trustees involved in the bankruptcy of one of the ladies was resident in Adelaide because some of the creditors were there and another trustee was in Melbourne but no trustee was operating in Tasmania. We see some incredible things when we look at the figures involving this lady's bankruptcy case. The trustees called in the assets, sold them up and then distributed the final results to the creditors. Looking at the receipts side, there was a house and the trustees got $10,604 for it. A car was sold for $1,766 . There is a lot of interesting information about the way that car was sold. I have made inquiries in some detail about that matter, which I will relate in due course. I have put questions to the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy in the meantime and I hope he will answer them quite soon because he has taken quite some time already to answer the questions I have put to him. The stock was sold for $510 and other receipts amounted to $375. In all, that is a total of $13,255. So the total estate of the bankrupt person was worth a little over $13,000. Let us look at the payments side. That money came in. What went out? The tax costs of the petition amounted to $686. The Official Receiver' s fees were $393. The trustees' remuneration was $8,232. Mr Hodgman —How much? Mr GROOM —The sum of $8,232. Postage, stationery, et cetera, amount to $5. The dividend that was eventually declared to the creditors was $3,712. There were bank charges of $21 and the trustees disbursed $206 for an air fare to Tasmania. I still do not know why one of the trustees had to come to Tasmania on that occasion because he had some agents working for him there. I ask the Committee to think of the facts. A person went bankrupt. The assets, including a house, were worth $13,255. Out of that sum the creditors got $3,712. So we can say almost $10,000 went out on expenses in selling a house and a motor car. This indicates there is something wrong with the administration of bankruptcy in this country. Mr Robert Brown —Hear, hear! Mr GROOM —I see that the honourable member agrees with the point I am making. I think that something smells. This is not an efficient system and something certainly has to be done about it. I say to the House quite frankly that I have not been very impressed by the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy, Mr Wenn. I wrote to him some months ago and it took some months for him to reply. Quite frankly, he gave me a rather rude reply. He did not understand the concerns of the family , particularly those of the husband who spent thousands of dollars. He is an innocent person who works very hard for the Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd at Burnie in Tasmania. The Inspector-General showed no concern. They are threatening to sell up the house, yet the husband is totally innocent. I am greatly concerned by the poor attitude displayed by Mr Wenn, and that is evident from the correspondence he sent to me. I have put further questions to Mr Wenn, and I am making other further inquiries. I have some interesting information, particularly concerning the way in which the motor vehicle was sold. I shall not indicate those details to the Committee now, but in due course, the Minister and the authorities will be informed about the facts that I have ascertained. I want also to mention expenditure on royal commissions. At page 236 of Budget Paper No. 1, one sees a list of the amounts expended up to 30 June 1984 on various royal commissions. For the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, there is expenditure of $12,432,000. For the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking/Activities of the Nugan Hand Group-we heard that today-there is expenditure of $7,104,000. For the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies there is expenditure of $1,790,000. For the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam there is expenditure of $1, 867,000. I just mention those figures to indicate the amount that we are spending on royal commissions. There is a proliferation of commissions and inquiries. I shall not go through the rest of them, but there is a significant list of the different inquiries at present. The figure given in the Estimates for the amount spent to 30 June 1984 is $26,552,000. The Estimates for 1984-85 total $9,295,000. I make one significant point about this matter. The amount of money spent in paying for the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union was money well spent. Mr Robert Brown —It backfired. Mr GROOM —The honourable member can say that, but I believe that Mr Costigan has performed his duties very well indeed. Mr Robert Brown —Admirably. Mr GROOM —Admirably. I gave notice of a motion. He has been stopped now. The evidence will come out in due course, and the honourable member will have a very red face when he finds out what it is all about. Mr Costigan, QC, has approached his duties in a dedicated and fearless manner. He has shown a very strong sense of public duty in the way in which he has gone about his functions. He has had a very tough job. For a start, he has had to deal with the Ship Painters and Dockers Union, and they are a fairly tough mob. Mr Robert Brown —And all the tax dodgers. Mr GROOM —Yes, he has had to deal with some tax fiddlers. We on this side do not condone that. The honourable member's side mentioned some very innocent people. The honourable member will admit that. Innocent people were castigated and they had their characters destroyed in this House by the present Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) and others, but certainly some of those mentioned by the Royal Commissioner were people who should have been mentioned and who should have been criticised as he criticised them. However, I am concerned that there appears to be some influence being brought to bear on this Government by some very powerful people in this community, some of whom reside in New South Wales. They have said to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the others responsible: 'Stop. Don't go any further. Costigan is causing trouble. Let's get rid of him. We don't want him to continue his inquiry'. So the Government has said: 'Right, your job is over, Mr Costigan'. That is regrettable, because he has been performing his job very well indeed. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(9.48) —The listening audience will note the final comments of the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom). Unfortunately, as we get into a phase of political activity such as this, one notes that the claims become more extravagant and less substantive. The honourable member's earlier comments were sensible. I would not concur with his latter remark, because such rather loose claims only bring discredit upon this place. I want to deal with three topics. One is the question of workers compensation in the area of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans); the other two relate to the role of the settling mechanisms for industrial disputes and the role of the Trade Practices Commission. Briefly, this Government is intending to develop , in a co-operative way with the States, a no-fault compensation scheme. We are trying to do it in a way that is different from that which was indicated in the report of the Woodhouse National Committee of Inquiry on Compensation and Rehabilitation in Australia in 1974. Our intention is to use an expanded version of the motor vehicle accident compensation scheme in New South Wales which has been recommended by Professor Sackville. Our intention is to expand that motor vehicle accident coverage to try to provide a more comprehensive coverage and then to do something about extending compensation benefits to workers throughout industry. Ultimately our goal is to provide 24-hour-a-day cover for people both in the work force and out of it and at the same time to remove that fault component. The reason for that, incidentally, is that substantially these days the biggest cost in the workers compensation area is in administration and litigation. The previous speaker talked about the problems involved in litigation. It is quite appropriate to talk of that in this area too. A very expensive burden is being carried by the community, and certainly by small business, in the workers compensation area. Our goal as a government, and I believe it is a commendable one, is to move towards a much more comprehensive approach to accident compensation. People listening to this debate might be interested to know that in the Northern Territory a no-fault motor vehicle accident scheme was introduced in 1979. During the five years of the operation of this scheme, accident victims have obtained relatively speedy settlement of their