Tuesday, 26 February 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr SPEAKER —Pursuant to standing order 18, I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) to act as a Deputy Chairman of Committees when requested so to do by the Chairman of Committees. Mr PEACOCK —I ask the Prime Minister: Why did he take an in principle decision that the planned move by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to Canberra should not take place, given that the Hope Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security recommended that the move should take place as a matter of priority, and given that the headquarters was specially constructed for ASIO's particular needs? Mr HAWKE —No decision has been taken, Mr Speaker. Mr PUNCH —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Despite the strong support given to militant surgeons by the honourable member for Bennelong, can the Minister advise the House whether the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments have received support for entering into negotiations with the Australian Medical Association aimed at resolving rather than exacerbating the New South Wales doctors dispute? Dr BLEWETT —Despite the lining up of the members of the Liberal Party, the Liberal Opposition, with the militant surgeons, I am glad to say that there is increasing support throughout the medical profession and those associated with health services in New South Wales for the AMA's stand and the Government's genuine efforts at conciliation. I mentioned yesterday that we had had the support of numerous major colleges. I also pointed out that the clinical professors had endorsed the actions taken by the AMA and the Government. I am glad to say today that the Catholic Health Care Association of New South Wales, which represents some 3,500 hospital beds in private and public hospitals, as well as 4,000 nursing home beds, has issued the following statement: The position of silence is no longer tenable. We believe that every Australian would support the efforts of Government and the medical profession to reach agreements which will solve the concern of the hospitals, doctors and patients. We sincerely hope that- Mr Porter —Everyone is concerned. Isn't it funny? Why don't you make the changes? Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Porter —You are quite right. Everyone is concerned-doctors, hospitals and patients. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Barker. Dr BLEWETT —I hear some remarks coming from the shadow shadow shadow Minister for Health. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to ignore interjections. Dr BLEWETT —I return to the quotation from the Catholic Health Care Association, which continues: We sincerely hope that those affected by the dispute will encourage the parties involved to see that negotiation is always preferable to confrontation. If there are rights and wrongs, let us address them and not walk away from the resolution of a dispute which threatens the quality and caring nature of the health system. I believe that support and that comment are sufficient comment on the role taken by many leading figures in the Opposition. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's response to the previous question asked of him, I ask: In view of the fact that a meeting of all headquarters staff of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation was allegedly held on Friday, 15 February, at which the Director-General advised the staff that the Prime Minister had made a decision in principle that ASIO headquarters would no longer be moving to Canberra in the near future, and in view of the fact that the Attorney-General had a meeting with staff representatives of ASIO on this matter at which it was said that the decision had already been taken and that it was an in principle decision of the Prime Minister, how does the Attorney-General square this information with the Prime Minister's answer? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is not very hard to square the information with the answer, because no decision has been made. I make it very clear that, as the Leader of the Opposition said in his first question, it was intended that ASIO would occupy a building being built here. I also make it very clear that the members of staff, as the Leader of the Opposition would know, reside in Melbourne and would like to maintain their affiliation with that city. They had a meeting and decided by a majority, we were told, that they would not transfer to Canberra. That created a real problem for us for that was the first time we had heard of that decision. I can understand having an affection for Melbourne, but we have a responsibility to run national security. On that basis, two representatives of the staff relatively recently came to see me to say that they might have a second look at their decision. I do not know what that means as far as establishing a priority for Melbourne is concerned. At this stage, I make it clear that I am in no way castigating the staff, but if we look at the background of the situation we see that they took a view that they would prefer to remain in Melbourne, or a large number of them did. They took a further view that they wanted what were called termination payments which could run into millions of dollars. We did not accede to that view. That is the position at this time. Mr HOLLIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. Given the critical role of shipping in improving Australia's export performance and hence in creating jobs and economic growth, what initiatives has the Government taken to improve Australia's overseas commercial shipping arrangements? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. It is a fact that the adequacy and efficiency of shipping arrangements are vital to the performance of Australia's economy. It is also true that Australia's export performance is vital to development, the creation of growth and job creation. A study done recently by the Department of Trade has shown that a 5 per cent growth in export income would result in the creation of an initial 30,000 jobs. Our shipping policy has been dedicated to improving the efficiency and the competitiveness of Australian shipping. Our aim is to provide an efficient service for exporters and importers. So often in consideration of this issue the needs of importers have been overlooked, particularly in relation to freight rates. We need to ensure that regulation assists effective development of the shipping industry and industry generally. We need to develop a commercially sound Australian flag fleet, a fleet that is efficient and competitive in world markets. Whether the ships are Australian controlled or overseas controlled, the important thing is that they be efficient and that the services are adequate for our needs. The existing regulatory framework for overseas commercial shipping was developed by the conservative Government in the mid-1960s. Essentially, that same system operates today. I need to say that there have been many changes to needs since then. There have been changes to the nature of the products for shipping and changes in markets. There are questions among the users of shipping services as to whether, for instance, we should have a pan-Australia rate-a single, national Australia rate-irrespective of the port of collection, as long as products are going to the same destination. That is an issue about which the industries concerned have differing views. Some believe that the situation should be changed. Some believe that it should remain as it is. There are questions as to whether importers are, in fact, cross-subsidising exporters by way of freight rates, given the imbalance of trade that occurs in both directions. There are questions as to whether the liner conference arrangements are suitable, whether they are appropriate in today's conditions. In more recent years we have seen the inroads of non-conference shipping into those areas. Other questions that affect our primary industries are raised in relation to loyalty agreements and secret rebates. Mr Tuckey —Tell us what you are going to do. Mr PETER MORRIS —If the honourable member is not concerned about the problems he is just maintaining the record of his predecessors. They were very good at ignoring the needs of shipping in this country and the implications of shipping services, particularly for our primary industries. If the honourable member maintains the record of his predecessors he will do well! Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Minister to return to the answer to the question. Mr PETER MORRIS —We need also to-- Mr Tuckey —Tell us what you are going to do. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I also invite the honourable member for O'Connor to cease his usual 2 o'clock and after chatter. Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member may be concerned more with land leases and rental arrangements than with shipping needs, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have invited the Minister to ignore the interjections. Mr PETER MORRIS —I accept your advice, Mr Speaker. Other issues involved are the roles of national flag shipping and non-conference operators, and how they fit into the arrangements we have. Essentially, we have a multitude of users who have differing priorities and views which are often in conflict. Out of all of that mess some resolution has to be made to ensure that we get the best mix of services. This Government has given priority to the development of our shipping needs, recognising their importance, as I said earlier, to industry. In order to facilitate industry debate and user views being put forward, I established a complete review of overseas commercial shipping arrangements in September last year. That review is to report by July this year. Its recommendations are to be incorporated in a draft policy paper to be circulated for public comment. It is our intention that there be full consultation with all interested parties and, if legislation is to arise from it, the approximate timetable is that it will come forward in the autumn sittings of Parliament next year. Let me summarise. Unlike the Liberal-- Mr Sinclair —You have not said anything yet. Mr PETER MORRIS —That just confirms the right honourable member's ignorance of shipping. Unlike the record of previous Liberal-National Party governments, we have given priority to improving the shipping arrangements in Australia's shipping industry. For the benefit of the right honourable member for New England, I quote from the December edition of Maritime Asia. Mr Sinclair —Why don't you write me a letter about it? It would save a lot of time. Mr PETER MORRIS —If I thought the right honourable member could read, I would. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the right honourable member for New England is not helping with his interjections. I ask the Minister to round off his answer. Mr PETER MORRIS —Maritime Asia headed its Australian survey report in December last year with these words: The government of Bob Hawke has given more attention to shipping than to any other for 20 years. How right. Mr PEACOCK —I ask the Prime Minister: Did the Minister for Foreign Affairs write to him in October 1983 expressing serious reservations about the Government's MX decision? I ask the Prime Minister whether he will table the letter, but I remind him, in case he wishes to claim that this is a classified or security matter, of the widespread Press reports that ministerial staff have been briefing on this letter and its contents. Mr HAWKE —The Minister for Foreign Affairs did not write to me in October 1983. There has been correspondence between the Foreign Minister and me and I do not intend to table it. Mr BEDDALL —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Have there been requests from the Queensland and New South Wales governments for the immigration entry of power workers and doctors respectively? If so, has there been any difference in the response to each of these governments by the Commonwealth Government? Mr HURFORD —I can tell the honourable member for Rankin that there has been an approach from Queensland; but, so far as I am aware, there has been no approach from New South Wales. I am aware that the Premier of New South Wales suggested, after certain processes had been followed, that he may make such an inquiry; but I repeat that, so far as I am aware, no such approach has been made. I can assure the House that if and when that approach is made, it will be treated in exactly the same way as the approach from the Premier and the Government of Queensland. The guidelines are long-standing and the House is entitled to know what they are. Any government can make a group nomination for a class of workers that it wants under what is known as the employer nomination scheme. Once that group nomination is made, there are certain labour market tests that need to be carried out. Those tests are carried out for me-the buck eventually stops with me-by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and cover such matters as, firstly, whether people are available in the particular skills that are required; secondly, whether those skills that are alleged to be needed are proper for the particular jobs; and thirdly, whether there are industrial relations implications in the particular nominations. Some spokesman for the Opposition has suggested that we were promising some fast track for one particular inquiry and a slow track for another. There is no substance whatsoever to such a charge. These tests take time but we can get them covered in three to six months, not the two to three years suggested by that Opposition spokesman. I return to the approach from Queensland. It was in two forms. There was a telex from the Premier to the Prime Minister and there was also an unofficial approach on the part of officials of the Queensland Government to officials of my Department in my regional office in Brisbane. In both cases insufficient information was given initially for us to be able to go through those labour market tests. That information was sought and we then learnt the nature of the particular inquiry in terms which were necessary for us to carry out the tests. Once that information had been received from Queensland, we learnt that Queensland workers were and are available for the particular jobs for which workers were being sought. There were and are plenty of workers in Queensland who are willing to work under the terms laid down by the Industrial Commission in Queensland. I cannot say anything about New South Wales because we have not yet had such an inquiry from that State. In conclusion, I can tell the House that for the next 10, 15 or more years the Australian Labor Party will govern this country, and it shall administer the guidelines for this test, as for other immigration tests, without fear and without favour. Mr SINCLAIR —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Will he advise the House whether, at the time he made his detailed statement on MX missile tests, on 1 February 1985, in which he said he had consulted the Prime Minister, he knew that the Prime Minister had had discussions with the Americans about details of the tests in June and October 1983? If so, why did he omit any reference to those discussions in that very detailed statement? Mr BEAZLEY —I am not quite certain what the Opposition's defence spokesman is trying to establish here. If he is embarrassed by the fact that he gave approval to a splashdown site in the prospective Australian economic zone and it is to his chagrin that, at the behest of this Government, the splashdown site was shifted into international waters, why does he not just come out and say it, admit that he is concerned about it and leave it at that? He has already heard from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister. The discussions which take place inside this Government are privy to the Government. The relevant decisions taken in regard to the MX tests have all been made public, and as far as the public record stands they have been made with perfect accuracy. If the right honourable gentleman is embarrassed by the fact that he approved the splashdown site, as he seemed to be at his Press conference held immediately after my announcements on this matter, that is his bad luck. The fact is that the details of our Government's decision on the approval granted to the splashdown area of the MX missile tests are all recorded in the public arena, where they need to be. Mr LAMB —I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction: Are the housing policies of the Victorian Government and the Victorian Opposition in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement? Mr WEST —Yes, I am pleased to say that the Victorian Government's housing policy is quite consistent with the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement; but I regret to say that a key element of the Victorian Opposition's housing policy directly contravenes the Commonwealth- State Housing Agreement. I refer to its proposal to sell off public housing rental stock at a discount. It proposes a one per cent discount for each year of tenancy. The potential here is to be selling off rental stock at a 20, 30 or 35 per cent discount. This proposal is in clear breach of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. One could even suggest that this element of the Victorian Opposition housing policy is not lawful. Section 34 of the Agreement says that all sales of housing shall be at market value or replacement cost at the time of sale. Certainly, credits can be allowed for home improvements, but there is no provision for a set formula of discounting. The Agreement goes on to stipulate that finance derived from sales should be used for the replacement of rental stock. The object of this element of the agreement is to increase, not decrease, rental stocks of housing. What the Victorian Opposition proposes is, in fact, a form of asset stripping of the housing assets of the Victorian Ministry of Housing. I know that one could expect this from people with the competence of the Victorian Opposition but, on the other hand, the Victorian Government is this year spending a record $291m on public housing, $190m of it going to the rental program, $79m for home purchase assistance, and $22m for assistance to disadvantaged groups. I might add that $148m of this money comes from the Hawke Federal Labor Government through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The Hawke Labor Government is also contributing so far $82m to 28,000 Victorian households through the spectacularly successful first home ownership scheme. I conclude by saying that I am really very sorry that the Victorian Opposition has not had the foresight to examine the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement before formulating its housing policy. I would have thought that this was an essential prerequisite to the formulation of a responsible housing policy, but instead all it has tried to do is mislead the voters of Victoria. Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order. I ask the Minister to table the documents from which he has just been quoting. Mr WEST —I have great pleasure in tabling schedule 1 of section 34 of the Housing Assistance Act 1983. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Denison was asking whether the Minister was quoting from a document other than that. Mr WEST —There they are, my own confidential notes. Mr MACPHEE —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask whether the Minister remembers the statement made on 5 February by the Australian Ambassador for Disarmament, Mr Butler, in which he said: Where would we be in seeking to pursue real means of disarmament with the USA if we refused them the right to land a couple of planes in Australia, which they are going to use to monitor this missile shot? Now, our credibility would be completely reduced. I ask the Foreign Minister: Did he agree with that statement then and, if so, does he still agree with the statement? Mr HAYDEN —The Ambassador for Disarmament did say something to the effect of 'where would we be'. I think the answer to that question has been eloquently and adequately provided by the American Administration, which has said that it has made no difference, so we are where we were, and we were where we are. Mr CHYNOWETH —Will the Minister for Science give an indication of what support the Federal Government is giving to bushfire research? Mr BARRY JONES —I am indebted to the honourable member for Dunkley for this question, which has particular relevance to Victoria, the State that has always been the most adversely affected by bushfires. I can speak in respect of the areas for which I have direct responsibility. First of all, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has now set up a bushfire research unit, for the first time, within the Division of Forest Research. The exact quantum of funds that will be available will be, of course, determined in the Budget context, but it is clear from the priority that the Organisation gives within its responsibilities that it will be considerably higher than the amount which was allocated last year. Secondly, a National Centre for Rural Fire Research has been established at the Chisholm Institute of Technology in Melbourne. The CSIRO has contracted with the Centre for the development of a mathematical model of aerial suppression operations for the control of forest fires. Also, a feasibility study has been set up involving a very interesting Victorian project called CADMAS, computer assisted disaster management system. That will be carried out under section 39, the public interest proposals of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act. That has been put up by a Victorian-I think in fact a constituent of the honourable member for La Trobe-Andrew Helps. There are two reports to government currently being examined. One is the report of the inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on bushfires in the Australian environment, chaired by the honourable member for La Trobe, and the other is the report of the Standing Committee on Forestry of the Australian Forestry Council. However, rising to a crescendo, I should announce that as the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment will be co-ordinating the Government's response to those reports, future questions on bushfire research which are not specific to the CSIRO or to the Bureau of Meteorology should be directed to him. Mr Connolly —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The comment just made by the Minister is absolutely incorrect. Mr Helps advised me yesterday that he has not been funded by candidates- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Connolly —And as to the Chisholm Institute, the course is being closed down. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member. If honourable members defy the Chair by raising spurious points of order in that way I will name them immediately. The honourable member for Bradfield is included in that. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the honourable gentleman to Australia's huge current account and trade deficits. Now that the Prime Minister has effectively ruled out any discounting of national wage adjustments for the effects of the recent depreciation of the Australian dollar, thus throwing away any competitive gain conferred upon our export and import competing industries by that depreciation, what steps does the Government propose to take to improve the competitive position of those industries? Mr KEATING —I thought the honourable member would hang his head in shame when we talked about competitiveness in any circumstances, because he gave us a 12 per cent inflation rate while the rest of the world with which we were trading had a rate of around 6 per cent. I thought he would be the last person to ask me a question about competitiveness. It amuses me that in the honourable gentleman's question there is a presumption about the impact on wages if indeed there is over the medium term a depreciation effect against a whole gaggle of currencies. His question is based on the assumption that, under his policies in his time, there would have been no increase in wages for the 12 months between April 1984 and April 1985. He is cavilling at the potential for some wage flow on through the indexation system as though conditions would have been now as they might have been under his policies. In fact, under his policies we would already have had the wage increases. Under his policies we would not be worrying about any future wage increases coming as a result of the depreciation; we would already have had them. Having presided over a wage explosion in 1981, how can he argue that through the strong growth of 1983-84 and 1984-85 he could have had two back to back years of wage restraint like we have had in this country? Until the wage adjustment of April 1985 in this year's national wage case there will have been no movement in award wages since April 1984, and that in a period of very strong economic growth. The former Treasurer could not have delivered that. That was delivered as a result of this Government's policies. We would already have had under the previous Government the wage increase about which the honourable member is now worried. Our competitiveness would have been further eroded because he would have been at this stage, as he advocates, applying a credit squeeze to the economy to try to choke inflation by choking growth. He would be back to his old policies. As he says every day on the radio and in his Press statements, he would be tightening up credit, having a credit squeeze to squeeze inflation out of the economy, thus killing growth. Let us not have any nonsense about the erosion of competitiveness; we would be out the door already in regard to wages and the recovery under Opposition policies. The reason for the current account deficit is the lagged effect of Australia's competitiveness, which this Government has only just restored. This Government has only just restored Australia's competitive position in terms of a decline in inflation and any problems in the current account reflect two factors-the snap back of imports in the recovery and the demand coming off the recovery for imports, acting on the current account, with the lagged effect of the wage explosion induced by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister for Industrial Relations and by the former Treasurer. If this country has any problems in terms of competitiveness, honourable members opposite are to blame for it. This Government has brought inflation back to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of around 5 per cent. Honourable members opposite should not worry about competitiveness as we have it well and truly in hand. Their policies already would be eroding the competitiveness which this Government has been able to secure through the prices and incomes accord. I wish to make two further comments about this so-called concern of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Obviously there has been no inflationary impact at this time from the devaluation. It depends upon what happens to the Australian dollar against a trade weight of currencies over time and in the medium term. The next national wage case is six months away. We will think about it in the mean time. Only 15 per cent of our demand is satisfied by imports. If we look at the 17 per cent depreciation figure under the former Government we will see that the inflationary impact was very muted indeed because it came through lagged and in dribs and drabs. At this stage nobody can say what the inflationary impact would be, even if the current exchange rate relationships applied. Honourable members opposite should not worry about it; we will look after Australia. They could not. Mr DUNCAN —Will the Minister for Social Security investigate a racket involving an apparent conspiracy to defraud the Department of Social Security- Mr Braithwaite —Through superannuation payouts. Mr DUNCAN —I am not talking about John West. Will the Minister investigate a racket involving an apparent conspiracy to defraud the Department of Social Security conducted by an interstate road transport operator, Stan Owczarek of 122 Springbank Road, Clapham, South Australia, as referred to in the Adelaide Advertiser of this day? Will the Minister seek to ensure that employers exploiting the social security system are pursued and prosecuted as a deterrence to others? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for drawing my attention to the story that appeared this morning in the Adelaide Advertiser. If the allegations set out in that article are correct, there has been a case at least of exploitation of several Polish workers. This is not the first occasion on which my attention has been drawn to situations in which people-usually people who perhaps have difficulty with the English language; people new to this country-have been exploited at a level of appalling conditions. In this case there are some implications which go to the Department of Social Security in terms of the payment of unemployment benefit. Mr Spender —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Standing order 153 provides, amongst other things: . . . notice must be given of questions critical of the character or conduct of other persons. I would have thought that is exactly the kind of question we have here now. Mr SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for North Sydney that that does not apply in this case. However, I refer him to standing order 144 (a). I was going to issue a warning to the House about the use of names. It is preferable that that be avoided. I ask honourable members to observe that standing order. Mr HOWE —In conclusion, I will certainly ensure that the matters referred to in the article are investigated not only by my Department but also by other relevant departments. Mr HAWKER —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry, refers to an article in the Wimmera Mail-Times of 24 October 1984 in which the Minister is reported as having given an assurance to a meeting of Wimmera-Mallee farmers that he would oppose capital gains taxes, an assets tax and death duties in the strongest terms. Will the Minister reaffirm his strong opposition to all three taxes? Mr KERIN —I am not actually an avid reader of the Wimmera Times but I would have thought that the honourable member would have learned something through the election campaign when the Prime Minister was very careful to spell out exactly what the Government's position was on all these issues. I thought he would have picked up the fact that there will be a tax summit in the coming months. Mr DUBOIS —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. What action is being taken to analyse the informal vote at the last Federal election? Mr YOUNG —It is true, as all honourable members know, that we did have an exceedingly high informal vote at the 1984 House of Representatives election. Prior to the election the Australian Electoral Commission did a number of surveys of the electorate as to people's understanding of the new voting system for the Senate. From results the Commission was getting from that research it was obvious that very few people, less than 5 per cent in fact just a few months before the election, understood the new system that had been put in place by this Parliament acting on the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform in that we could have a list system of voting for the Senate. The Electoral Commission persuaded the Government that resources ought to be given to it to be able to publicise, in all forms of media, the new system that was to apply at the 1984 election for the voting for the Senate. It was unfortunate that in doing so-I do not think that anybody has laid claim to the fact that he might have been wiser then than he is now-it was overlooked that this might have some impact on how people voted for the House of Representatives, in respect of which the Joint Committee and indeed the Parliament had made no change at all. The fact is that there were 625,000 informal votes for the House of Representatives in 1984 compared with 185,000 in 1983. For the Senate the campaign worked very successfully. In 1983 there were 872,000 informal votes, which I think all of us would agree is a disgrace to the system. In 1984 that figure had been reduced by half-to 440,000 informal votes for the Senate-which was the objective of this Parliament in changing the system. I think it was a very wise course to adopt. There was also a very disturbing feature about the referendums, in that the informal vote was also over 400,000 on the simultaneous elections question and 600,000 on the interchange of powers question. The Australian Electoral Commission is currently carrying out a comprehensive survey of all the informal papers, the results of which will be known to us next month. The survey will make known to us practically all the information in relation to the Parliament that surrounds the reason why people may have voted informally. There have been lots of theories, but some of those theories have already been somewhat exploded-- Mr Ian Cameron —You are worried about this now only after you have the redistribution through. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member ought to be careful because I think there might be a big bonus in this informal vote for us in the next election. He had better have a close look. I advise him to just be very patient. Mr Brumby —How is Andrew going to look then? Mr YOUNG —The honourable member does not have to worry about Andrew because the honourable member for Bennelong is not playing trivial pursuits; he is after Andrew's job. When the results of the Commission's survey are known, not only will they be up for discussion within the Parliament, but also obviously the Government would want to refer them to the Joint Committee. Any recommendations the Joint Committee has in order that we may be able to improve the system even further would be looked on favourably by the Government. Mr HICKS —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. In view once again of an obvious information leak from the New South Wales Government which is causing uncertainty and concern to land owners and their families in western New South Wales, will the Minister tell the House what areas of the State of New South Wales are to be acquired for use by the Army as manoeuvre and artillery impact areas? Mr BEAZLEY —As the honourable gentleman would be aware, discussions are proceeding between the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government to bring this matter to finality. As soon as that process has been concluded a public announcement will be made. I hope that that will be as soon as it is at all possible. I am very well aware that a number of people in the honourable member's electorate would have a direct concern about that matter. We are being expedited by our concern for the honourable member's constituents as much as for the issue itself. We are not in a position to make an announcement at this stage. Mr SIMMONS —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. What progress has been made in respect of the May Committee of Inquiry into the National Road Freight Industry recommendations following its inquiry? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. Honourable members will recall that the May Committee was appointed in July 1983 to carry out the first ever comprehensive analysis and examination of the national road freight industry and it reported towards the latter part of last year. The recommendations of the inquiry headed by Tom May aimed particularly at introducing economic stability into the industry. The inquiry came down very strongly against an argument of government regulation on entry into the industry and freight rate setting. In that inquiry the question of industrial representation for owner-drivers was raised. The view of the inquiry was that that matter would be better dealt with by the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. I understand that that report will be submitted to my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations at the end of next month. The package of recommendations brought forward by Tom May and his colleagues put forward to be accepted as a package in principle. The recommendations aimed at improving truck safety, improving conditions of operation within the industry. It was recommended that operator licensing be introduced so that there would be protection for drivers who may be involved in breaches of the law brought about by economic pressures and tasks which they were required to do by prime contractors. The recommendations also included provision for better training of drivers first entering the industry. That package of 98 recommendations has been accepted in principle by the State and Territory Ministers for Transport. Those recommendations are under consideration by the Government and I hope to be able to make an announcement in the near future as to the outcome. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian delegation meeting to the United Nations General Assembly-thirty-eighth session 1983. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —In accordance with the Coal Industry Act 1946, I present the Joint Coal Board annual report for 1983-84. Included in the report is a report on the coal mining industry. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present Industries Assistance Commission reports on the following matters: The dried vine fruits industry; re-import concessions; certain electronic equipment and components; telecommunications and related equipment and parts; separate articles direction No. 1 of the customs tariff; tableware and other goods of ceramics; heavy commercial motor vehicles; and IAC interim report on the heavy engineering industry, together with an annexure to the report. The reports were made available to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 24 of the Cotton Research Act 1982, I present the Cotton Research Committee annual report for the period 31 December 1982 to 30 June 1984. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Dairying Research Act 1972, I present the Australian Dairy Research Committee annual report for 1983-84. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 90 of the Wool Industry Act 1972, I present the Australian Wool Corporation annual report for 1983-84. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 8 (1) of the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965, I present the annual report for 1983-84 on the operations of the Act. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Wine Research Institute annual report for 1983-84. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Primary Industry annual report for 1983-84. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —Pursuant to section 122 (1) of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971, I present the annual report of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation for 1983-84. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —Pursuant to section 148 (1) of the Social Security Act 1947, I present the Department of Social Security annual report for 1983-84. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —Pursuant to section 29 of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967, I present the Australian Tourist Commission annual report for 1983-84. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 44 of the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972, I present the Australian Institute of Marine Science annual report for 1983-84. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Advisory Committee annual report for 1983. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 19C of the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act 1960, I present the National Standards Commission annual report for 1983-84. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 102 (3) of the Postal Service Act 1975, I present the Australian Postal Commission annual report for the year ended 30 June 1984. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian National Satellite System annual report for 1984. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 80 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, I present the Australian Broadcasting Corporation annual report for 1983-84. Mr ALDRED(Bruce) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ALDRED —Yes, I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr ALDRED —Last night in the adjournment debate I made a speech concerning allegations of maladministration and violence in the Oakleigh City Council. That speech was reported this morning in the Melbourne Sun on page 13. The report is correct in all respects except one paragraph, which reads: Mr Aldred said the 1984-85 Federal Budget allocated $486,534 in local government funding and the Victorian Grants Commission had authorised $958,000 to Oakleigh Council. In actual fact I said in my speech-it is so recorded in Hansard-that the total amount of local government funding for 1984-85 out of the Commonwealth Budget for that category is $486.534m. In verification of that and all the other matters that I dealt with last night, I seek leave again to table the Blue Book- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has been given indulgence to make a personal explanation about where he has been misrepresented. He has done so. He is not entitled to raise other matters. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth 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,Mr Hawker,Mr Kent,Mr Lloyd,Mr McArthur,Ms Mayer and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Drummond. 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 Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority the decision of the Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with grave concern and deplore the decision to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become more widespread during the period of inquiry. Request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Fife and Mr MacKellar. 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 applaud the decision of the Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with grave concern and deplore the decision of the Hawke Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become more widespread during the period of the inquiry. Request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. 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 Cadman,Mr Fife and Mr Cowan. 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 requests the Government to 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament Assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will set aside a National Park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals be undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the brumby declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House follow the example of President Nixon in the U.S.A. by declaring our wild horses protected from industry and discriminate slaughter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Coleman. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully sheweth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Charlesworth. 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 Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test will mean the sale of homes, of cars, and treasured possessions which have been accumulated over many years of hard work and saving; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of old people is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. 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 certain citizens of Australia shows: That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the current Telecom Australia practice of charging STD telephone rates for telephone users living in ''outer metropolitan'' areas is unfair given that Telecom's method of determining what is an outer metropolitan area (by drawing concentric circles on a map centring on the Perth GPO) does not take into account the development of regional and subregional corridors of urban growth which are encouraged by the West Australian State Government. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the recommendations of the House of Representatives Committee on Expenditure concerning Telecom's Zonal charging policies be implemented so that areas of urban growth at significant distances from the Perth GPO are not automatically classified as STD telephone areas but instead that consideration be given to the development of areas of urban growth in relation to their STD status. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 entitlement 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 Peter Fisher and Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Forrest respectfully showeth that the Australian Citizenship Act contains provision for the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors, and an Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors: That the said Oath and Affirmation of Allegiance are supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure that the present Oath and Affirmation of Allegiance are retained; and would strongly oppose any attempt to remove all reference to God and the Queen from the Oath of Allegiance, and any attempt to remove all reference to the Queen from the Affirmation of Allegiance. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement more equitable guidelines for payment of independence allowance to enable young Australians who have been employed in the work force to be eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance allowances where that employment has been undertaken while still at school And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increase in State aid for private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wright. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to include private psychologists services in medicare, when those services are conducted by clinical psychologists recognised as qualified by the Clinical Board of the Australian Psychological Society. 