claims with very little formality. The very telling feature is that in the five years prior to the establishment of the Northern Territory no-fault traffic accident scheme, premiums went up 500 per cent. Premiums went up only 30 per cent in the five years after the scheme was introduced. Clearly, the evidence is there. If we look at the New Zealand experience we find that there is considerable benefit for the community. This Government is very determined to try to get States to co -operate in the development of such schemes. I believe that the interchange of powers which is foreshadowed in one of our referenda will provide that sort of vehicle. Thus, a single insurer no-fault accident compensation scheme is very high on this Government's list of priorities. The second issue would certainly interest the Minister at the table, the Minister for Communication (Mr Duffy), with his interest in sporting matters. I put the view that we ought to be looking at handling disputes between football clubs over player transfers through the State Industrial Commissions. The current problem, which relates to my first comment, is that we are getting into a very expensive area of common law litigation between clubs and players who seek to transfer from one club to another. It is not uncommon for the cost of a player transferring to be $100,000. When one considers how much that money would contribute to the development of a particular sport in an area, for example, if we were able to put $100,000 into junior competition rather than waste it on fruitless common law exercises, one sees that there is much to be said for our looking seriously at developing a proper method for handling disputes involving players. I refer particularly to the football area, but I would think it would spill over into other areas of dispute involving sports people. We should look at handling those disputes initially through the State Industrial Commissions, but with interchange of powers legislation we could look at the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission handling interstate disputes and transfers. This would involve Queensland and New South Wales in rugby league and in the Australian rules scene it would involve Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria. I believe there is great merit in that proposal. The final matter I want to deal with also relates to professional sport. There is a considerable problem being experienced by professional sporting associations in their zoning arrangements. Clubs these days have great difficulty defending their zoning arrangements because they are always subject to restraint of trade challenges in the courts. It would be valuable for this Government to consider having the Trade Practices Tribunal test out zoning because I believe that in a fundamental way zoning constitutes an apprenticeship system. If we were to secure zoning as a legitimate apprenticeship system for professional sport, we would ensure that when clubs put $1m into their metropolitan and country zones they could be assured that the players being developed would be tied to them. It would not remove their right to transfer, but simply secure their investment. In the interests of economy of time I will merely repeat the three points I made. The first issue was that of a workers compensation scheme with a single insurer no-fault arrangement. The second issue concerned the handling of player disputes through industrial tribunals. The third looked at the matter of securing zoning, as far as sporting clubs are concerned, with an appropriate case before the Trade Practices Tribunal. I believe that that would be a sensible way to proceed. Given this Government's generally sensible management, I do not doubt that we will eventually get around to that. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $157,746,000. Department of Aboriginal Affairs Proposed expenditure, $216,817,000. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.57) —In the 10 minutes I have available to me, I preface my remarks on the estimates for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs by referring to two fundamental principles which I think should be kept in the forefront of our discussions in the Parliament on that most important area of policy and administration, that is immigration. The first principle is that there is no area of Government policy in administration that I can bring to mind -I invite honourable members on either side of the chamber to think about this- which has a longer term and more lasting impact on Australia than the question of immigration. Treasury policies will come and go. They might impact for one year, two years, three years or four years but, with respect to my old friend the honourable member for Hunter, (Mr Robert Brown), then they fade away. However, immigration policies which we implement today will impact on this nation not just for five years, 10 years or 20 years but for decades and, indeed , generations. It is true to say that the immigration policies we implement today literally will shape the face of Australia into the twenty-first century and beyond. Therefore, these are policies which must be carefully considered and properly implemented because, indeed, their long term impact is very substantial . I am delighted to see so many honourable members in the chamber for this part of the debate because I can bring to mind no area of Government policy which requires so basically and fundamentally for its implementation public support. Many times and in a wide range of areas, governments have to take decisions which do not have public support. These have to be taken in areas of administration when governments responsibly have to take certain action which may not be electorally popular. The increase in income tax is a good example. It may be appropriate to legislate in a particular area in the national interest. However, the one area where public support is absolutely critical for the successful implementation of policy is the area of immigration. We do not want to see happen in this country what has happened in other countries where immigration policy has not had public support. This has produced a backlash and a hostile reaction. It has produced community disruption and disunity. As I said the other day, we do not want to see ever Brixton-type situations in Australia. Friday, 7 September was an historic day for the Parliament because the Minister at the table, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), brought down a very detailed ministerial statement accompanied by a number of tables. This speech and the tables are to be found in the Hansard for 7 September, from page 795 through to page 799. Before discussing the Minister's statement and tables, I wish to read into Hansard a paragraph from an editorial. I believe it is one of the finest newspaper editorials I have ever read in my life. It appeared in the Australian on Wednesday, 1 August this year. Under the heading ' Inverse McCarthyism' it stated: Our policies on land rights and immigration are proper subjects for discussion. They will have major consequences for Australia's future. It is possible to be strongly opposed to racism and yet have strong reservations regarding both of these fundamentally important programs on which we have quite recently embarked. The point is made that these are proper subjects for discussion and that it is possible to be opposed to racism, yet have strong reservations about both these fundamentally important programs on which we have recently embarked at the instance of the Hawke socialist Government. It is in that context that I wish to talk very calmly about the Minister's statement on Friday. This House distinguished itself on Friday; the Minister was heard in comparative silence and when I replied I was heard in comparative silence. But tragically, after the Minister had made his statement in the House, he went to a Press conference. At that Press conference the Minister said things , and I look him straight in the eye, which once again have embroiled the immigration debate-things which I do not believe were in the interests of that debate. I certainly do not believe they were in the interests of fairness and truth. It is one thing for the Minister to say that the figures upon which I had relied should be laughed out of court. In so saying, he insulted the Australian Bureau of Statistics, because the figures I quoted did not come out of the head of Michael Hodgman; they came from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Then the Minister went further and attacked both my credibility and that of the Opposition; so tonight I intend to tell the people of Australia what the Minister's own figures do to the story that he has been proclaiming in this Parliament