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 certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many people in Australia are currently being denied appropriate psychological help because they cannot afford private health insurance. Rebates for psychological services within the Medicare system would enable all persons, regardless of financial and social status, to receive appropriate psychological assistance. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament will give consideration to the inclusion of psychological services within the Medicare Scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Federal Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned request Commonwealth and State co-operation and financial commitment to- (a) Providing an infrastructure and making aircraft available for the fighting of bushfires in New South Wales; (b) Further, we request the Commonwealth Government to retain the surplus Grumman Tracker Aircraft (approximately 17) and associated spares, for the purpose of conversion to firefighting aircraft for use on the above project. And your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will respond to our plea. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. 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 because it will cause untold damage to the morals of the youth of our community, the Parliament will make such laws as prohibit the importation or entry into Australia of video films, tapes, discs, slides or other recording form which a visual image can be produced which displays degradation of any person, particularly women, children or animals; scenes of explicit sexual relations showing genitalia detail; acts of violence and sex; sexual perversion such as sodomy; mutilation; child pornography; coprophilia; bestiality or the use and effect of illicit drug taking. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Keogh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of Australia respectfully show their desire that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement more equitable guidelines for payment of independence allowance to enable young Australians who have been employed in the work force to be eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance allowances where that employment has been undertaken while still at school. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's great farm potential is being shackled by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges, are damaging the ability of agriculture to compete on world markets, are increasing food costs for Australian families and creating widespread unemployment in both country and cities. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australia's farmers to unlock farm potential so the nation as a whole can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving 'property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. Recognize that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: i. a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, ii. subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, iii. farmer unrest at seed prices, iv. monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, v. increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the potential noise hazard to resident of Sandgate, Shorncliffe, Brighton and Nudgee Beach (including 4,000 aged people) will become intolerable when the new Brisbane Airport is operative in 1987, if protective action is not taken. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government will, when the redeveloped Brisbane Airport becomes operative ensure 1. No jet aircraft use the 32' 14' crosswind runway: 2. That the Department maintain the curfew on the runway from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. 3. Introduce a six months trial period if the policy to lift the curfew is adhered to, to enable residents to voice their opinions on such a curfew before Government policy is finalised. (Curfew from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Western Australia showeth that the Attorney-General amended the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations under the Customs Act 1901, to permit the importation of obscene and indecent pornography into Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: the Government will restore the former section 4A of the Customs regulation to prohibit the importation of material that is obscene, indecent or blasphemous. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of the Division of Dawson shows: (1) Concern about Labor's extension of travel and staff entitlements to cover de facto and homosexual partnerships of parliamentarians and public servants, (2) Legislation should reflect the traditional family as the cornerstone to a stable and cohesive Australian society, and (3) Prays that the Parliament will immediately pass legislation to reverse these regulations and confer proper recognition upon the traditional de jure marriage. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wright. Petitions received. 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 growing doubts about the Government's ability and resolve to effectively manage the economy as exemplified by the recent depreciation of the Australian dollar. 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)(3.00) —The economic news-indeed, most of the news-of the nation over the last couple of weeks has been dominated by the fall in the value of the Australian dollar. There can be no doubt that the fall in the value of the Australian dollar which has been recorded over the last several weeks is in part-I stress in part-a direct result of a fall in the level of confidence in the economic management and resolve of the Hawke Government. That decline has taken place not only domestically but also internationally. If we wanted any evidence of why people overseas are now having real doubts as to whether what they previously perceived to be relatively responsible economic policies pursued by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) any longer prevail, we found a very good reason for those doubts in Question Time yesterday and Question Time again today. Yesterday, in answer to a question I put to the Prime Minister, he got up and-I paraphrase the answer he gave-said: 'I agree with you that the economically sensible and rational thing to do is to discount the next national wage case for the effects of the devaluation on the consumer price index. That is the economically responsible thing to do, but I cannot do it because I am bound by the terms of the prices and incomes accord'. That is what the Prime Minister was saying yesterday. He was, in effect, giving official ratification and confirmation to the view that buying industrial peace is more important than the longer term economic health of Australia and is more important than the impact on the unemployed of Australia of a wage determination system that increasingly this country cannot afford. As the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) acknowledged yesterday, the depreciation of the Australian dollar of recent weeks, despite the adverse effects of it and despite the fact that it represents some failure or loss of confidence by others in the policies and the assets of this country, confers some competitive gain and edge on our export and import competing industries. The Prime Minister did not dissent from that point of view. However, the important thing is that, if we are not to suffer all the disadvantages of a depreciation of our currency, we must be willing to insulate our import competing and export industries from the adverse price effects of that depreciation. The only way we can do that is by insulating those industries through the wages system. Increasingly, what is happening, of course, is that the floating of the Australian dollar has imposed strains upon our wage fixation system and has demonstrated how inappropriate our wage determination system is. Instead of standing up yesterday and saying to the Australian public that the Government would be willing to discount for the effects of the depreciation of the Australian dollar, the Prime Minister rather supinely threw up his arms and said: 'I would like to do it. I know it is the economically responsible thing to do, but I cannot do it because it would break the prices and incomes accord'. What he was doing, as he did over the MX missile issue, was saying that when it comes to a choice between numbers and duty he will choose numbers any time. He has demonstrated that time and again. He demonstrated it over his failure to dismiss the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) from the Cabinet on two occasions; he demonstrated it over the MX missile issue and he is demonstrating it again by his failure to follow the only economically rational course in the wake of the depreciation of the Australian dollar. What the Prime Minister knows in his heart and what proper observers of the Australian economic scene know is a reality, and it is a reality that I pointed out in December 1983 when the Government floated the Australian dollar, a decision that I warmly welcomed then and still welcome as one of the very good and praiseworthy decisions that the Hawke Government has taken. I said on that occasion: Now that the dollar has, quite properly, been floated, the Government can no longer 'fudge' the exchange rate in order to protect it from the consequences of inappropriate and irresponsible domestic fiscal, monetary and wages policies. The dollar float imposes a new discipline on the Government. There is little prospect that the industrial wing of the labour movement and the left-wing of the Labor Party will respond to that discipline. If ever we had a demonstration that the Government would not respond to that discipline, we had it yesterday when the Prime Minister was unwilling to give the only economically responsible answer to the question that I asked. It is no wonder that this morning the Australian Chamber of Commerce, one of the largest business organisations in Australia, had this to say: The business community views with complete bewilderment the Prime Minister's statement that the Federal Government would support the passing on to wages of the inflationary effects of the recent decline in the Australian dollar. The statement will only serve to undermine the value of earlier statements by other senior Cabinet Ministers and by the Prime Minister himself on the need to engender business confidence. That is not a bad smack in the eye from the President of the Australian Chamber of Commerce. It is no wonder, because it is an example of the declining domestic confidence in the economic policies of this Government. I have said repeatedly over the past several weeks that there are external reasons for the decline in the value of the dollar. It is not the fault of the present Government or, indeed, any Australian government that these have occurred. I refer, of course, to the strength of the United States dollar and the fact that as a commodity trader we, in common with all other commodity traders, have seen our currency depreciate because of the depressed level of commodity prices. But there one must end the exculpation of the present Government because when one moves to the other set of reasons, one finds that this Government is very much to blame. I and other Opposition members have said repeatedly over the past couple of weeks that the humiliating retreat of the Prime Minister over the MX missile issue has broken in a very significant way the confidence that many people had in him in the economic area. I was told repeatedly by people in the financial community in the United States when I followed the Prime Minister's visit there a couple of weeks ago: 'If he backed down to the left wing in this issue, he will back down to the left wing on other issues'. The decline in the value of the Australian dollar represents a vote of loss of confidence in the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and this Government. There is no way that the Government can wriggle and worm out of that because a floating exchange rate tells the story and tells it quickly, plainly and without any kind of fear or favour. That is what makes a floating exchange rate a far better method of running one's exchange rate than other systems. That is why a floating exchange rate continues to have the support of the Opposition and, to his credit, the support of the Treasurer. No doubt he hopes that somehow or other, the realism that a floating exchange rate brings home, will make some of his colleagues aware of many of the difficulties. This loss of confidence in the economic policies of the Government is not something that has arisen only over the last couple of weeks as exemplified by the fall in value of the Australian dollar. One can go back to the Budget of last year. If ever there was an election Budget, if ever there was a Budget designed purely and simply for the polls and not for the medium or the longer term, it was the 1984 Budget. It was a Budget that I described at the time as 'a political document, based on the vote now, pay later principle'. That Budget maximised short term electoral possibilities, but I warned at the time that next year it would present major economic problems on the budgetary front. Of course, those major problems are now becoming apparent. Even in areas where the Government was able in its early months of office to point to some level of success, a slow down is starting to occur. This is happening, for example, in the employment area. Remember how much we were regaled by the Government about the improvements in employment that had taken place since it was elected? Total employment, seasonally adjusted, grew by 3.1 per cent in the 12 months to March 1984, but in the 10 months to January 1984 it has increased at an annual rate of only 1.6 per cent. Real interest rates-that is, the gap between the nominal rate and the rate of inflation-are now the highest that they have been for two generations. This Treasurer not only presided over the highest tax take in Australia's history in the last Budget and the highest level of expenditure in Australia's history in the last Budget, but he also now presides over the highest real interest rates that this country has seen since the end of World War II. No wonder people here and overseas are starting to vote a lack of confidence. Of course, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are not alone. It amuses me no end to see Labor premiers running around the world inviting foreign banks to establish headquarters in their particular cities. Who else could I think of this week but the Victorian Premier, Mr Cain, who has not been slow to run around the world inviting this and that bank to establish its headquarters in Melbourne and to a parade all the marvellous advantages of having the headquarters of a bank in Melbourne. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having the headquarters of one's bank in Melbourne. Melbourne is a terrific city. The only thing wrong with it at the moment is its State Government. If ever a person were aligned, in terms of policy attitudes, to those policies of the Federal Government which are now losing favour internationally, it is the Premier of Victoria. Not only has he a sorry record of increases in taxes and charges and of mortgaging the future assets of Victoria's instrumentalities to an unconscionable extent to overseas lenders, but to the Victorian Premier belongs the dubious distinction of being the first political figure in office in the Western world to say that facilities for nuclear-powered vessels would not be available in his port. The Victorian Premier was even two years ahead of the New Zealand Prime Minister in saying that visits by nuclear-powered warships would not be welcome in Victorian ports. I quote from his remarkable statement in 1982, when he declared: . . . visits by nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed warships to Victoria from any country are not welcome. Everybody remembers that, fortunately, that exercise in anti-Americanism by the present Victorian Premier was very smartly put down by the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. It is very interesting that as far as Mr Cain's ideology and his attitudes are concerned, he was even two years ahead of the New Zealand Prime Minister. That gives us an idea of the nature, the calibre and the quality of the leadership of that Government. I realise, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I digress a little from my comments on the management of the national economy, but the point must still be made that the economic policies that I condemn, the economic policies that have eroded international confidence in the Australian dollar, are fully supported by that same Premier who led the break out at the 1983 Premiers Conference, where at the last minute the Treasurer got rolled and had to give another $400m in funds to the States. The last two weeks has seen the coming together of various strands which indicate a loss of confidence in the economic management of this Government. It faces an horrendous problem on the wages front. Not only has it a wage indexation system that this country cannot afford, but the secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has said that this country has the most beneficial wage fixation system for the trade union movement of any country in the world. On the wages front, the Government also faces the difficulty of what to do with the productivity case. It faces the problem of putting together a Budget in 1985 when it will have to pay the price of its electoral vote-buying Budget of 1984 and in many other areas it faces an erosion of the international competitiveness of Australian industry. Most importantly, it faces a Prime Minister who no longer has the authority and respect that people previously believed he enjoyed. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.15) —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) would have to be joking, to stand up in this Parliament and condemn the Government for a performance on the economy which has reduced inflation from 12 per cent to 5 per cent, which has given us a year of record economic growth, and now a second year and looking with confidence to a third year, which has created 300,000 jobs, which has reduced unemployment from 10.4 to 8.5 per cent and which has seen a turn-around in investment and consumption and a massive 56 per cent pick-up in the housing sector over the last 18 months. For this he says he condemns us for our management of the economy. How does it compare with his record? Negative growth for the first time in 30 years in 1982-83; squandered opportunities through the 1970s; a period of accelerated investment in mining simply blown out the window; an inflation rate of over 11 per cent; interest rates of 20 per cent. He talks about real rates of interest. Let him go outside-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —Just quieten the arrogant ant over there, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you do not mind. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest to the House that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party was heard in silence, and I ask honourable members to extend the same courtesy to any other member of this House. Mr KEATING —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is talking about real rates of interest, yet he had people committing suicide at a 20 per cent rate of interest. We had record interest rates in this country. There is one thing about these Liberals-they cannot be made to face any shame; there is no shame in the Liberal Party. A 20 per cent interest rate and a massive increase in unemployment, from 6 to 10 per cent of the work force; back to double digit inflation; the first negative growth for 30 years; yet the matter of public importance of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reads: . . . doubts about the Government's ability . . . to effectively manage the economy . . . Where do we go? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talks about our fudging on the exchange rates; that our actions on the exchange rate are being exposed. Who was the Treasurer who sat and let the Treasury over-value the exchange rate for years, while we had a wages explosion ripping our competitiveness apart on the way through? Why did we maintain the exchange rate system for those years? It is because the former Treasurer could not get a piece of tissue paper through Cabinet-he had neither the ability nor the guts to knock his Prime Minister over and get the Australian dollar floated, to find its equilibrium in the market place. He kept the Australian dollar overvalued, ripping the guts out of our manufacturing industries, destroying the prospects of our export industries to compete, our primary export sector. While all of that was happening, we had a massive wages explosion, presided over by himself and the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), who was then the Minister for Industrial Relations. He says we are fudging it up on economic policy; we are fudging it up on the exchange rate. He says we have the wrong wage determination system. We have a wage determination system which has given us two years of back-to-back wage restraint and no increase in award wages for 12 months. He has the hide to say that that so-called policy of his, which had wages blowing out through nearly a decade, was the right policy. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition makes the point, with crocodile tears, of how much inflation will drift through the wage system as a result of changes in the exchange rate. He says that as though the conditions which currently apply in the economy would have applied under his policies. We would have already had the wage increases under his policies, right through 1984. We would not have had to wait for some move in the exchange rate to drift through wage indexation; we would have already seen our competitiveness eroded by the impact on wages of such a change, because they have no policy to deal with that. His policy is to let the powerful unions negotiate and to give centralised wage fixing to everybody else. In other words, he is saying that we should let the high points of the economy fight it out and then those massive increases will ratchet their way through the economy, as they have in the past, and in the end flow right through, as happened with the metal trades award of 1981. Eighteen months after that award even the bookmakers' clerks on the racecourses received an increase. It went through every sector of the economy. That is the wage system he implores us to have. Instead of that, we have an accord with the trade unions, based on fair and decent wage restraint as a trade-off for growth. In other words, the unions will restrain themselves for growth and for employment. They have done that, demonstrably; otherwise we would not have an inflation rate of only 5 per cent. Yet the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says it is the wrong wages policy. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) happens to recognise the fact that if changes in the exchange rate over time were to impact on the wage system there would have to be some trade off. However the accord permits negotiations in regard to these factors anyway and one cannot simply assume that any change in the exchange rate would automatically drift into wages. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition then had the hide to say that the Prime Minister is negating his responsibilities to this Parliament. The fact is that this Government has brought inflation down and it is the policies of this Government, not the policies of the coalition, which will lead this country through prosperity in the 1980s. So much for the wage fixation system. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talks about the current account deficit. This Government is two years old. Does he think the structural problems of the economy and the current account deficit can all be laid at our door? What about the wage explosion of 1981 and Australia's loss of competitiveness? What has that done to the current account deficit? What about the impact of the massive pick-up in imports which has come as a result of this recovery? Of course that has an impact on the current account deficit, but for the right reasons. There is a lagged effect of a change in competitiveness. But, of course, everything comes in its time and with the right market mechanisms those corrections will take place. The Opposition has shed crocodile tears and wrung its hands about whether this Government can manage the economy. Nothing the former Treasurer has said throws any light upon any shift in policy on his part. He talked about the 1984 Budget as though there was something wrong with it. I have told him over and over again-he will not listen-that the smallest deficit is not necessarily the right deficit. We do not accept his view about dragging activity out of the economy too quickly. We will not cop that. The difference between his policies and ours is that the Government has its policy settings cast for growth. It is not just a government with a growth rhetoric; it has its fiscal and monetary policy settings cast for growth, backed up by a prices and incomes accord. We are not, as is the Opposition, advocating a contractionary fiscal policy and a monetary policy which will lead to a credit squeeze. The former Treasurer is advocating that we chase the 8 to 10 per cent target at a time of enormous upheaval in the relationship between the monetary aggregates and the gross domestic product as a result of this Government's historic deregulation of the financial system. He would have us mindlessly, foolishly and irresponsibly chasing a fictitious and cosmetic number, leading to a credit squeeze in this country and stalling growth, all because he is an unreconstructed monetarist. He always copped the view of the former Secretary to the Treasury and others who dominated his economic thinking during the 1980s. He will not accept that there is a basic difference in our philosophies. This is a government with a policy cast for growth; it is not a policy cast for the ideological obsessions of people in the Liberal Party or the business community. The results are there for everyone to see. Look at the Opposition's performance in the election campaign. It said that it believes in smaller Budget deficits, but we found over $1,500m of new policy. There was the $500m of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the $500m of the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), and then there were all sorts of other announcements around the place. Opposition members could not keep a fiscal policy together if they tried, yet they are trying to tell us that there is something wrong with our Budgets. Last year we could have brought in a Budget deficit of about $5 1/2 billion if we had not provided a tax cut. But the tax cut has given us wage restraint, amongst other things, as well as the pay back of some fiscal drag. The result is that we have a 5 per cent inflation rate for the first time since 1972. So where do Opposition members get off in telling us that our policies are wrong? They should not kid themselves about what members of the business community think; they should just go and talk to them. They should just pick up the newspapers and look at the restoration of profits across companies. Do honourable members opposite really think anyone in Australian business seriously believes that the Liberal Party of Australia has any policies to give non-inflationary growth to this country? No one in business does. The business community has given members of the Liberal Party up. It has sold them out because they are not worth supporting. They have no ideas. They are bums when it comes to economic policies. The business community knows that they are bums and it will not wear them. I make that point very clear. I just want to make a couple of points about monetary policy because I have heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition railing whenever he can-on 2GB, 2UE or to any one who will listen to him-about what is wrong with the monetary aggregates. Mr Howard —You obviously monitor it fairly closely. Mr KEATING —We get it back. We have to read everything. We see it all. The fact of the matter is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the great monetarist, the man who believes in monetary targets, never hit a monetary target once in five years as Treasurer. That is the first thing. The second thing is that this Government brought the money supply on target in 1983-84, despite $4 billion of capital inflow. We were issuing bonds as if they were going out of style through 1983-84 to get to that monetary target. Even though we have an incomes policy in place we do not accept the view that we do not have to worry about monetary policy, that monetary policy can just be lax and that money can swim around. We do not accept either the religious relationship between the precise increase in monetary growth and inflation. We fixed upon a neutral monetary policy, a neutral firm monetary stance throughout 1983-84, and we are prepared to do the same thing in 1984-85. When the Budget came down in 1984-85 we said that we would look to adjustments for growth and if there was more growth mid-year than we thought, we would adjust the target up for growth and we would adjust it for re-intermediation. But what we did not know and did not say, because we were not aware of it at the time, is that not only have we had re-intermediation but also we have had intermediation. In other words, there is now much more activity in the financial sector in terms of the reflection of monetary growth relative to a given level of activity in the economy. The relationships between the monetary aggregates and gross domestic product have changed as they have changed in the United States of America. When Paul Volcker announced shifts in monetary policy three years ago he copped the same sort of nonsense that I have copped from the Opposition as a result. The fact of the matter is that this Government is not abandoning monetary policy. We are prosecuting a firm monetary policy but we have set aside the target in this period of uncertainty because M3 and the broader M's are no longer a reliable guide to what is happening between monetary activity and activity in the economy. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition thinks he can score some cheap debating point by trying to play upon some obsessions in the business community about monetary policy, he has another think coming, because the business community can make its own judgments. It knows where interest rates are. It knows whether policy is firm or not. It knows that the anti-inflation stance of this Government is without peer in this Parliament. In terms of fiscal policy the Government is committed to the trilogy. It is committed to it at Cabinet, Ministry and Caucus levels. As well as that, we have said that we will see a money reduction in the deficit in 1985-86 over 1984-85. Mr Howard —A money or real? Mr KEATING —A money reduction in the deficit-m-o-n-e-y. Mr Howard —So the Australian Financial Review editorial is right? Mr KEATING —No, the Australian Financial Review editorial today was wrong. It is not the Treasurer and not the Governor-General. It is a money reduction in the deficit. Mr Howard —No, the Governor-General's Speech was wrong. Mr KEATING —Oh, God! Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Would the Treasurer please ignore the interjections. Mr KEATING —Madam Deputy Speaker, the result is that it is by far the most disciplinary fiscal policy that any government has ever been encouraged to undertake, compared to the grab bag policy pursued by my predecessor. As I said at the start, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition getting up here, without shame on his face, and initiating such a matter of public importance with his record and the record of his Party, in the face of this Government's record, is really stretching credibility to unbelievable ends. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.31) —The matter of public importance submitted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is in the following terms: The growing doubts about the Government's ability and resolve to effectively manage the economy as exemplified by the recent depreciation of the Australian dollar. At stake here is the credibility of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Government with local and overseas financial markets and economic observers as to whether they can deliver on the various commitments they have made in economic policy. The Treasurer, who has been very good indeed at going around the board rooms and bourses of the world in a dark suit and talking about the collection of antiques, has presented a view of the Australian Labor Party to people here and abroad which is quite different from that presented during the previous period of Labor government. As we know, overseas investors had an opinion of a Labor government as one that sent people around with letters from Jim Cairns, or sent Khemlani over to borrow $4,000m. They thought members of the Government had Iraqi breakfasts. This was the general image of the Labor Party within the international, business and financial community. The Treasurer had an extremely difficult task in removing this image and, backed up by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), he went round all the board rooms and international conference tables to give a totally different impression of a Labor government. Basically what the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were saying was: 'We are not like Whitlam, Cairns, Khemlani or any of these people. We are sound economic managers. We have got the lunatics in our Party under total control. All the left wing fourth graders are people that we can put our finger on. We have got the trade unions, which caused immense damage under the previous Whitlam Government and also during 1981-82 under the Fraser Government, under control because we have got them constrained by the prices and incomes accord, a solemn agreement which they have signed. We are also supporters of the financial deregulation begun by the previous Treasurer following the Campbell report. We have also got Labor governments in the various States, which are perfectly sensible, run by commonsense business type gentlemen who also wear dark suits and ties on public occasions. We are quite different from the previous Labor Government. You can trust us'. That impression was successfully implanted here and abroad. I must say that if Australia has to endure a Labor government for any period that impression is very useful. Members of the Opposition supported those aspects of Labor policy, particularly in the area of financial deregulation, which were sound and in the interests of Australia. We are talking about what has happened to the dollar over the last two or three weeks and what has happened in international financial circles; we are not talking about the general decline of the dollar which would happen for good economic reasons, but we are talking about the very substantial and dangerous wobbles that have occurred in addition to that. I suggest that they are occurring and may well continue to occur because the Government has shown that it is no longer able to control those critical elements of its constituency which enable it to maintain this international and local image. The first piece of evidence we have on this matter is the MX virus that infected the Left and then got through to the Centre Left. Members of the Centre Left made an attack on their Prime Minister. Under pressure abroad, in the course of an overseas trip without full consultation with his colleagues, leaving the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) speechless in Sydney, the Prime Minister changed his mind on a critical aspect of our relationship with the United States of America under the ANZUS alliance. International observers could rightly ask: 'Is it possible also that the Treasurer will suffer a similar fate to that suffered by the Foreign Minister? Is it possible that the Prime Minister, under some similar kind of pressure from the Left, joined possibly by the Centre Left in a particular situation, will back down on a domestic commitment which is just as important as that external commitment to ANZUS?'. I refer to the economic trilogy which is the centrepiece of this Government's forward economic plan. We support it insofar as it goes. We applauded it at the time. I must say that we expressed some doubt as to whether the Prime Minister had received full backing from his Cabinet on the matter. In fact, he had not. Nonetheless, he committed himself and that commitment to this trilogy has been noted by local and international communities. I remind the House that the trilogy is not to increase taxes at a faster rate than the growth in the economy, to reduce Government spending as a proportion of the nation's output and not to increase the Budget deficit as a proportion of the national product. Today in the House the Treasurer has tightened up that third element of that commitment by saying that the deficit will not increase in money terms. That was an important additional tightening of the commitment by the Treasurer in public today. Mr Howard —It is contradictory to the Governor-General's Speech. Mr CARLTON —It is, as my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, contradictory to the Governor-General's Speech. Nonetheless, the Treasurer made this public statement here today. We note that. The Business Council of Australia, which had the same interpretation as the Treasurer, will be pleased to hear of that commitment. To this trilogy I add the not insubstantial additional commitment of not increasing the Medicare levy. That is the trilogy and that is a good set of commitments. It is as important to Australia's future as the commitment to maintain the ANZUS alliance is important to our external defence. If we can be seen to go back on a commitment under ANZUS at the first whiff of grapeshot, what price the trilogy? That is the first problem caused by the MX virus. The second element cited by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister under which they could say that they were different from the Whitlam Government is that the trade unions were contained by the accord. The accord states that regardless of our international trading competitiveness, regardless of the capacity of individual firms or industries to pay, wages overall will rise automatically with increases in prices. All the overseas experts know that that is not sensible in a competitive trading world, but they thought that that was the best that a Labor Government could do under the circumstances and they accepted that as evidence of good intentions. But what do we find on the accord? At about the same time as we have a backdown on the MX issue, we also have a Public Service strike which has immediate effects on the capacity to keep the promises of the trilogy because it immediately pushes up interest costs in the Budget, affects our external account and the flow of dollars in and out of Australia, causes further ructions in the value of the dollar but, most importantly of all, it tests the Government's resolve in maintaining the accord. What happened here is that the Public Service unions, as they were entitled to, went to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and said: 'Under the anomaly provisions of the accord we are entitled to an extra 8 per cent on top of the national wage rises'. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission exhaustively examined the claims of those public sector unions and said that the claim had no merit and that the 8 per cent could not be granted; indeed, no additional increase could be granted. Under the terms of the accord, on which the future of this Government depends, it was up to those unions, as part of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, as signatories to the accord, to go back to work and wait for the national wage case. If at a subsequent point they wished to raise some other matter, so be it. However they did not do that; they went on strike. The Government did not follow the accord either. It allowed the national wage case to proceed and it also suggested that there be a behind the scenes deal with the public sector unions to allow an anomalies increase. So, just as the Government did with ANZUS, just as it did with the MX and just as it will do in countless other areas where there is pressure from one of its own constituencies, it will cave in. It is on those grounds that we say that the Government's credibility in local and international financial markets is crumbling and that its capacity to maintain this whole framework of economic responsibility is rapidly disappearing. Everything the Treasurer said today by way of past history is of no account when nobody can trust the Prime Minister or the Treasurer. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(3.41) —I was surprised when I heard earlier today that the Opposition proposed to raise a matter of public importance related to the devaluation of the Australian dollar. I was stunned when I saw that the Opposition intended to relate that question to the more general question of economic management. Mr Simmons —Short memory. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Honourable members opposite have an extremely short memory, as I am reminded by the honourable member for Calare. Let me assure this House, let me assure the Opposition, let me assure the Australian people that that short memory is not shared by members of the Government, nor is it shared by the Australian electorate at large-nor should that short memory be shared by any of them. I said that I was stunned that the Opposition chose to relate the devaluation of the Australian dollar to the general question of economic management. Who would not be stunned, keeping in mind the appalling, the abysmal, record that the Opposition had in matters of economic management when it was in government? Do we need to remind anyone about what that record was? Mr Bilney —Yes, you do. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Will I remind honourable members? Madam Deputy Speaker, members of the Government have appealed to me to remind them. Let me do so. For the first time in 50 years we had negative economic growth in Australia. Unemployment grew from 4.6 per cent, which the Fraser Government inherited in 1975, to 10.4 per cent when it was cast out of office. I make particular reference to the circumstances concerning unemployment which resulted from the former Government's economic management during the last 12 months of its economic stewardship. Mr Bilney —A misnomer. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Yes, undoubtedly it is a misnomer. During the last 12 months of the Fraser Government unemployment in Australia increased by a quarter of a million people. We have spoken in terms of the economy being in a state of free fall. What greater evidence, what more appropriate evidence, could we have than the circumstances that existed in the last 12 months of the Fraser Government, when unemployment increased by a quarter of a million people? I hope the significance of that is not lost to all honourable members. What that means is that as a result of the economic policies which the Fraser Government initiated, which it put into place, which it implemented, on every day of the last 12 months of that Government another 750 Australians were thrown on to the unemployed scrap-heap. That is the rate at which unemployment was growing. Every day for 12 months 750 people were added to the unemployment list, making a total of a quarter of a million people. Who would not be stunned to see the Opposition link the devaluation of the dollar with general economic management? The Government has no need to apologise, nor would the Australian people expect it to apologise, for the undoubted success, the incredible success, which it has had with economic management, economic revival. At last it has given the Australian people an opportunity to look to the future with the sort of confidence that they are entitled to have. They did not have it between 1975 and 1983. Any confidence that they may have had, any confidence to which they may have aspired, was gradually destroyed by the sorts of policies that were implemented by the present Opposition. Yet today the Opposition chose, in a matter of public importance, to link the devaluation of the dollar with general economic management. The Australian people have accepted, endorsed and applauded the economic management of this Government-the initiatives, the policies, that have been engineered and implemented by the Treasurer, Paul Keating, the man who has been recognised internationally as Finance Minister of the Year. When honourable members on the other side of the House suggest that all we need to do is to don a dark suit, put on a tie and then con the Australian business community or the international business community, I am amazed at the disrespect they show for the Australian business community. The Australian business community will not be conned by such superficiality. The Australian business community knows that it will give its respect and support to a government which, on the economic front, delivers the goods. That is precisely what this Government and this Treasurer have done. On the economic front we have delivered the goods. The Treasurer indicated some of the magnificent achievements that have been bought about as a result of the positive, constructive and intelligent economic policies that have been applied since March 1983. Inflation has been halved. Unemployment has been slashed. From the 250,000 additional unemployed for which the Opposition's policies were responsible, since we came to government we have been responsible for increasing employment by 300,000. Let us not lose sight of this because I am not talking just in terms of numbers; I am talking in terms of men and women and young people-all of those people about whom individuals both inside and outside this Parliament profess some concern. That means that as a result of the policies of this Government 300,000 people throughout the whole of Australia are now in employment-300,000 people who would not have had jobs had members of the Opposition remained in government. That is the type of record that honourable members opposite need to live down. They will not fool the Australian people. They should not be so impertinent towards the Australian people. They should not be so disrespectful to the Australian people as to suggest that all the members of the Government need to do is to don a dark suit, put on a tie and con the business community. The business community is not conned that easily. The Government has more respect for it and its judgment than honourable members opposite will ever have. I will say a couple of things in connection with what was supposed to be the essential point of this matter of public importance, and that is the devaluation of the currency which has taken place particularly this month. I make this point, and I hope that it will not be lost on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the former Treasurer and the present Treasury spokesman for the Opposition. I do not believe that it will be, and that is why I am a bit cynical about the reasons why this matter of public importance was raised today. I think he understands as well as anyone that what is happening at present is the final shakeout in the value of the Australian currency, resulting from the appalling economic record of the Fraser Government. There have been lags. The hilarity with which members of the Opposition respond to that point convinces me that, despite the fact that I tried to give them credit for understanding what this is all about, they do not. Clearly, they lack understanding. I will put it as simply as I can for them. When the previous Government was thrown out of office we inherited an inflation rate of about 10.4 per cent. Opposition members know that the rate was at least twice the inflation rate of our competitors among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. As a result of that high inflation rate, the domestic value of the Australian currency fell. But in terms of the exchange rate, it was maintained at that artificially high level internationally. When the exchange rate was free to be determined by market forces, there was then an opportunity for it to reach an appropriate level, and that is exactly what is taking place at present. Incidentally, what we should be doing is not looking at the exchange rate of the Australian currency in relation to the American dollar; we should be looking at a more appropriate measure of our currency, such as the trade weighted index. Mr Howard —It is still down. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Yes, but it is not down to the same extent. I emphasise again that we are seeing the final shakeout in the value of the Australian currency. There are definite advantages in the exchange rate of the Australian dollar reaching its appropriate market level. It is doing that at present. I would like to see less volatility in it but, quite clearly-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Debate resumed from 25 February, on motion by Ms Jakobsen: That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to: May it please Your Excellency: We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Before I call the honourable member for Macarthur, I remind the House that this is a maiden speech and I ask the House to extend the usual courtesies to the honourable member. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(3.52) —Initially, Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your election as Chairman of Committees. I certainly look forward to serving under your astute guidance during the life of this Parliament. I would like you to convey my similar congratulations to Mr Speaker. I speak for the first time in this House with a very acute sense of honour and responsibility which the electors of Macarthur have entrusted to me. It is somewhat remarkable that, during the life of this Parliament, no fewer than three former members for Macarthur, plus me, will share this building. The honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin) ably represented the people of Macarthur between 1972 and 1975. His performance within the Ministry has brought high critical acclaim from his former constituents and the Australian people at large. Having failed last year to gain his own Party's preselection for a seat in the New South Wales Parliament, Mr Michael Baume will join the Opposition ranks in the Senate in July. My immediate predecessor and good friend, Mr Hollis, takes his seat within this House as the honourable member for Throsby. I believe it is traditional in a maiden speech to extend thanks to many people-to family, friends, political colleagues and so on. I take this opportunity to acknowledge publicly the support I have received from my wife Carol, the rank and file members of the Australian Labor Party in the electorate of Macarthur who selected me to contest the seat for Australia's only true party of social conscience, and, particularly, my very close friend and mentor, the Hon. Laurie Kelly, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in New South Wales. I also extend sincere appreciation to a former great Australian Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, who, although I only met him, formally, on the opening day of the Parliament, shook from me the shackles of political apathy and steeled my commitment to reform, social justice and equality for all Australians. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I extend my thanks to the working class people of Macarthur who put me here. The electorate of Macarthur has emerged from the redistribution as a New South Wales south coast provincial and semi-rural electorate, stretching inland from the northern Wollongong suburbs between Austinmer and Mount Ousley to include the towns of Wilton, Appin, Bargo, Picton, Tahmoor, Camden and Warragamba. As a life-long resident of Wollongong, I can fairly claim to be a son of Illawarra, completely familiar with its people, its problems and its aspirations. As a former high school teacher and university lecturer in Wollongong, a town planner in Campbelltown and an alderman of the Wollongong City Council, I bring to this House an intimate knowledge of the electorate and a desire and commitment to work for its advancement. I realise that this is no mean task. The once proud Illawarra-Macarthur region, famous world-wide as the cradle of Australia's rural industry, has been ravaged in recent years by twin evils-the effects of a major economic recession and board room decisions of overseas multinational companies and monopolies. Macarthur's recent economic history has been dependent almost totally on the well-being of manufacturing industry and the underground coal mining industry. With the decline of these, the very social and economic fabric of my electorate has undergone considerable change. Dominant in the manufacturing sector is the steel industry at Port Kembla which, although located in the neighbouring electorate of Cunningham, over many years has provided employment opportunities for the residents of the Macarthur electorate. In 1981 Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd employed almost 20 per cent of the total employee population of the Illawarra region, while a considerable proportion of the remaining employment was found in enterprises directly related to or under the corporate umbrella of the steel industry. The lack of diversity in the regional economy earned Wollongong the title of 'steel city' and meant that the region was particularly vulnerable to the rapid structural change and the recession of the early 1980s. In the period of post-war industrial expansion the steel industry contributed to large scale employment generation and population growth, with an extremely high proportion of the work force being derived from overseas countries. However, by 1971 the progressive substitution of capital for labour and consequent productivity gains had led to a stabilisation of employment of around 20,000. At this time, through a combination of corporate policy decisions and a belated recognition of the need to rationalise, in my view due largely to poor forward planning and a failure by the company to detect the warning signs that modern overseas steel plants would shortly create massive problems of competition for Australia, unemployment rates in the industry rose dramatically. Employment at the Port Kembla plant fell from 20,368 in 1981 to a current level of around 13,000. In addition, this crisis was amplified by the effect on subsidiary and dependent companies in the Illawarra-Macarthur regions. It is estimated that for each job lost in the steel industry another was lost in the region. While it is not possible to determine precisely the current unemployment rate for the Macarthur electorate, a figure close to 20 per cent, based on data from the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Department of Social Security, is not unrealistic. However, to its great credit, this Government has responded positively to the crisis in the steel industry-a crisis reflected by international overproduction and the declining domestic demand for steel. In 1983 the steel industry's plan was announced which saw the industry, unions and government agree to a wide range of options to encourage intensive modernisation and rationalisation at the Port Kembla plant and in other steel plants of Australia. Through union agreements on productivity, government agreements on steel import levels, guarantees of percentage shares in the Australian domestic steel market and industry guarantees regarding levels of investment in modernisation and expansion programs, a degree of stability has again been brought back into the industry. But a word of caution is necessary. Constant surveillance must be kept of changes in domestic and international economic conditions, particularly as reflected by levels of imports. The fact that these import levels have now reached 30 per cent of the local steel market is of major concern to the whole Illawarra community. I am pleased that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) is aware of this problem and has indicated that remedial action may be forthcoming. Further, the existing situation with respect to the levels of protection for the steel industries in other countries, particularly the United States of America and New Zealand, must be carefully monitored. The United States has recently limited its imports to 18.5 per cent of its steel needs and has been directly responsible for the excess of steel on the world market. Problems of negotiating steel agreements with New Zealand, despite the existence of the closer economic relations agreement between Australia and New Zealand, have had similar effects on steel production in Australia. I was pleased to read recently that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) has made tentative plans to stage a mini-summit with representatives of the New Zealand Government to discuss this issue. Whilst I applaud this initiative, I believe care must be taken to ensure that imports of New Zealand steel into Australia do not impinge upon the viability of the Australian steel industry. The problems of the manufacturing sector alone have not been responsible for the economic ills of the Macarthur electorate. It is fair to say that in recent years no sector of my electorate has been more devastated than the coal industry. There are no fewer than 17 underground mines within the boundaries of Macarthur and nearly 90 per cent of the electorate is underlain with black gold. Mining giants such as BP Australia Ltd, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd are all operative in the area, providing principally coking coal and some steaming coal for domestic and export markets. Since 1982 there have been massive retrenchments in the coal industry and a number of pits have been closed or rationalised. Unfortunately for my electorate, most retrenchments in New South Wales have taken place in the southern coalfields. Over 2,000 jobs have been lost in this area alone. The effect of those sackings on the mines and the community of the Illawarra and the Burragorang Valley and such towns as Camden, Picton and Tahmoor, has been nothing short of horrendous. Indeed, had it not been for the combined efforts of this Government, the Labor Government of New South Wales and the mining unions, many hundreds more miners would have been subjected to the same fate and other collieries would have been closed in the name of economic rationalisation. Yet within the industry it is now believed that underground mining has a brighter future in the long term, particularly in respect of open cut operations in New South Wales and Queensland. As well, latest production figures would seem to indicate that underground mining produces coal more cheaply. If this is the case, why is the industry of the south coast and the Burragorang Valley plagued by shutdowns and retrenchments? Optimism expressed within the industry must be tempered with a realisation that, both for the present and for the foreseeable future, companies must compete against each other for prized international markets in an economic climate of massive oversupply. With more than 20 million tonnes of hard coking coal stockpiled around the world, international coal contracts are being awarded only to the most efficient producers, or to those companies prepared to undercut prices offered by competitors. A major technical problem threatening the coal industry in the Macarthur area concerns the question of transportation. The construction of stage 1 of the Port Kembla coal loader has provided export facilities for hard coking coal, transported to the loader by rail and road. New South Wales State Government policy dictates that in most cases rail transport of coal must be used. The Maldon-Dombarton rail line under construction promises to alleviate some of the domestic transportation problems by allowing access to rail by several of the southern district mines. However, freight charges associated with this form of transport, indeed, with all coal transportation, have contributed to the Australian coal industry's difficulties in competing with overseas suppliers such as South Africa. With the downturn in the demand for steel on the world market, the Macarthur region has started to exploit its steaming coal reserves in order to keep up production. Markets which have included India, Bangladesh and Pakistan have emerged, but because these countries have relatively small ports the coal must be shipped in smaller lots. Consequently, the price of the coal is proportionately higher. The whole structure of Australia's coal transportation system, including the question of freight rates, requires investigation, and an overall strategy needs to be devised. It is hoped that this may be the subject of review during this Parliament. What then is the future for the coal industry in both the Macarthur electorate and Australia generally? In the very long term the future is bright because the south coast underground reserves will far outlast open cut seams. In the short term the Australian Coal Association believes that south coast collieries must turn to steaming coal for their sales. However, the problem once again is that steaming coal pays a lower price for the same production costs. Hence, the Association has called for south coast mines to restructure to remain competitive. Once again, this returns the industry to the bleak prospect of mine closures and large scale retrenchments in the name of rationalisation. Not all in the industry would agree with the assertion that the future is bright. It is impossible to predict fluctuations in world demand for coal, in prices obtainable in a climate of fluctuations in currencies, and in the desires of coal companies to expand or contract in response to these and other factors. In the last 10 years, all the export collieries in the southern coalfields have come under the control of multinational oil and mineral corporations. Although these companies have increased their level of investment in technological advances, the southern coalfields remain vulnerable to fluctuations in the international market and to the investment programs of companies with interests in minerals, oil and gas, in not only other parts of Australia, but also other parts of the world. I was pleased to read of the success that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) was able to achieve with the British Petroleum company during his recent trip to Europe. The agreement reached in respect of Burragorang Valley mines has meant that jobs have been saved and mine closures averted for a period at least. Yet this serves as a typical example of how the problems of coal marketing and the progress of the Australian coal industry are dealt with on a piecemeal basis. No overall, co-ordinated strategy has been devised to ensure security of employment, equal access to markets at agreed to prices and even the basic allocation of new coal leases. Certainly, the establishment of the Coal Consultative Council by this Government in 1983 demonstrated the Australian Labor Party's commitment to becoming an active participant in the coal industry and to providing a framework for Government, companies and the trade unions to address the pressing problems of the industry. However, the crisis in the last year or so has clearly demonstrated the need for continued Federal intervention in price and tonnage negotiations and in the overall control of the industry. Labor Party policy calls for the establishment of a coal industry authority charged with responsibility for redressing these problems. Something must be done and done now, otherwise miners in the Macarthur electorate and in other mining areas of Australia will face a bleak future, a future which could see the continued economic and social decline of whole communities dependent on the mining sector. I believe that these two matters on which I have touched are of universal concern across a broad spectrum of ages and classes. However, I now turn to an issue of equal, if not greater, significance to every Australian. I refer to the problem of youth unemployment, which remains one of the great social tragedies of our time. January figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicated that between 1973 and 1983 the unemployment rate among teenagers increased by 18 per cent, three times the increase in the adult rate. Although Australia's overall unemployment rate has dropped to 8.5 per cent, which gives testimony to the Government's economic policies, the unemployment rate for teenagers is still a massive 21 per cent. Sadly, within the Illawarra-Macarthur region this figure has been estimated at 44 per cent for the 15 to 19 years age group and 37.1 per cent for the under 25 category. Notwithstanding these figures, as stated by the Sydney Morning Herald, believe it or not, the Hawke Government can rightly claim to be the first Government to tackle the issue of youth unemployment comprehensively. Initiatives such as the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs have presented the Government with options to consider and policy decisions to make. But, as that Committee rightly points out, it is not reasonable to expect that problems which have been accumulating over many years can be easily eliminated. It has to be realised by politicians, bureaucrats, the community and, certainly, Australia's youth that Australia's economy is inextricably linked to the economies of other countries and that changes in technology, industry rationalisation policies and educational opportunities for the acquisition of various skills will all affect employment opportunities in some way. Participation by youth in the community through a variety of schemes has been a notable achievement of this Government. Empty rhetoric from opponents of the Government's policies has been unable to detract from the fact that schemes such as the community youth support scheme, the participation and equity program, the labour adjustment retraining arrangement and other youth training programs have achieved great success. It is a sad fact of life that, because of the trend to increasing casualisation of the work force, full time work has been difficult to get. School students effectively are depriving school leavers of either permanent part time or full time work. This increased casualisation is not because of high wages for school leavers, but rather a reflection of the extremely low wages paid to 15-year-old casual workers. Studies such as those by Justice Macken in New South Wales have shown that nearly two-thirds of part time positions are held by school students. Macken's suggestion of the freeing of the penalty rates system and an increase in junior wages may help convert jobs currently held by casual workers into full time or permanent part time work for school leavers. It is fitting that 1985 has been designated International Youth Year because, as has so often been stated, the future of Australia rests with today's youth. This year provides a unique opportunity for governments, the community and the youth of Australia to work together in an atmosphere of concensus and commitment in an endeavour to come to grips with the complex nature of the problems, desires and ambitions of today's youth. It is equally fitting that the three themes of the International Year of Youth-participation, development and peace-parallel the Australian Labor Party's own policy on youth. Issues of education, drug abuse and nuclear disarmament deserve to be discussed at length by and for today's youth so that all Australians will create for themselves a fair and just society of which they can be proud. I believe that, as a parent, I have every right to insist that my children grow up in a society which is going to reflect the norms and aspirations of this Government. I believe that it is this Government alone which can provide that atmosphere for my children to grow up in. I have touched on but three of the many issues of concern to my electorate and of great personal concern to me. I believe that this Government has the necessary credentials, commitment and competence to achieve great things, things that will benefit not only my electorate but also certainly Australia. My electorate certainly looks to this Government for its continued work and assistance. I am sure that my electorate will continue to support me as its member whilst ever this Government is delivering, and I am sure that this Government will continue to deliver. I thank honourable members for paying me the courtesy of listening to me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! Before I call the honourable member for Farrer, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies, although he may have some experience in other places. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(4.13) —To represent the electorate of Farrer, stretching as it does from Mount Kosciusko, through Albury and Deniliquin to the South Australian border, is, indeed, a privilege. I thank my family and friends and my electors in Farrer who extended such strong support for me on 1 December 1984. I also thank my National Party supporters, both in the electorate and elsewhere, including my Federal Leader, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and my Deputy Leader, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). Farrer is a diverse electorate named after the famous wheat breeder, William Farrer. The electorate was originally created in 1949 and has undergone several changes to its boundaries. Under the 1984 redistribution it has perhaps become the most elongated, non-metropolitan electorate in Australia. It commences a short distance inland from the New South Wales south coast at Mount Kosciusko and then utilises the Murray River as its southern boundary for hundreds of kilometres and ends at the South Australian border, not a great distance from the suburbs of Adelaide. In the east there is some magnificent mount- ainous terrain with the tourist gateway points of Tumbarumba and Khancoban. As one moves west the mountains give way to the foothills and plains with countless thousands of hectares of rolling farmlands and rural service towns along with irrigation farms and, in the far west, grazing tracts. The national growth centre, Albury, is the largest city in the Farrer electorate and is its effective capital. Many State and Federal departments have large regional headquarters at Albury. I might add that these are staffed in the main by efficient and effective public servants who properly provide considerable liaison assistance along with the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation. Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd, Borg-Warner (Australia) Ltd and Macquarie Worsteds Ltd head the list of firms associated with the expanding industrial base. Along with this, equally important employment is generated through tourism in all its facets, including an expanded convention role for Albury. Outside Albury there is a series of large and small country towns battling for survival as the rural service town role contracts. The one except- ion is a bevy of towns along the Murray River in what I term 'the border club belt'. They are booming, particularly since the Victorian Government reaffirmed its opposition to poker machines. There are record levels of investment in clubs and motels from Albury to Wentworth. The electorate of Farrer has had only two other representatives since it was created in 1949. I pay sincere tribute to a former Minister of the Crown and Ambassador to Holland, Sir David Fairbairn, and also to my immediate predecessor, a former Minister of the Crown, the present honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife). I also pay tribute to my National Party colleague who effectively represented the western quarter of Farrer, the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks), and to the former member for Hume, Stephen Lusher, for his decade of service. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Speaker on his election and also Madam Deputy Speaker on her election. I am delighted that the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) is the Deputy Speaker on this occasion, as we share a common town of interest. We were both brought up in the Boree Creek-Lockhart area. In many ways Australia is at the crossroads, both on the international and domestic fronts. However, this situation is not reflected in the Governor-General's address. While the international front will be dealt with by many other speakers in the course of this debate, I say only that the vast majority of Australians deeply resent the U-turn in the Australian-United States of America relationship arising from a telephone call from Senator Richardson, ensconced in Japan, to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), then ensconced in Europe. Those of us who were randomly selected by this Parliament to be involved in the ugly conflict of Vietnam at times thought that, if nothing else, as one of the few Western nations fighting alongside the United States of America, we were contributing to the special nature of the relationship between Australia and America. It will take years and a change of government here to rectify the damage to our Australian-American relationship over the last month. It could be a very lonely future for Australia without a special relationship with the United States, as we need the United States, nuclear warts and all, more than it needs us. I wish to raise four particular areas on the domestic front. Firstly, I mention the Murray Valley where salinity has reached a crisis situation and with it the health of many people, including the people of Adelaide. Secondly, I mention the farm sector of the economy, which is in a crucial situation, as are many of its commodities. Thirdly, I mention tourism, particularly inland tourism, which is at the crossroads. Fourthly, I mention transport in Australia which is also at a critical stage, with inefficiencies, be they in relation to air, rail or road, and with crippling fuel taxation. Before dealing in detail with these four areas let me be clear about my overall intent. My intent is not only to provide full time representation for all electors in Farrer but also to seek to better the well-being of our nation through less government and less taxation and the encouragement of individual enterprise. I quote a former great master of this House, Robert Gordon Menzies, who said: The great race of man is that one in which each individual develops his fullest individuality, in which ambition is encouraged, in which there are rewards for the courageous and the enterprising, in which there is no foolish doctrine of equality between the active and the idle. I might add that another former Prime Minister, John McEwen, put it more bluntly. He was 'for free enterprise, against socialism'. If Australia is to be in great shape in the bicentennial year of 1988, or more particularly, in the centennial year of 2001, when we celebrate 100 years of nationhood, 100 years of our Constitution and 100 years of the existence of this Parliament, Australians must have room to breathe from the high levels of taxation and room to be enterprising initiators. The individual entrepreneur must be unfettered so that he can go forward and generate economic activity and employment. I do not rule out a safety net under the truly needy. I am the first to recognise the huge and growing numbers of have-nots, be they farmers from Balranald or Berrigan or the young unemployed of the Lavingtons and Liverpools. However, I reiterate the general philosophy that less government and less taxation will do more to provide overall advancement than opposing alternatives and options, particularly heavy-handed big government requiring even bigger taxation. I turn now to the first area I mentioned, namely, the Murray Valley and the related Murray-Darling system, which embraces part of Queensland and large areas of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. I have to tell the House that the salinity situation there is critical. Report after report and meeting after meeting catalogues the deteriorating situation. The most recent report, entitled 'Salt of the Earth', by the Victorian Parliamentary Salinity Committee is a further step forward. Whilst a good deal of the salinity is naturally occurring, it is difficult to comprehend that annually around 1.1 million tonnes of salt pass in solution in the Murray River into South Australia from upstream. To this, South Australia adds another half million tonnes of salt, so that the salt load peaks in the Murray River at around 1.6 million tonnes annually. It is a chilling fact, detailed on page 46 of the report, that the water quality in the Adelaide pipeline off-takes has exceeded the World Health Organisation's long-term objective maximum for drinking water. This level is 480 milligrams per litre salinity, expressed in terms of soluble salts. Whilst I appreciate that there are other factors which dilute the intensity of salinity in the Adelaide water supply, including water from additional sources, some of those non-Murray River sources are just as bad for salinity as the Murray River itself. If I lived in Adelaide I would give up having salt as an additive. In any event, I gave up salt as an additive in October 1984-the same month as the Victorian report on salinity was published. My plea is not just for the irrigators and the people of the towns and cities along the Murray; it is for the people of Adelaide and elsewhere. Progress is being made on combating salinity with some excellent work on interception by the River Murray Commission and other relevant New South Wales, Victorian and South Australian authorities. However, more needs to be done, and not necessarily with big ticket items costing millions of dollars. The planting of trees, the educating of irrigators and the speeding up of the responsible approach of the New South Wales rice industry and other industries to cease irrigating on leaky soils are all part of the solution. The Murray Valley League has an important role to play and will convene a forum on salinity. I will be working to see implemented the realistic recommendations of the various reports and, admittedly as a somewhat symbolic additional move, I will be seeking to see the headquarters of the River Murray Commission shifted out of Canberra, preferably to a grand location at Albury. Moving on to the second area related to the crisis in the farm sector, I point out that the National Farmers Federation and farmers in general are not crying wolf at present. There is a notion around that somehow the farm sector will survive, that seasonal conditions are cyclical and will improve along with commodity prices and all will be well, particularly following the fall in the value of the dollar. It is not possible, due to time, to deal with each commodity situation such as milk, beef, wheat, sugar, dried fruits and rice. But on an overall basis it is a fact that a cost and price squeeze is destroying the viability of farming, notwithstanding valiant and successful attempts to lift farm productivity. The farming sector productivity cow has been milked dry. Without cost reductions or, alternatively, price increases, farmers in their hundreds, if not thousands, will go to the wall. Nobody wants subsidy for subsidy's sake as a solution, but farmers are entitled to a fair go, with better marketing, long-term low interest finance, a review of taxation on fuel and other key farm cost items and, in general, a sensitive approach by government at all levels to hold and bring about proper policies and priorities. If the city commuter or the suburban parliamentarian feels that all of this is too much, may I remind the House that it was the breaking of the drought and the vast improvement in the rural sector of the economy that led this country out of the then recession, and all Australians can be thankful for that. The dairy industry is currently in a hiatus and deserves special mention. I acknowledge the need exists to gain co-operation from the various State governments and this requirement has delayed the action of the Federal Government thus far; but I also suspect there are other reasons for the delay. I am advised that a senior officer of the Federal Department of Primary Industry has said that some 5,000 dairy farmers across the nation will have to leave the industry. It would be very wrong for the turmoil in the dairy industry to be allowed to continue to help pave the way for this and I reiterate my support for the Australian Dairy Industry Conference amended national marketing plan, as this is the correct approach and any outbreak of interstate milk war will, in the long term, be devastating for all dairy farmers. I turn now to the question of tourism and the need to further boost tourism in Australia, with reference to the inland areas. To a large extent, there is a lack of realisation that there are many family-oriented, low-cost tourist activities available across inland Australia. Whilst these activities relate to locations which do not enjoy the same degree of exotic attraction as coastal areas and overseas, they nevertheless help complement and balance the tourist resources available in this country. The activities and locations to which I refer range from climbing Mount Kosciusko, which I did recently to visit the easternmost point of my electorate and familiarise myself with the Kosciusko National Park, to canoeing down the Murray River or hiring houseboats near the confluence of the Darling and Murray Rivers at Wentworth. Obviously there are many more activities which can be pursued across inland Australia and considerable progress has been made in further developing tourism. However, one of the critical problems is high penalty rates for weekend work. These high penalty rates, applicable across large sections of the tourist industry, bring about additional costs for tourists or fewer services being available for tourists on public holidays and weekends. Even the Federal Minister for tourism at one stage indicated his concern about this issue, but the problem still remains and is seriously hampering the tremendous boost for the tourist industry throughout Australia. I am certain that if there were a trial period of two years allowing more flexible contract-related award rates in the tourist industry, with expanded provision for youth awards, many more jobs would be created in the tourist industry and related service industries. The bonus would be that these jobs would be in decentralised locations across Australia and I urge the Government to press on with expanding tourism in Australia. I refer to the fourth and final area of transport being at the crossroads. Part of the problem relates to the level of fuel taxation currently being applied in Australia by the Federal Government in particular, but also by State governments with the one exception of Queensland, where no State fuel tax levy exists. For every dollar spent on fuel, the average level of taxation now exceeds 54c. The breakdown is: Commonwealth excise, approximately 19c; Federal royalties, approximately 2c; Commonwealth crude oil levy, now 27c; and, in the case of New South Wales, the State fuel tax levy, 7c. That is a total now of 55c in the dollar in taxation in respect of every dollar spent on fuel. This level of fuel taxation is particularly crippling to those people and those industries with no access to subsidised public transport. It is a massive burden on people in country Australia, including people living in the provincial cities, especially those families who have to run two vehicles because there is simply no commuter transport available to get to and from work. This would not be so difficult to put up with if all or most of the fuel taxation was being returned to building a better transport system with better roads and bridges. However, governments of all political persuasions are guilty of ensuring that this is not the case and currently some 78 per cent of taxation collected from fuel is returned to Consolidated Revenue. It is desirable that the forthcoming summit on taxation should look carefully at the whole package of taxation associated with fuel in Australia, with a particular objective of reviewing that portion of the taxation which is not being returned to roads. It should also look at the anomaly relating to primary producers on the averaging system. Perhaps it is a little unfashionable, but I also reiterate my strong support for the future role of the railway mode of transport, admittedly in a modernised form. It is exciting to learn that in the course of 10 years in the United States, the consolidated government-owned Conrail Corporation has moved back into the black and dramatically increased freight tonnages. Sadly, Amtrak, the equivalent American passenger rail corporation, has not made it into the black, but parts of its operation are profitable and some, but not all, United States rail operation lessons should be applied to the Australian scene. The most important transport corridor in Australia is Sydney-Canberra-Albury-Melbourne. It is the only corridor that enjoys the throughput created by having cities of more than three million people at either end. It is my belief that we should be planning ahead for the centennial year of 2001. It was a bitter disappointment to see the exciting proposal prepared by Dr Paul Wild of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for a TGV-type super-train system between Sydney and Melbourne rejected before it had really seen the light of day or been properly investigated. There should be a further wide ranging investigation of the super-train proposal between Sydney and Melbourne, but utilising the Sydney-Canberra-Albury-Melbourne route. With the improved economics available this, perhaps, might bring about viability for the scheme, especially if private enterprise is utilised throughout the implementation of a TGV-type super-train system between Sydney and Melbourne. As an example of lateral thinking, perhaps, I might add that the TGV-type 2 hour 40 minute service between Sydney and Melbourne would eliminate to a large extent the need for a second major airport at Sydney and the $1.5 billion cost associated with it. It would also confer benefits on the existing rail systems through greatly speeding up connections, especially at such junction stations as Canberra and Albury-Wodonga. In conjunction with the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) and others, I will be continuing to press for a realistic investigation of that proposal. As one of 294 members since Federation who have switched from a State parliament to the Federal Parliament, I thank the House for extending the courtesy of hearing me in silence, and I realise that this will not be the case in the future. But I look forward to the challenge of representing the electors of Farrer and helping to contribute to the betterment of our great nation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Before I call the honourable member for Capricornia, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech. I ask the House to extent to him the usual courtesies. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(4.31) —As is the tradition, Mr Deputy Speaker, I join other members in congratulating Mr Speaker and Madam Deputy Speaker on their re-election to their high and honourable offices in this Parliament. The electorate of Capricornia, since its creation in 1901, has been represented by parliamentarians who have served this House and their constituencies with dedication and in some cases with distinction. I consider myself fortunate to have known three of the previous Labor members on a close personal basis. The Hon. Frank Forde, who, like myself, was also a State member for Rockhampton, held many and varied positions in this Parliament, including that of Prime Minister of Australia. During his 25 years in Federal politics, from 1922 to 1946, he never wavered from his commitment to people or to his country, and that commitment remained with him until his recent passing. George Henry Gray entered Federal politics in 1961 when he recaptured Capricornia for the Australian Labor Party after it had been almost 16 years in non-Labor hands. His untimely death in 1967 was a great personal loss to me, for it was through his encouragement and support that I joined the ALP and embarked on a career in politics. It is, however, to George Gray's successor and my predecessor that I wish to pay a particular and special tribute. The Hon. Dr Douglas Nixon Everingham, Federal member for Capricornia from 1967 to 1975 and from 1977 to 1984, and Minister for Health in the Whitlam Labor Government, should never be forgotten by this House. He deserves special recognition for his contribution to humanity, not just as a parliamentarian, as a Minister and as a doctor, but moreover as a human being whose care and concern for others was always placed above his own ambitions, his own popularity and sometimes his own political preservation. Doug Everingham's electoral support transcended party-political boundaries, and I am indeed conscious of the personal challenge before me as I endeavour to emulate his 16 years of service to his electorate, to the Australian community and to mankind generally. I take this opportunity to place on record the thanks and appreciation of the people of central Queensland for a job well done and to wish both Doug and his wife Beverly a most satisfying retirement. It was my intention to use this, my maiden speech, to canvass a number of issues which are of personal concern to me, including the problems confronting Australian seamen on the Australian National Line, the alarming drug problem in our nation and other matters affecting the State of Queensland, caused mainly by the incompetence and misguided policies of the National Party State Government. However, as there is a 20 minute limit on speeches, I intend to raise these issues at greater length at another time during the session. As a former State parliamentarian, it is appropriate for me to make an observation about our system of federalism. During my 15 1/2 years in the Queensland Legislative Assembly, I saw this system in operation at close quarters-sometimes, I might add, being left aghast and amazed at how the principle of federalism could be misinterpreted, manipulated and blatantly twisted to suit the political advantage of the Bjelke-Petersen Government. But, setting that aside, I readily acknowledge the importance of the States within the Federal structure and I am cognisant of the role played by State governments and, in turn, local authorities in ensuring that the decision-making process operates on a more decentralised, people-oriented basis. However, I also recognise that more and more in today's society, there are matters which, in the interests of Australians as a whole, are better dealt with at the national level, irrespective of the fact that traditionally the relevant area of administration might come within the purview of the States. I direct my remarks specifically to the issue of consumer product safety as it relates particularly to the recall of unsafe goods. This issue is of fundamental importance to every Australian consumer-to every man, woman and child in the nation. Product safety is a matter of life, death and possible lasting injury. Yet, despite its broad and vital significance for the community, there has been limited action taken in the legislative chambers of this land to alleviate and redress the numerous problems that have arisen in the Australian market-place because of the retailing of defective and dangerous products. I doubt that any member of this House would deny the right of consumers to be able to buy goods which are safe and which do not pose a threat to their lives or health. Every Australian has the right to expect that products put on the market are adequately safe under conditions of normal use and/or foreseeable misuse, and certainly people have the right to expect that they will not be unreasonably exposed to any hazard