for the past 12 months, aided and abetted by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Month after month in this House and outside it, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Prime Minister have told the people of Australia that there has been 'no change in immigration policy'. Those words were repeated over and over again-'no change in immigration policy'. They grossly misled this Parliament and the people of Australia. I now read into the parliamentary record the Minister's own figures; let us examine them. In 1982-83 , the last year of the Fraser Government, total settlements from the United Kingdom and Ireland were 27,249. In 1983-84, the first year of the Hawke socialist Government and the first full year of this Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs the figure was 13,624. That is a drop of 50 per cent, on the Minister's own figures. Yet the Minister said that there had been no change in immigration policy. Let us look at European migration. On the Minister's own figures in 1982-83 there were 19,731 immigrants from Europe. In 1983-84 the figure was 10,846, a drop of 45 per cent. Yet the Prime Minister and this Minister month after month have told the people of Australia that there has been no change in immigration policy. Mr West —What about skilled migration? Mr HODGMAN —The Minister draws my attention to business and skilled migration. In 1982-83, the last year of the Fraser Government, 17,821 people in these categories entered Australia. In 1983-84, under this Minister and this Prime Minister, the figure dropped to 4,707-a massive drop of 74 per cent. Yet month after month this Minister and this Prime Minister misled the Parliament and the people of Australia by saying that there would be no change in immigration policy. In the last year of the Fraser Government European business and skilled migration was at a level of 10,625. Under this Minister and this Prime Minister it dropped to 2,579, on the Minister's own figures-a drop of 76 per cent. I now call on the Prime Minister and the Minister to explain to this Parliament and to the people of Australia why month after month they said there would be no change in immigration policy. Those statements were untrue; those statements were false. The Minister's own figures totally shatter the claims that he has been making. He owes this Parliament and the people of Australia, as does his accomplice, the Prime Minister, an explanation for the reason they have behaved in this disgraceful manner. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.07) —I take this opportunity, in talking on the appropriation for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, to support the government's program of increased assistance to migrants, whether they be first arrivals or longer term residents of Australia. I think it is important for us to get back to debating the estimates rather than talking about the matter that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) , talked about. Since coming to office the Labor Government has introduced a significant number of new services as well as expanding those already in existence. In particular, I refer honourable members to the expansion of the migrant education programs which, in 1983-84, received significant increases in Commonwealth funds for the purpose of increasing the number of permanent teachers within the various State adult migrant education schemes. Since assuming office the Government has been able to employ a further 350 teachers as a result of this initiative and some 30 additional teachers will be appointed in 1984-85 due to further increases for this period. Another Labor initiative of the last Budget was the child care program set up to give migrant women greater opportunity for making use of the Government's migrant education services. This project will again be funded in 1984-85. Likewise, the Labor Government's desire to develop more flexible English language course arrangements, which may be more appropriate to the specific needs of migrants, resulted in the establishment of self-access centres in 1983- 84. Other measures in this budgetary allocation of special note include funding for curriculum development and administrative charges designed to integrate the services available. The Labor Government has also demonstrated its commitment to strengthening and extending support services administered within the communities via grants in aid to community groups and trade unions and through migrant resource centres. Funding for these schemes has increased by 54 per cent and 72 per cent respectively since we took office. Another initiative of this Budget is the allocation for the establishment of eight new shop front settlement centres which will provide migrants with information about the Government and community resources available to them, complementing other existing information resources. The government has also given priority to upgrading translator and interpreter services which were run down under the previous government, the one to which the previous speaker belonged. In particular, I refer honourable members to the significant financial assistance allocated to the telephone interpreter service which plays such a vital role in ensuring that migrants receive equal treatment and access to legal , medical and government services. In the few remaining minutes I would like to make a couple of comments about the speech of the previous speaker and the lines along which the debate has gone in the last 12 months. I notice that the previous speaker has left the chamber. This is exactly what he did last year when we were debating this matter. He left the chamber because at that time he had a party to go to. I suppose he has a party to go to tonight. Last year he left the chamber and took no further part in that debate. This debate has degenerated because of a number of factors. It was initiated by Geoffrey Blainey's comments at a meeting in mid-March Warrnambool in western Victoria, my former home town. He stated that immigration policies were moving ahead of public opinion and that this would lead to increasing intolerance, hostility and fear. Professor Blainey was picked up by Mr Hodgman who said that he agreed with the main substance of what Professor Blainey was saying, that is, that there was considerable concern in the community. In April-May Mr Hodgman took up the issue of insufficient British and European migrants coming to this country. He raised that issue in this chamber. On Nationwide on 7 May Richard Carleton asked: Are there too many Vietnamese coming to Australia? Mr Hodgman said to Minister West. I'll say that you've altered the mix, you've altered the proportions . . . cut in British migration of 33 per cent and European migration of 22 per cent in the last 12 months. Mr Groom —Madam Chair, I take a point of order. The honourable member should use the honourable member's proper title. The CHAIRMAN —Yes, I am aware of that but I think the honourable member is reading from a document. Mr Groom —No, he was not. Mr HAND —I was. The honourable member does not think I would make it up, does he ? The CHAIRMAN —Order! If the honourable member is not reading from a document he will refer to members of this place in the proper way. Mr HAND —I am sorry. I apologise to you, Madam Chair. The CHAIRMAN —You should refer to the honourable member as the honourable member for Denison. Mr HAND —I will call him the honourable member for Denison. On 8 May at a Press conference the supposed great Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) entered the debate and said that the Australian community would tolerate continued Asian migration as long as it was balanced. Mr Groom —Who wrote this? Mr HAND —I wrote it. He claimed that there was an imbalance in respect of the migrant intake. On 31 May the Opposition began to retreat because the honourable member for Denison had got it too far out in front. The honourable member for Denison said, in answer to remarks made in the Parliament, that the Opposition was not calling for a balance of race, merely a balance of categories. Then on the 11 July the honourable member made his great statement. The man who talks about getting the debate back on an even keel and not raising the question of race said that migration would be one of the three main issues of the election and that Labor would lose 12 to 13 seats. No doubt the other main issue the Opposition wants to raise is the question of Aborigines. Members of the Opposition have been running around the countryside beating up all the racist elements in our community, trying to stir up trouble against the Aborigines. I assume that the next Opposition speaker will be the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), who was absent for most of the debate on the estimates last year. He honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) and the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) publicly rejected the view put forward by the honourable member for Denison. Other Liberal members also began to distance themselves from the honourable member. Community organisations called on the Leader of the Opposition to get him to resign or to sack him. The Liberal Party was, and I believe still is, in a state of conflict over this issue. It seems to me, from talking to members of the Liberal Party, that the honourable member for Denison is not supported by the overwhelming majority of his own Party. Mr Hodgman —None of them talk to you, Gerry. They don't trust you. Mr HAND —It is all very well to say that they do not trust me. If I got up to the shenanigans around the place that you do, brother, I would not be worrying about who talked to me. I have not spent the money on cars that the honourable member has. The honourable member's views were not supported by the Liberal Party. Our research and the media research show that he does not have support. The Leader of the Opposition said that he does not agree with the honourable member for Denison but he has made no endeavour to silence him. Why does the Leader of the Opposition not come in here to support the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who called on the honourable member for Denison and the people who support him to be silent on this issue and get on with the job of trying to settle the issue down within the community? The honourable member for Denison made it quite clear where he stands when he said that he would do anything and everything to bring down the Hawke socialist Government, even if it means causing all of these problems within our community. I believe the Liberal Party has lost respect in many quarters for the part it has played in this grubby racist campaign. The Opposition in its desperate lust for power, power which is far beyond its reach, has sunk to a most despicable level of gutter politics in which it has deliberately exploited fear and prejudice within the community in the absurd hope that it will gain votes from the Australian people, who, of course, are far too awake to succumb to these tactics. These tactics are not unique to this issue. The Opposition has tried to use them in respect of Aborigines and pensioners. It has resorted to fear, lies and distortion of the truth. I make a plea to members of the Opposition who do not support the honourable member for Denison to stand up in this place to say that they do not support him . If they do this we might be able to calm down the people in the community, some of whom come into my office and express their concern about the comments he is making. Forty per cent of the people in my electorate are overseas born or the children of overseas born parents. I am distressed that they are being affected by these sorts of comments. Why does the honourable member for Denison not pay some attention to the feelings of those people? The honourable member should settle down and get back on the track. He should join with us in trying to make these people part of the community instead of joining with the League of Rights and these other right wing organisations with which he has a lot to do-he does have a lot to do with them and it is known that he has a lot to do with them. He should get out of that area and back into this place to try to bring the country together around this issue. The danger is that the Liberal Party will be forced further and further-I make this point to honourable members on that side of the House-into taking up these extreme views in its bid to find an alternative. In doing so this will lend credence to the minority in the Party, led by the honourable member for Denison, who wished to return to the discredited, discriminatory practices of a bygone era. If I sound a little upset about this, I am because the honourable member for Barker knows-I have been able to work very closely with him on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and I respect his role on that Committee-that this upsets a lot of people on this side of the House. I apologise if I have not got the ability to put it as glibly as the honourable member for Denison when he comes in here. I make a plea to the honourable member for Denison not to lead this country into great division. He is one of the main offenders in that area. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Mrs Child, with some regret I ask for your indulgence to make a personal explanation. The CHAIRMAN —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —Yes, regrettably. A few moments ago I was asked to provide Hansard with a photostat copy of the figures which have I referred to. I went out to get a photostat copy. This member in my absence claimed that I had gone to a party. The statement is quite untrue. I have returned with the photostat copies. He then proceeded to misrepresent me in a disgraceful manner. Can I simply make three comments: His claim that the Deputy Leader, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) and the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) do not support me is not true; his claim that my own leader does not support me is not true and the immigration policy which will shortly be announced has been unanimously passed through our Party, through the coalition shadow Cabinet and through the Joint Standing Committee on Federal Policy which is the supreme body of the Liberal Party of Australia. In deference to your wishes, Mrs Child, I have a very short answer for the honourable member: He should repeat everything he has just said outside the chamber right now because he has lied. He knows he has lied. I challenge him to repeat that outside the Parliament. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will withdraw the word 'lie'. Mr HODGMAN —He has told blatant untruths. I withdraw the word 'lie' and I challenge the honourable member to repeat what he said. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He has completed his personal explanation. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate your indulgence. Say it outside the Parliament right now. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr HAND(Melbourne) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. The CHAIRMAN —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HAND —I do. What I said was that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) last year during these discussions left the chamber to go to a party. Mr Hodgman —That is another lie. Mr HAND —It is not because the party was in the honourable member's room. Mr Hodgman —Madam Chair- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat as will the honourable member for Melbourne. That was not a personal explanation. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Again I seek leave- The CHAIRMAN —Are you seeking leave to make another personal explanation? Mr HODGMAN —Yes, I am. My room is six feet by eight feet. I had no party in it last year and, quite frankly, I could not have a party in it. It is as small as a broom cupboard. Mr Kent —Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. My office is very near the office of the honourable member for Denison. I would say that the party was overflowing. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Mr PORTER(Barker)(10.19) —During this week Australians have opportunities to share in the richness of Aboriginal culture through the activities of National Aboriginal Week which is being celebrated in some centres around Australia. Unfortunately some celebrated National Aboriginal Week in July and the balance are celebrating it this week. It is important that National Aboriginal Week be fully utilised to build further understanding and respect between all Australians. Network 0-28 is to be applauded for televising a collection of movies, specials and documentaries that will assist in the promotion of Aboriginal heritage and history and the greater appreciation by all Australians of our history. There is a need for greater understanding of the Aboriginal people and I single out for particular praise the Film Women of the Sun. Productions such as this act as a vehicle for the positive bridge building that is so necessary between all our peoples. I want to take the opportunity to restate the policy the Opposition has consistently applied to encourage the genuine aspirations of the Aboriginal people. Inherent in the Opposition's position is the recognition of the affinity most Aborigines have with their land. The Opposition realistically and responsibly seeks to develop policies that embrace the needs and aspirations of the different Aboriginal