to their life or health. Product safety has been addressed in part by the Parliament and by those of the States, but there is little uniformity in administration and there is, in my view, a serious shortcoming in what the relevant laws seek to achieve. I take the Trade Practices Act as an example. The objective of this legislation is to prevent unsafe goods from being sold on the Australian market. This is done by a series of product safety standards, many of which have been developed through the excellent work of the Standards Association of Australia. However, despite this legislation, despite the work of government agencies and despite supervision by the majority of manufacturers, defective and dangerous products are still reaching the shop shelves and are being bought by unsuspecting Australian consumers. Legislatures, Federal, State and territorial, have the power to ban an unsafe product, but being able to ban is not enough. A product banned from sale under the Trade Practices Act is not necessarily recalled; nor is the public necessarily warned of the danger. The same applies under State and Territory laws and, as far as I am aware, no banned product in this nation has ever been recalled. Even though the power exists to ban the sale of unsafe goods, nowhere in Australia is there the power to recall those goods. The failure of this Parliament and of the States to develop an effective recall procedure for defective products has existed for too long and must not be allowed to continue. I welcome the attention and the excellent coverage that has been given to this issue by the Age newspaper and encourage that newspaper in its endeavours to develop a public awareness of this problem. I welcome also the recent undertaking by the Federal Attorney-General, the Hon. Lionel Bowen, in his capacity as Minister responsible for consumer affairs, to raise the concept of a national consumer product safety commission at the May meeting of the nation's Ministers for Consumer Affairs. The problem of recalling unsafe goods is, however, not a new one. In 1978 Senator Gietzelt spoke on this issue in another place and since then there has been much discussion and deliberation by Ministers at the various levels of government, but regrettably there has been little positive or effective legislative action. In the Press release of 16 September 1983 the Standing Committee of Ministers for Consumer Affairs 'expressed strong concern that although the Commonwealth, most States and territories, had legislation giving power to ban unsafe products, there was presently no legal power to compel the recall of banned products'. That was 18 months ago. Those Ministers clearly realised the shortcomings of the law but nothing has been done to rectify the situation. In the United States there has been national mandatory recall legislation since 1972, and some of the States took action even as far back as 1906. In the United States, manufacturers know that if their product is found to be hazardous, a certain procedure must be followed to ensure that the product comes off the market and that the public is immediately warned of the danger. In Australia, there is no such requirement. In this country there is even great difficulty in getting agreement as to what is a safety related defect. One government authority may act against a product but there is no guarantee that others will follow suit. A State by State comparison chart was published last week by the Age of more than 50 products which had been banned by a government somewhere in Australia. Not one of the products listed has been banned across the nation despite the danger to life or health and the risk of injury and many have been banned by only a minority of authorities. For example, the Magic Water Snake, containing water contaminated with human sewage, was banned only in Queensland. The Grazyfoam, an inflammable aerosol bath foam for children, was banned only in New South Wales. The Espree Magwheel Cleaner, which contains a hazardous concentration of hydrofluoric acid, was banned only in South Australia. Swimming pool skimmer boxes shaped like a child's potty, but which could disembowel children if sat upon, were banned only in New South Wales. The World's Cutest Doll, the head of which is easily detached, revealing a long metal spike, was banned only in Western Australia. The Gen Bag, a portable container used for the emergency transport of fuel, but found to be unsafe for that purpose, was banned only in Victoria. Sesame Street Jewellery, containing a high lead content, was banned only in Western Australia. Tasmania is the only State to have banned a baby rattle which incorporates a series of steel prongs. The Trade Practices Commission is the only body to have banned an electric shock attache case which gives more than the thief a volt. Only the Northern Territory and Tasmania have acted against a brand of wire disc paint stripper which can break up, causing injury to the user. There are 30 other products which have been found to be dangerous but which have been banned by three or fewer of the State, Commonwealth and Territory authorities. Regrettably, products declared unsafe in one State can quite legally remain on the market in another State. A recent example of this was 'the Magic Egg'. This product was promoted as a 'wonder growing pet', and consisted of small plastic toys which expanded up to 10 times their size when immersed in water. I need to say little more about the danger the toys posed to children when swallowed. It was banned first in the Australian Capital Territory and later by the Trade Practices Commission, then in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, and Western Australia; but it is still able to be sold in Queensland, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. It is not unknown for manufacturers faced with a ban on their product in one State to dump it in another until the system catches up with it. I believe there is too much reliance on self-regulation by manufacturers, too much reliance on self-imposed but basically unenforceable codes of conduct and too much reliance on the hope that the manufacturers' sense of responsibility will overcome commercial considerations. I appreciate that most manufacturers are responsible and that they take every step to warn the public of any possible danger. I know also of manufacturers who are not so responsible. I know of those who cannot recall their products even if they want to. A tragic example of this was the case of the salami-salmonella outbreak in 1981. Because the manufacturer did not have any way of identifying the defective product, or knowing to whom it was sold, it was not possible to mount a recall and great suffering followed with more than 200 people across Australia being hospitalised. The market-place must also contend with the rogue operators who are not bound by any code of conduct except self-interest and who are a threat to consumers and also to responsible manufacturers. Equally, of course, there are some very large corporations which have allowed commercial considerations, or what I call their cash register consciences, to overcome their social responsibilities and which pay no more than lip service to recalls. I support this claim with the June 1980 report on tyre safety by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety. Paragraph 157 of that report said: It is concluded that one Australian tyre manufacturer acted irresponsibly in not recalling tyres produced in the initial stages of its steel-belted radial production which the manufacturers knew were failing at an unacceptably high rate and were thus placing many people at risk. There have also been instances where there have been unacceptable delays between the discovery of the defect and the warning to the public. For example, a distributor of Ducati motorcycles took 2 months grudgingly to agree to replace the alloy wheels on those machines, despite the public revelation that the wheels were collapsing. In 1981, even after considerable pressure from the Australian Automobile Association, it took the Ford company seven months to notify the public of a fault in its Cortina models made between 1971 and 1974. The fault was a carburettor fitting which sometimes allowed the fuel line to loosen and spray fuel over the engine, resulting in an unusually high number of under-bonnet fires. Ford rejected the request for a recall of the 40,000 vehicles involved but finally placed notices in newspapers referring to a special field action that the company was undertaking on these cars. This is just one instance where manufacturers have used any other word but the word 'recall'-an instance where the public had no indication of the fact that the car might have some safety related defect. There are also the hidden recalls. In the case of the Volvo company in 1981, the cars were not recalled; instead the owners of a particular model were invited to bring their cars in for inspection. As well as the hidden recalls, there are also those which are tucked away in the classifieds section of the major dailies-the buried recalls, as I call them. One notorious example of this was in relation to a baby thermal feeding bowl-a bowl which, if a certain part was removed, could choke or scald the child. The advertisement placed by the manufacturer measured only four centimetres deep by one column wide-about the size of a postage stamp. I do not believe in government regulation for its own sake. If self-regulation works, I prefer it that way. But self-regulation in this field of product safety has failed, and there are many responsible bodies and organisations that clearly concur with that opinion. The Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers said of voluntary recall codes: They appeared often to have been honoured more in the breach than in the observance. The National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council in its 1984 report said: There is a demonstrated need for some form of government regulation of product recall in Australia. The Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations said recently: There is no way of monitoring if producers are adhering to their codes or not, and companies outside industry associations are not controlled even by voluntary codes. It went on to say: Voluntary recall codes are deficient and offer little or no protection to consumers. AFCO went on to say: A mandatory recall code must be introduced under which products must be recalled within a specified minimum time of being found dangerous. In 1981 the Victorian Consumer Affairs Council advocated recall legislation, and as long ago as 1974 the National Committee of Inquiry on Compensation and Rehabilitation in Australia recommended: There should be provision to order the manufacturer to recall, repair, replace, or provide a refund for a defective or dangerous product. It also recommended that such a law should be a Federal, not a State, law. The Committee of Inquiry said: Safety is a national concern and the manufacture, sale and distribution of products is not and cannot be confined within state boundaries. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety recommended, inter alia, that the Government introduce legislation to require the recall of defective or unsafe products. That was in June 1980. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, of which Australia is a member, has also recommended that member nations legislate or act, firstly, to ensure that consumers are warned without delay of products which present a substantial and severe hazard and, secondly, to enable unsafe products to be recalled. When considering this matter, it is necessary for honourable members to understand that Australia has developed as a national market and that only one statute should deal with the recall of goods. Moreover, where safety is involved the ability to take urgent action is essential and this cannot always be achieved with seven different laws. There is growing and widespread recognition of the need for mandatory product recall procedures to deal with the situation where there is a safety related defect. Why then, I ask, is it so difficult to make progress in Australia? I suggest the reason stems from a reluctance on the part of this Parliament, regardless of who has occupied the treasury bench, to act for fear of upsetting the States and Territories and of being accused of encroaching on their traditional legislative domain within our Federal structure. It is an understandable attitude, but it is no longer acceptable-certainly not to me. The issue of product safety and the recall of hazardous goods is, as I have demonstrated, a problem of national dimension. It is a problem that calls for a national response, not just a patchwork approach by interested State legislatures. It calls for positive national leadership by this Parliament. There is an urgency for this Parliament to act to guarantee that product safety exists in the market place by ensuring not only that dangerous goods are banned but also that a mandatory warning and recall procedure or code exists-a procedure which can be implemented quickly and which can be enforced Australia-wide. It is my hope that this, the Thirty-fourth Australian Parliament, will mark a new era for consumerism in this country and that through its legislative efforts a swift end will be put to the prevailing practice of hazardous products continuing to be sold in the market place despite the exposure, despite the condemnation, and despite the banning by responsible authorities. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Before I call the honourable member for Moncrieff, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech. I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(4.51) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In common with several other speakers this afternoon, whilst this is my maiden speech in this place, and for the electorate of Moncrieff, I am now not new to the forms of parliament. However, I am delighted that you are in the chair for my maiden speech and I ask you to convey to the Speaker and to the Deputy Speaker my congratulations on their election to their positions and my hope that I will serve in this place for a long time, perhaps in their company. I have had the opportunity to serve the people of Queensland in the Australian Senate for 10 years but I am particularly delighted that the people of Moncrieff have given me this opportunity to serve in the house of government in the national Parliament. I take this opportunity, as is traditional in maiden speeches, to convey my thanks to those people and to some others. My thanks go to Liberal Party supporters in Moncrieff, who showed incredible dedication to the cause of the Liberal Party winning the seat. I thank my Liberal Senate and House of Representatives colleagues who gave me guidance and personal support throughout the campaign, and in particular the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), a former member for the electorate of Fadden, and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), both of whom, as Liberal members of the House of Representatives have represented, those areas which now make up the new Federal electorate of Moncrieff. I thank my husband for his personal and practical support as he underwent the experience for the first time of the hurly-burly of an Australian election campaign. I pay special tribute and convey special thanks to my parliamentary leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), for the leadership he gave to the Liberal Party in the election campaign and to all its candidates, myself included, particularly because of his personal support on two occasions in the electorate of Moncrieff. I believe that it was his unswerving faith in the principles and policies of the Liberal Party and his unflagging energy and enthusiasm for the task in hand that lead us to the success we had. He certainly made a major contribution to my success, for which I shall always be grateful. Not only am I making my maiden speech as the member for Moncrieff but also I have the great privilege of being the first member for that new Federal electorate. I congratulate the Australian Electoral Commission for its decision to honour Gladys Moncrieff in this way. She was a great Australian and one of its most truly loved citizens. Born in Bundaberg in 1896, she, unlike the daughters of many parents in those days, was supported by her parents in her ambition to have a stage career. She was also supported by people of the community from which she departed-that is, Townsville-to make her name in Sydney. She was highly successful in vaudeville and with the encouragement of, amongst other people, another great Australian, Dame Nellie Melba, joined J. C. Williamson's where she had a very successful career in musical comedy. It was in 1921, at the age of 30, that she first played the role of Teresa in Maid of the Mountains and she was known forever afterwards to all Australians as 'Our Glad'. She was a smash hit in this role and in her lifetime gave more than 3,000 performances of it. While she was successful in many other roles, that is the one with which she has always been most closely identified. She had successful visits to Britain, New Zealand and South Africa but, while she received critical acclaim in those countries, by her own choice she chose to stay in Australia for her entire career rather than seek international fame. She did many things in her lifetime but she will be well remembered for coming out of retirement to visit New Guinea to sing to Australian troops during World War II and for touring cities and country towns throughout Australia in support of the war effort. She came out of retirement once more to go to Korea when Australian troops were sent there and, in fact, she was the first Australian entertainer to visit Korea to lift the morale of the Australian troops involved in those hostilities. For her support of Australian troops in theatres of war she was awarded the OBE. She was famous for, amongst other things, her numerous retirements. She tried to retire on many occasions but the Australian public just did not want to let her go because they treasured her sweet voice and personality. Finally, in 1963 at the age of 71 years, she retired to the Isle of Capri on the Gold Coast. Whilst she might have enjoyed a well earned retirement, she also enjoyed promoting the Gold Coast and tourism, its great industry. Canal boats that took tourists through the waterways of the Gold Coast used to detour through the canal on which her home was built and she would frequently appear to greet those on the boats. She is well loved and remembered on the Gold Coast for that and for her personal support of the tourism industry. She died in 1978 at the age of 84 years and she was mourned widely. Many felt that her death was a loss to the Australian family. I will leave my final word on her to a quotation from the book 100 Famous Australian Lives: Someone once described Gladys Moncrieff's career as a long love affair between an actress and an entire nation. But perhaps that is incorrect in one detail. Nearly all love affairs have ups and downs-the rough with the smooth. But for Gladys Moncrieff, once she had captured the hearts of a whole country, there were never any fallings out of favour. The Australian general public loved 'our Glad' fiercely from the time she first came to their attention . . . The electorate of Moncrieff is very large-over 3,000 square kilometres-varied and very fast growing. It has an annual increase in population of between 30 and 40 per cent per annum. It comprises parts of three local authorities-the Beaudesert and Albert shires and Gold Coast City. As I have mentioned, it was previously part of the old electorates of McPherson and Fadden. It is very rich in resources, both physical and human. Amongst its physical resources are fertile land and great natural beauty. That land supports the major rural industries of beef, dairying, sugar and small crops, and the area is a major centre in Australia for growing rhubarb and avocados. Its natural beauty is well known. It is famous for its beaches and waterways of the Gold Coast and the mountains and national parks of Tamborine and the Queensland-New South Wales border. But to these great riches have come human resources and it is noteworthy that there is a very high concentration of small entrepreneurs throughout the electorate. The small entrepreneurs have built the Gold Coast to what it is today-the premier tourist resort in Australia. Tourism on the Gold Coast has been built up by small business people and therefore those things that affect small business very much affect it. In recent years major hotel corporations have also established themselves and are continuing to establish themselves on the Gold Coast but the region's source, its backbone and continuing prosperity will depend on the small person. Farmers also utilising the rich natural resources of the soil are small business people. They are important particularly in the Beaudesert area of the electorate. Unlike many country towns of Australia, Beaudesert is growing and prospering. I know from my time representing Queensland in the Senate that that is not a general story about country towns these days. Too many are stagnating or sliding back, wondering about their future, but the future of this area is assured. The third major centre of population is Beenleigh, which was previously a small country town. Sugar is still a major industry there; nevertheless Beenleigh has been caught up in the urban sprawl of Brisbane and is rapidly becoming a satellite of that city. I might say that the major industry in Beenleigh is people and it has a great future. However, my electorate does have problems. Its principal problem is the Hawke Government. The last election saw a 2 per cent swing against Labor and also a substantial swing against the Australian Democrats. Before the Labor Party retreats in its thinking and chooses to put that fact into the pigeon-hole labelled 'informal' I would like to inform the House that I personally examined the recounted informal vote in Moncrieff. I can state as a fact that the electorate was confused by the change of voting system. A large number of those informal votes showed just the figure '1' against a candidates' name. I am sure that the people who voted that way believed that they had voted formally because voting in that manner constituted a formal vote for the Senate. However, that type of informal vote was split 50-50 between the Labor Party and the coalition parties. There was no particular disadvantage to the Labor Party in the informal vote in Moncrieff. The swing against it and the swing to the coalition parties were genuine indications of disillusionment on behalf of the electorate and a growing apprehension at the future of this country under the Hawke Government. That disillusionment stemmed from the contrast between promises and performance of the Hawke Government. The growing apprehension stems from the effect of policies it had already enacted which reduce individual choice in this country and which people fear are leading to irrevocable changes