groups to whom we refer in our policy; namely, Aborigines who live on their traditional land, fringe dwellers, those on reserves and those in towns and cities. It is essential that the individual requirements of these Aboriginal communities be considered. We are not seeking to categorise Aboriginal people or to foster welfare reliant Aboriginal people as has been claimed. Instead, we seek to address positively policies relevant to the people concerned. The Government's determination to impose uniform land rights legislation on the States fails to recognise the diversity of legitimate Aboriginal needs and aspirations. The States have a responsibility to meet their obligations to the Aboriginal people. The States are independently adopting policies which seek to take account of the particular social, economic and cultural needs of their Aboriginal communities in respect of access and tenure of land. The statements of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) have demonstrated a preoccupation with the imposition of a Canberra devised policy and a lack of understanding of the genuine attempts that are being made by the States to meet the needs of their Aboriginal people. On the one hand, the Minister invokes his Government's five principles as being 'non-negotiable' and he is quoted as saying he is prepared to break a few arms to have those principles implemented. Then, in the wake of criticism from the Labor Government of Western Australia, he claims: 'There is an inquiry going on in Western Australia. We are committed to the results of that inquiry.' Does that mean that the Minister is now not intending to legislate in respect of those States which have land rights legislation, or will his legislation be the same as any Western Australian legislation? He said the Government is committed to the results of that inquiry. Perhaps his legislation will go further than any Western Australian legislation. Despite the passage of many months the Government has failed to outline clearly its uniform land rights proposals. The uncertainty this has generated heightens the misunderstanding and even fear that is widespread in the community. The Government has an obligation to spell out what its uniform land rights legislation will embrace. If the Western Australian and Victorian governments proceed to legislate and if , as I am informed, the legislation granting security of title to Queensland reserves is promulgated by the end of the year, all the mainland States and the Northern Territory will have land rights legislation although obviously it will not be uniform legislation. Therefore the Minister should state in what areas the legislation that exists or is being developed by the States is deficient. The Minister should identify in what areas he finds the existing legislation in New South Wales or South Australia unsatisfactory. For example, does he intend to invoke one of his five principles, which is 'Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land'? If so, in South Australia that will involve overturning section 21 of the Maralinga legislation which provides for arbitration of terms of access for exploration and mining where agreement cannot be reached. That State Labor legislation is similar to our proposed amendments to the Northern Territory land rights legislation. But that South Australia legislation is inconsistent with the Minister's Aboriginal veto on mining principle. What is his intention in this regard? In Adelaide on Monday, the Minister said his legislation would 'complement' the South Australian legislation. The question I ask is in what way would he add to the existing State legislation. Where is the State legislation deficient, in his view? Apart from criticising some States, the Minister has failed to outline the nature of his proposals. One wonders how the Minister intends to enforce his legislation. Presumably if land is granted under his legislation he will attempt to act by way of the Commonwealth's power of compulsory acquisition. The coalition, having been through the Mornington Island and Aurukun exercise, is well aware of the practical problems involved in dealing with individual situations, let alone invoking such confrontations with the States all at once on an Australia-wide basis. I fear the outcome of such a Commonwealth versus States brawl in which the Aboriginal people would be meat in the sandwich. The Government has failed to take the people of Australia into its confidence over land rights. This Government is ignoring the endeavours of the States and has displayed a lack of sensitivity which is divisive and harmful to the Aboriginal people. As a direct result of the uncertainties generated by this Government, Aborigines are incurring the antipathy and antagonism of other Australians. In marked contrast to the Government, the Opposition's approach is both realistic and reasonable. I welcome the following comments made by the Western Australian State Labor member for the Kimberleys, Mr Ernie Bridge, himself an Aborigine. He said: 'Analysis of the Federal Opposition's policy on Aboriginal land rights announced yesterday revealed a commendable grasp of the principles and details of the issue . . . The policy also had paid attention to the needs of the Aboriginal people resident in towns and cities. The Opposition's policies on sacred sites showed a sincere appreciation of their significance. I call on the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs at least to outline his proposals for the imposition of uniform land rights on the States. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.28) —Before starting my comments concerning the estimates for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, let me record here that the Hawke Labor Budget is the best and most popular Budget in the last 10 years. It is a Budget which will keep Australia firmly on the road of economic recovery , an economic recovery that has been brought about by a Labor Government since we took office over 18 months ago. Before we came to office Australia was brought to the brink of total bankruptcy by the economic mismanagement of the Liberal-National Party coalition. We inherited from the Fraser-Howard Government the worst economic mess that this country has ever been in since the Great Depression. Yet, in just a few months, the Hawke Labor Government restored business confidence and set Australia firmly on the road to recovery. I especially welcome the allocation in the 1984-85 Budget for immigration and ethnic affairs of $164m, which represents a 12.4 per cent increase over the previous year. It is obvious that the Hawke Labor Government has given high priority to human services to make migrant settlement easier. The Government has increased the number of grants-in-aid by another 15 grants, which means that another 15 social workers will be out in the field to help the settlement of migrants in our community. It has increased the number of migrant resource centres and has allocated $43.74m for the adult migrant education program. This year it has more than doubled provisions for translator and interpreter services . The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) should be congratulated on his achievement especially in view of the Government's tight budgetary restraints. Since this Government came to office it has introduced many measures to strengthen much needed post-arrival services to migrants. This Budget went further in this direction to assist the settlement of our migrants into the Australian community. While the Government is busy easing the problems of migrants, as migration is a traumatic experience, the Opposition is doing everything, through its shadow Minister, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), to wreck our uniquely successful immigration program. I do not want to accuse the honourable member for Denison of being racist. I think that he is even worse than that. He is a political opportunist who cynically embraces racism and is using it for scoring political points in an endeavour to win cheap votes. He is willing to wreck our immigration policy just to gain some political advantage for himself. He is not concerned about the harm he is doing to thousands of newcomers whose prospects of settling into this community he is making more difficult than otherwise would be the case. Let me assure the honourable member for Denison that he will not gain any cheap votes by inflaming racist sentiments. To the contrary, he will lose votes, not only for his Party but also for himself. It is likely that we will not see him in the next Parliament. If by chance he survives he will certainly be demoted from his shadow portfolio by the next Leader of the Opposition. After all, not only has he damaged the ethnic communities but also he has done a disservice to his own Party. His former leader, Malcolm Fraser, worked hard for seven years to woo the migrant vote and the honourable member for Denison blew it in one day. Just to make sure that the ethnic vote is lost for the Liberals, the honourable member for Denison has now switched his attack from the Vietnamese migrants to the attack on the Spanish speaking community. On 7 September in this chamber he said: He-- that is, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, who is at the table- is pouring petrol on the fire by recruiting large numbers of refugees from El Salvador and from Chile. Further he said: 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 . . . I was the leader of the delegation to Central America. I know that the 'large number' of refugees from Central America are the few hundred unfortunate refugees from El Salvador and other countries where fascist death squads are hunting down trade unionists, church activists and other patriots and killing them by the thousand. I welcome the Minister's humanitarian concern for those unfortunate people. I can assure my fellow Australians that the Spanish speaking migrants, refugees or otherwise, from Central and Latin America are hard working , fine, Christian family people who are a great asset to Australia. I know because I have many of them in my electorate and I welcome them. Let us forget about personalities; much more is at stake. Honourable members opposite laugh but, seriously, let us forget about personalities and talk about immigration. As I have stated before we have a uniquely successful immigration program. A large proportion of Australia's citizens or their parents were born overseas. In the main we have all settled here successfully. We have been accepted by the Australians who came here before us. We all, wherever we have come from, are contributing to this country and we are all participating in building the Australia of tomorrow. This participation was made possible only by giving equal rights to citizens. Equality and freedom are the two factors that made our post- War immigration program uniquely successful. The bipartisan acceptance of the immigration program is vital for its success. I hope that common sense will prevail. I call on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) to pull his shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs into line and return to the bipartisan policy which was previously supported by the Liberal Party of Australia. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(10.37) —Tonight we are debating the estimates of expenditure for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I intend to speak mainly on Aborigines because I am a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and the electorate of Maranoa has a number of Aborigines scattered throughout it. Unfortunately these days we do not get many immigrants. I can remember the contract plan which was initially introduced for immigration under which immigrants were encouraged to go inland and to work away from the capital cities. These days, of course, that does not happen. I point out to the public-the debate tonight is being broadcast-that we spend $ 157m on the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Many other sums of money are allocated to immigration and ethnic affairs but they are hidden in allocations to the education portfolio et cetera. The same is the case with the allocation of money to Aborigines. We are expending $216m on the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. It is the only ethnic group in Australia which has a department of its own, yet the Aborigines still do not seem to be satisfied with the amount of funds that is being spent. As far as the immigration debate is concerned, I do not know why people get upset about people such as Professor Blainey. He is a taxpayer. At long last some of these matters are coming to the fore. They are not being trudged around by radical groups representing one per cent of the population. Australians are starting to partake in some of these very important discussions. They are all taxpayers. Some $160m is being spent on the Department that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) controls. Why can we not all have a say ? All of us in this country, including the Aborigines, in one way or another are immigrants. We all came here from somewhere else. I think debate on the issue is healthy. The same can be said of the Aboriginal debate. All of a sudden Australia has woken up to what is going on in the Aboriginal Affairs Department and with Aborigines generally. Australians are starting to see where the funds are being wasted. Even the Standing Committee on Expenditure has set up a sub-committee to investigate the waste and the lack of proper spending in the Aboriginal Development Commission. The Parliament has seen to that. I think it is most important that we have proper wide-ranging debates on these subjects. It always amazes me that we in Australia are prepared to let all these people come into this country. I can see no reason why the Minister has to trudge up and down South America seeking refugees. Plenty of people want to come here; we do not need to seek them out. We cannot employ them. Half of those who get here land on the dole and that is where they stay for the next two or three years. The rate of unemployment is the highest it has been since the Depression. Yet the Minister still seems content to wander up and down Central America, of all places, seeking refugees to come here. There are two continents in that region- North and South America. It is beyond my imagination why those people could not be catered for in those continents. If we are really so keen to bring in more people, there are a billion and a half living to the north of us. I just cannot understand the Government's thinking. The other thing I say about immigration to people is that they should try to emigrate to those countries from which these people are coming. People should try to emigrate to Asia, Japan or other countries around the world. Very few countries in the world open their doors in the way in which Australia does. I think it is ironical that we are criticised and told we are crook because as citizens we want to discuss this problem. People denigrate Professor Blainey. I think it was the best thing he could ever have done to have brought these issues into the open. We are having a good, gutsy discussion about it. Mr West —Ha, ha! Mr IAN CAMERON —Well, we are. Surely that is what politics is all about. To my mind it is a healthy condition. The same thing has happened in regard to Aboriginal Affairs. I would like to point out to the people of Australia the areas in which money is expended in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Where in hell is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding)? He is not even here . His portfolio is being debated tonight and he is not in the chamber. People talk about some members attending parties, but where is the Minister? He is probably not even in Australia, if the truth be known. Bring him into the chamber and let him listen to this debate. We are discussing the expenditure tonight of $216m of taxpayers' funds and the Minister is not even in the chamber . An amount of $539,000 has been allocated for conferences. I wanted to ask the Minister what conferences this figure referred to. An amount of $170,000 is allocated to investigations and research. Mr McGauran —What research? What investigation? Mr IAN CAMERON —I want to know what research is going on. Mr Gear —Put a question on notice. Mr IAN CAMERON —I would have thought that the Minister should have been here to answer some of these things. An amount of $6m has been allocated for the National Aboriginal Conference. I believe it should be scrapped. Fortunately so do a lot of other people in Canberra, even some members of the Australian Labor Party. I think it is high time we got rid of these radical groups. There are no compulsory elections for the National Aboriginal Conference. Only 20 per cent to 25 per cent of Aborigines vote for these people who come here and have riots outside Parliament House. At the moment the Aboriginal flag is on the flagpole at the front of Parliament House. It is a disgrace. It ought to be pulled down and the Australian flag should be put in its place. I gave notice yesterday that I would introduce a private member's Bill in the House-and Senator Durack did so in the Senate-to the effect that our own flag should be flown. What is the Aboriginal flag doing in front of Parliament House? I call on the Clerks to pull it down and replace it with our own flag. Mr Porter —It is National Aboriginal Week. Mr IAN CAMERON —It might be, but I do not believe it should be there. Our own flag should be there. Aboriginals should not have a flag. The Australian flag represents them. There has been $79m allocated for Aboriginal advancement and $ 6m has been allocated to the National Aboriginal Conference. I have always argued that we represent Aboriginal people in our electorates, not the Conference. Members of the Conference have special conditions and a special set- up. We represent those areas. I represent the Aboriginals of Maranoa. Mr Maher —I bet they don't vote for you. Mr IAN CAMERON —I bet they do. I point out the the Committee and the people of Australia that $19m is being spent on Aboriginal community employment programs. I think that is a good program. But it is important that taxpayers know how much money is being spent in that area-$19m. I support the housing and education policies. Members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs do a lot of work. We travel around Australia looking at housing. There is no doubt that there needs to be improvement in that area. I believe Aborigines ought to be involved in building every house and we should not give them Housing Commission homes at 3 per cent interest rates or whatever it is. We should encourage them to become involved in building the homes so that they have some pride in their homes. The same applies in regard to education. If the Minister were here-God knows where he is-I would put to him that he ought to be giving more scholarships to Aboriginal teachers. There is a tremendous need in this country to employ more Aboriginal teachers in the education departments. The only way to do so is to give scholarships to Aborigines who are bright enough to gain qualifications to teach and help their own people and to help all of us understand more of their problems. The number of scholarships should be doubled. The heritage legislation is a total farce. It was introduced a few weeks ago by the Labor Government. Unfortunately, at the time I was in Brisbane at the opening of the Jackson oilfield pipeline. I would have loved to be here. It is a fact of life that Queensland has heritage legislation. It is a fact of life also that the Jackson oilfield company-Delhi-Santos-spent a quarter of a million dollars putting in the pipeline. The company employed three groups of people, including anthropologists from Canberra to divert the pipeline around so-called Aboriginal sites. And here is this Federal Government trying to tell us that the States do not have heritage legislation and that we need Federal legislation. I have never heard so much cock and bull in all my life. Not one State in Australia has accepted the need for Federal legislation, and I assure the Committee that Queensland certainly will not. The Labor Government's legislation is meant to be 'interim' legislation. We have heard the land grab debate. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 was an absolute disaster, and anybody who takes the slightest interest in Aboriginal affairs would agree. The Labor Party wants to foist that legislation on the rest of Australia. Surely to goodness, we have done enough damage in the Northern Territory without spreading it across the rest of Australia. I assure the Committee, as a National Party member representing Queensland and the electorate of Maranoa, that we will have nothing to do with national land rights legislation. There is no need for it. Legislation has been put through the Queensland Legislative Assembly. That legislation will give Aborigines on reserves the right to have their own land. There is no need for national land rights legislation. Government members want that legislation. Have they been to the Northern Territory to have a look at the mess people are in up there? As I said before and as the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) mentioned, there is no way that we will have anything to do with mineral or land rights. I wish that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs were here. I do not know where he is. He is a pretty mysterious gentleman. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(10.47) —I thank those honourable members who have participated in this debate on the estimates for my Department and the Department of my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who, unfortunately, is not in Canberra tonight. I will refer the points made by the honourable members who have contributed in this area to the Minister and see that he addresses those points. As for my portfolio, I am afraid that, once again, in an estimates debate I have not had many points to answer from the Opposition about the estimates. The shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), is fond of quoting editorials from the Australian. He quoted an editorial in support of an argument that urges the allowance of debate without labels of racism. I certainly support that position. I, the Government and my colleagues have always said that we welcome rational discussion; but let it be rational discussion based upon facts and figures, not upon misrepresentations, innuendos and panderings to covert minorities. I can quote some editorials, too. Last Saturday morning's Age stated that the Government, to its credit, has refused all along to discuss migration in terms of race or country of origin. The editorial said that the Government has insisted correctly that the policy which the Labor Government inherited was essentially non-discriminatory and that it should remain that way. It went on to say that the Government has also insisted, and had done so again in Parliament the day before, that it has not used the skilled labour intake as a means of manipulating the racial mix of the program to the disadvantage of Asians and that unfortunately, this scrupulousness has not been matched either by some members of the Opposition or by particular individuals. Unfortunately tonight, by referring once again to reduced British migration since 1981-82, we have an example of misrepresentation. In taking up that matter I make three fundamental points and put them very simply so that the Opposition can understand them. I address these remarks to my colleague opposite, the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), who spoke last. He spoke about immigration as being not very supportable. There has been a major cut in immigration over the last two years. Settler arrivals have been reduced from 118 ,700 two years ago to 69,805 this year. At the same time, this Government has doubled family reunions in terms of visa issues from 18,000 in the last year of the previous Government's term of office to 36,739 last year. We took in 15,485 refugees and 10,000 of these were from Indo-China. That figure was down from 15, 000 in 1980-81, three years ago. So the Indo-Chinese intake has been cut by a third over the last three years. At the same time, we are lifting family reunions for the Vietnamese who are already here, through the orderly departure program. The second point to make in my reply is that I believe we are managing this program better than it was managed previously in the sense that we are doing more than resettling these people. We believe that there must be other solutions in the long run and the commitment is not open-ended, although I will not terminate on racist grounds the program of resettling Indo-Chinese. But there are grounds for looking at the management of it. We have done that. For instance , I made it clear in my speech last Friday that we were not inclined to take people directly from along the border of Cambodia as distinct from the refugees from Thailand. I said we would not take people from re-education camps in Vietnam who did not have a family in Australia. If we did, of course, it would create yet another program. Those are the sorts of things we are doing, but that does not mean that we have not got a commitment to continuing the Indo-Chinese program. We have and we will not terminate it or desert our ASEAN friends in response to misguided racist demands by a misguided minority. The third point is that the trend line over the last five or six years on Asian immigration has been virtually steady. In 1979-80 the intake was 23,183 and in 1984-85 it is 25,324. The numerical aspect is what really counts, not some percentage of a reduced total. What really matters is the number of people coming in. I do not think it matters. They are all human beings and I refuse to look at immigration in the sense of balancing percentages. But if honourable members want to make the calculation those grounds, they will see that the trend has been virtually steady. There has been a moderate upward trend only. Again tonight we had misrepresentation from the honourable member for Denison ( Mr Hodgman) when he continually referred to the reduction in British migration. The trouble is that the shadow Minister refers back to only 1981-1983. He does not go back further. So he misses the impact of the great surge in skilled migration that occurred in the years of the so-called resources boom of 1980-81 and 1981-82. At that time 75,000 skilled migrants came into Australia, most of them from Europe and Britain, independent of any family in Australia. That was the trend line. Whereas Asian immigration was steady, these were 13,107 British settler arrivals in 1978-79, surging to 38,863 in 1981-82. But then the figure went down to 13,624-back to the 1978-79 level-as the former Government and then our Government reduced skilled migration. That is the answer. It is easy to go back to 1981-82 and show a drop in British migration from then, but one should go back further and show the ascent of British migration to 1981-82. I hope I have answered in a cool and rational manner these matters that are continually raised. That is what I think this situation needs. I should like before I conclude to return to that theme. I wish now briefly to address an area which is just as important as the intake side in this estimates debate. I refer to the settlement side. If we bring into Australia refugees, family reunion migrants, skilled labour and business migrants obviously we have to provide settlement programs. That is an area in which this Government has also excelled. A record $164m is in the appropriations , which is up 12.4 per cent in monetary terms accounting for inflation, an almost 6 per cent increase in real terms. That is an achievement at a time when we are trying to get the deficit down and offer tax cuts at the same time. The major expenditure, apart from wages and salaries, in our Budget is in respect of the migrant education program. This matter was referred to by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) and the honourable member for Hotham ( Mr Kent). That involves a sum of $43.7m. From that figure we allocated this year $3m to appoint over two years 379 permanent teacher positions in the service. We have also allocated $1m this year for child care at 40 locations. That is an expanding program. There was virtually no child care at all in the service when this Government achieved power. Migrant resource centres were starved of finance when we assumed office, and the finance for migrant resource centres has risen by 72 per cent to $1.835m. There are now 20 centres and eight satellite centres. There is now on my desk a location review, or it will be there tomorrow, I think . I know that we are to create at least two new centres. I know honourable members are anxious to get home but I can see that everybody is just riveted to their seats and just waiting to hear all about these wonderful settlement programs which the Labor Government is putting in place. There is one other program I would like to mention. I refer to the grants-in- aid for the employment of social workers. Mr Hand —Very useful. Mr WEST —It is a very useful program as the honourable member said. We have lifted the number of those grants from 140 to 200 last year. An innovation by this Government involves grants being given directly to trade union organisations to employ social workers on the job. This year there will be 15 new grants which will allow us to establish two separate programs, the migrant grants-in-aid program and the migrant workers rights program from the trade union side. I could go on to deal with the translators-interpreter service. I think credit should be given where it is due. On both the intake program side and the settlement service side this Government has delivered to the migrant communities of Australia. I wish to leave honourable members with one thought on the so-called immigration discussion or debate. Much has been said about bipartisanship in the past and who has destroyed that ideal lately. Perhaps in one sense that is no longer important. What is important is where we go from here. It may be that in another sense bipartisanship in the past has retarded discussion on this important issue. In future I invite the Opposition to return to a bipartisan position. In doing so I state once again that there is no reason whatsoever why there cannot be a rational discussion based on facts and figures within a bipartisan position. There is one thing, and one thing only, that I ask. It is that that discussion be based upon facts. It ought to be made clear to a minority in the community that on both sides of the House we are not in the business of pandering to those elements that wish to make the life of migrants in this country a misery. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.02) —I wish to speak very briefly on the third reading to record again the objection of the Opposition to the fact that this Bill has been rammed through the Parliament in less than 24 hours. We do not think there has been sufficient time for proper debate. We do not believe that the democracy of this nation has been advantaged by the guillotine tactics of a government rushing to an early election. We lodge the strongest protest because we believe it has dishonoured the Parliament. It has not given members enough opportunity to speak. We have lists of scores of members who wanted to speak in this debate but who were not able to do so. The plain fact is that this Government is rushing the legislation through as it scampers to an early election in the hope of getting a further term in office before the people of Australia realise the great danger this country is in as a result of the economic mismanagement of the Hawke socialist Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Motion (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.05) —On behalf of the Opposition I support the motion of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) that the Bill be now read a third time. Mr SPEAKER —I thank the Minister and the honourable member for Denison. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.06) —Mr Speaker- Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.06 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act to repeal sections 45D and 45E, and to amend section 96, of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and to make consequential amendments. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act to make various amendments of the statute law of the Commonwealth, and for related purposes. Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Air Navigation Act 1920. Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Air Navigation ( Charges) Act 1952. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 12 September 1984: Audit Act-Report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections under the Audit and other Acts, dated 3 September 1984-Corrigendum to paper presented on 4 September 1984. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1039) Dr Everingham asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, on notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to a statement on page 492 of The Nation of 13 November 1982, claiming that President Reagan sacked United States Attorney William Kennedy for telling newspapers that the Justice Department was blocking indictment of Megiel Nassar Haro, former Director of Federal Security for Mexico, a Central Intelligence Agency source on El Salvador and Guatemala rebels and head of a ring stealing United States cars for sale in Mexico. (2) Can the Attorney-General state whether this is the same CIA which runs the United States-Australia joint defence facility at Pine Gap. (3) Will the Attorney-General direct Australian security organisations to investigate the nature of intelligence processing between Pine Gap and the White House. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Not before now. (2) I am not in a position to answer this question, as I have not read the article concerned. (3) The only security organisation for which I have ministerial responsibility is the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The task proposed in the question appears to me to be outside ASIO's statutory functions. (Question No. 1645) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 22 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 ACT 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 Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is a follows: (1) The Department of Science and Technology does not hold any houses for any purposes in the ACT. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation holds five houses for residential purposes for officers associated with the management of CSIRO sites in the ACT and all houses were occupied by those officers and their families on 18 June 1984. (2) No.