in our way of life. An outstanding feature of the population of Moncrieff is that it has a very high proportion of retirees and very young people. The extremes of age groups are very high in proportion to the total population. I will mention during my speech some matters that particularly impinge on those age groups but I want also to talk about some other matters that concern me as I know they concern the people whom I represent. It is fortunate for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that he did not keep his 1983 election promise to serve his full term. I have no doubt at all that, in the light of the MX missile affair and the response to it that I have had within my electorate, had the Prime Minister delayed the election until May this year this Government would have been out on its ear. So shortly after its re-election it has shown its Achilles heel, its inability to deal resolutely with things which are of extreme national significance. There are ongoing issues and there will be issues in the future which will lead to a steady erosion of support for the Labor Party. I believe that at the next election this Government will be out and there will be a return of the Liberal-National Party coalition. As this Government continues in office and as more of its policies are implemented people will have a growing awareness-they had only the beginning of an awareness in the last election-of what a Labor Government means. As this Government steadily implements its truly socialist objectives while speaking softly and wearing velvet gloves, nevertheless the electorate knows what is happening because people are affected. A classic case, probably more pointed in Queensland than in other States, nevertheless relevant in other States, has been the introduction of Medicare, the classic two-card trick. It costs more and you get less. It costs more because of the levy and the fact that those who still choose to insure themselves privately are paying far higher rates, together with losing tax deductibility for the rates that they pay. I am sure that it came as a rude shock to people in February last year when they made the necessary readjustments to their health insurance to discover that there was to be no gap insurance. I, along with many other members of parliament, received many inquiries and complaints about the inability of people to have something that they had before. Previously, those who chose to insure themselves privately could choose the percentage of their insurance. Having lost medical insurance rights they now find that they will get only 85 per cent of the scheduled rebate fee. Many of them asked why. Why indeed! Why would it matter to a government whether people had insurance in this basic area of need-health care? It should not matter at all to the finances of the Government if people choose to do that. But that is a decision that was made in line with socialist objectives. This Government's objectives in relation to our health scheme are no secret. We do not want the British health scheme. We do not want to see happening in Australia what has happened in Britain-a perfectly good and outstanding health scheme reduced in so many areas. We have had a good health scheme for many years. If this Government truly consulted the people of Australia and stated what its ultimate objectives in the health area were I am sure that it would be roundly rejected on that base if on none other. Another area which affects the very high number of retirees that I have in my electorate-it does not affect just them; it affects all people-has been the Government's move in the areas of superannuation taxation and the assets test. The most profound thing that one can do to affect people's behaviour throughout their lives is to structure or influence their expectations about their retirement. People, throughout their lives, work and plan for that time of their lives when they will no longer work, either because they do not want to or because they cannot. They make economic and behavioural decisions throughout their lives in line with those expectations. I ask as I did in relation to Medicare: Why would the Government have initiated this move on taxation of lump sum superannuation? It is known that there is virtually no immediate benefit to the Government in terms of taxation revenue. It is estimated that it will take at least 10 years before the full effect of revenue from this flows into the Government's coffers and becomes significant. Why then would a government risk unpopularity by this sort of move? It is because it has long term objectives. Those objectives are in line with the action it has taken on the assets test. It intends to structure and limit Australians' options in retirement. It suits socialist governments for citizens not to be independent of them and not to have rights of choice. It suits governments to have them dependent on bureaucracy and government directive because then government can limit options. The more limit there is and the more effective it is the cheaper it gets for government. Truly, those who have been affected by these two measures and those who will be affected have very good reason for apprehension at the introduction of a capital gains tax and estate duties. These are two more taxes of the same kind. They limit people's choices, they limit their rights, they limit their horizons and, inevitably, they limit their behaviour throughout their lives. If people believe that it is better to spend rather than invest because they will only be penalised-that is a comment that has been made to me by plenty of people as I have travelled around my electorate and around Australia-we will have a very different sort of Australia in 20 years time. I believe that nobody would have voted for this Government in 1983 or 1984 if he or she had truly understood this. The plight of the young is a matter that is canvassed frequently and I am sure that it will be canvassed in the future. Time will not permit me to say very much on this matter. The statement in the Governor-General's Speech relating to education participation is one of the greatest frauds of all times. I am pleased that none of the Government speakers has chosen to refer to it. Whilst the Government announced that it was going to increase the number of people participating in tertiary education it did not give those tertiary institutions the resources they needed to provide that number of places. It is nonsense for the Government to say to universities, colleges and technical colleges that they must take so many more students but with only a marginal increase in funding, and then to claim that one has done one's best to increase participation. It does not wash and the figures will show that. The alternative would be a lowering of standards. It will be interesting to see whether Professor Peter Karmel has any comment to make on that aspect of standards in education in Australia in the report he is due to give to the Government, according to the Governor-General's Speech. For many young people the Community Employment Program has been a tragic let down. This Government has created a bucket and shovel brigade. It has set up CEP projects in my electorate using antiquated methods that I had not seen in my lifetime. Far from giving to young people some skills that they could offer to employers, because of the artificial requirements for labour intensity all we are giving them is temporary and tantalising employment. We are not giving them skills that employers truly need. Finally, I refer to the frauds that are being perpetrated in the primary industry area. The sugar and dairy industries are two very large industries in my electorate. They are two highly significant rural industries in Australia. I very much doubt that the sugar farmers will ever be sweet-talked by this Prime Minister again. He has done it twice and they have seen nothing for their conversations and conferences with him. It appears that the dairying industry problems now move towards resolution, no thanks at all to the Hawke Government. In view of the great public expectations that the Australian people had of the Hawke Government when they first elected it, it is sad that those expectations have been dashed. There were some fine words in the Governor-General's Speech. I am sure the Prime Minister will continue to offer us fine words, both in this forum and in other places throughout Australia. However, this Government will be judged on its deeds, not on its words, and that will lead to its inevitable failure. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Before I call the honourable member for Dobell, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. Mr LEE(Dobell)(5.11) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your election to the office of Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives. I hope that you will convey my congratulations to the Speaker and Chairman of Committees. I am sure that you will all discharge your responsibilities with great distinction. On 1 December 1984, a clear majority of Australians cast their votes for the Australian Labor Party. A clear and sizable majority of Australians voted to endorse the Hawke Government's mandate for continued economic recovery and reconstruction. As the Australian Labor Party's candidate, I had the honour, on 1 December 1984, of being elected the first member for Dobell. As all honourable members would be aware, this new electorate has been named after Australia's greatest portrait painter, Sir William Dobell. In the words of his biographer, James Gleeson, this is what portraiture was to Dobell. Portraiture was a serious study in which he attempted with all the honesty, sensitivity and technical skill at his command to wrestle into paint the personality that lay within. William Dobell lived at Wangi for 30 years. While working at Eraring power station I had the pleasure of meeting many of Bill Dobell's neighbours and friends. They all recalled his humility and friendship. Following the December election, I attended my first meeting of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party in the Government party room in this building. After observing that two of Dobell's greatest portraits, the Billy Boy and the Cement Worker, dominate one wall of the party room, I can only conclude that the good judgment of the Labor Caucus extends to art as well as to government administration. Prior to the 1984 redistribution, the constituents of the electorate of Dobell were represented by three distinguished members of this House. The honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), who now serves his country as Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, represented most of the electorate of Dobell during his 15 years in the House of Representatives. His reputation on the central coast as a hard working local member is well deserved. The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris) will, I believe, be remembered as Australia's most energetic and reformist Minister for Transport since the Second World War. Both the honourable member for Robertson and the honourable member for Shortland have represented me in this House as my Federal member. However, I owe a different debt to my friend the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). The honourable member gave me, and many thousands of other students, a thorough grounding in economics and Australian economic history. If the many speeches in this chamber of the honourable member for Charlton continue to be unsuccessful in educating members of the Opposition, I am prepared to provide the Liberal Party of Australia with a copy R. J. Brown's, Student Economics. I am sure that, with study, their standard of debate will improve. I am happy to acknowledge the assistance and advice these three colleagues have given me in recent days. I come to this House at the comparatively young age of 27. I express to my family and friends on the central coast and in Cronulla my thanks for the help and assistance they have given to me over many years. I also thank the many hundreds of Labor Party members and supporters who worked so tirelessly during the election campaign. Without their help I would not be standing here today. I know that the second Hawke Government will continue to work to fulfil their hopes and dreams for a better Australia. In 1972, 13 years ago, Australia's Prime Minister was Sir William McMahon. At that time the Liberal-Country Party coalition had been in power for 23 consecutive years. When our sportsmen and women were presented medals at the 1972 Munich Olympics, God Save the Queen was played as the Australian flag was raised. At that time, Australian troops were fighting in Vietnam. Young men were being conscripted for military service before they were eligible to vote. In 1972, Australia's foreign policy was subservient to that of the United States of America. The age pension paid to senior citizens was a miserly 20.3 per cent of average weekly earnings. In October 1972 I joined the Cronulla Branch of the Australian Labor Party, mainly because its Federal Leader was Gough Whitlam. In the policy speech Gough Whitlam delivered at the Blacktown Civic Centre in November 1972, he stated that one of his aims was 'to liberate the talents and uplift the horizons of the Australian people'. One of the greatest achievements of the Whitlam Government was to place urban and regional development on the nation's agenda. On 16 August 1970, Gough Whitlam outlined the Australian Labor Party's policy in this area in these words: Inequality in Australia is more public than private. A family's standard of living is determined much more by where they live than by what they earn. The inequalities between regions are now far greater than any between States, and indeed greater than they ever were between States. In developing regions the inequalities and the burdens are growing. The areas with the greatest needs are precisely those with the least resources. The Commonwealth Grants Commission was set up to advise the Commonwealth on the fairest way to help the smaller States provide services equal to those of the larger States. The Commission should now be asked to recommend the amount of Commonwealth assistance required to remove the inequalities in servicing our developing suburbs and regions. If today Federal funding to local government were reviewed on that basis the local councils within the electorate of Dobell would rank as some of the most deprived in this country. This has been brought about by two factors: firstly, the area is growing rapidly. Since 1976, Wyong shire, which covers most of my electorate, has had an annual population increase of 8 per cent. Development in new areas has not been accompanied by the provision of essential community facilities, such as adequate roads, community halls, child care centres and sewerage reticulation. Secondly, our region includes a large number of underprivileged people. Unemployment is over 20 per cent, which is nearly twice the State average. In the northern Sydney region of the New South Wales Department of Education, which extends from Sydney Harbour Bridge to the northern boundary of my electorate, 11 schools are considered to be disadvantaged under the assisted schools program. Every one of those schools is on the central coast and eight are within the electorate of Dobell. The social consequences of this region's deprivation is illustrated by the following two examples: Firstly, Wyong shire has the greatest number of individual juvenile cases in the north-east Sydney region. In 1980, 18 per cent of the total number of juvenile cases involved children from Wyong shire-I repeat 18 per cent-yet the shire's population is only 8 per cent of the region's population. Secondly, the percentage of people separated, divorced or widowed in Wyong shire at the time of the 1981 census was 12.6 per cent-1 1/2 times the New South Wales average. Local councils within the electorate of Dobell cannot continue to increase revenue by raising rates without severely penalising many people on low incomes. I represent an area where, for the reason I have explained previously, local government has been unable to provide the services and facilities for which it is responsible. Local government in my electorate is in desperate need of increased funding. In my opinion, the national government has a responsibility to increase funding to local government in developing areas. On 28 May 1979, the Commonwealth Grants Commission presented the then Minister for Administrative Services, the Hon. John McLeay, with a special report on financial assistance for Local government. This report presented the Fraser Government with five options, including a proposal to allocate funding to local government on the basis of need. The Grants Commission recommended that the Government determine, as a matter of policy, which of the options it wished the Commission to adopt. As in so many areas of government administration, the Liberals refused to make a decision. I admit that sometimes Australia was better off when the Fraser Government could not make a decision. Take, for example, its decision on the national sewerage program. This program was established by the Whitlam Government. In the three Whitlam Budgets this program received $28m, $117m and $112m. After the election of the Liberal-Country Party Government in 1975, funding for the national sewerage program was slashed to $48m in 1976 and in 1977 it was terminated. If this program had continued, many thousands of my constituents would now be living in sewered homes. I note with satisfaction that this Government has established a national inquiry into local government finance to examine the matters which I have raised. I commend the Government and the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) for ensuring that the views of local government, community organisations and individuals are being heard by this inquiry. I can assure the House that I will be very interested in the inquiry's progress in future months. It is my hope and that of many of my constituents that the end result will be a fairer distribution of Federal funds to local government. I turn to the New South Wales doctors' dispute and the impact it is having on the central coast of New South Wales. In the week before the election last December an anonymous group of doctors placed advertisements in local newspapers seeking to discredit me and my colleague the honourable member for Robertson by claiming that we were nationalising medicine. I quote from an interview with one of the anonymous doctors which was published in the Gosford Star, which I am sure all honourable members read-I am sure the honourable member for Robertson does-on Friday, 30 November 1984: Doctors admitted their resignations this week- this is the week before the Federal election- were a final attempt to discredit the Government and emphasise their stand in the eyes of the public before the election. As one prominent specialist stated 'I am ruined on Saturday if the Government is returned'. Explaining the Government's attempts to rationalise the health system by stealth through Medicare, another specialist commented, 'they're really just communists out and out'. 'Their actions are based on the writings of Lenin'. I think even the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) would not make such a ludicrous claim. These doctors, who obviously hold extreme right wing views, were simply trying to create fear amongst the people of the central coast. They were acting as the political operatives of the Liberal Party. As I explained earlier to the House, my electorate has one of the highest proportions of pensioner constituents. I now wish to read to the House a letter which one doctor is currently circulating to people in my electorate. It is entitled 'Notice to all Patients' and states: The Bureaucratic machine is on the move. Investigators from the Minister of Health's department are on the prowl in this Gosford district at present. I have already been contacted by a patient who has been upset by their interrogation and felt she could not sleep until I assured her there was nothing to worry about. Another patient is very angry at the prying attitude of the interrogators, and intends to protest to the Prime Minister. I, personally, have nothing to hide, but I strongly resent the government's henchmen upsetting my patients with their visits and questions. If you agree with me, why not make a fuss about it? I can do nothing more than let you know what is going on, and hope that you will carry the baton from here on. Unless you do, believe me, things will get much worse for you, the patient. I have worked in a socialistic, nationalised medical scheme, and I know what I'm talking about. When someone seeks to gain political milage in this way by scaring pensioners and other patients, I believe he is beneath contempt. I wish to make it clear that the vast majority of doctors are not participating in this campaign, which is being organised by the radical specialists who seek to discredit and destroy Medicare. This campaign and the endless series of settlement negotiations have now reached their seventh month. Each time settlement has appeared close the radical surgeons, led by Dr Shepherd and Dr Aroney, have sabotaged the discussions. The truth is these people will not allow the dispute to be settled until Medicare is destroyed. The truth is these people are prepared to allow innocent patients to endure suffering and pain until Medicare is destroyed. I am amazed that the Liberal Party, through the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and its former spokesman on health, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), is now supporting the radical surgeons. This places the Federal Liberal Party at odds with its New South Wales leader, who recently called for all parties to resume negotiations. This dispute will be resolved only when all parties are willing to compromise. On 20 January the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) offered concessions to the doctors. I understand that the Australian Medical Association will meet the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) later today for further discussions. The only two groups not prepared to seek a settlement are the radical surgeons and the Federal Liberal Party. Before I conclude my remarks today, I draw the House's attention to an agreement signed last Sunday by the Victorian Premier, John Cain, the South Australian Premier, John Bannon, and the New South Wales Premier, Neville Wran. This historic memorandum will result in the construction of a $155m link between the Victorian and New South Wales electricity grid and the South Australian electricity power supply. Before becoming a member of this House I worked for many years as an electrical engineer with the Electricity Commission of New South Wales, and I would like to explain why this is a project of major significance. For many years New South Wales and Victoria have interchanged significant amounts of power through the Snowy Mountains scheme. When the three-State power grid project is completed Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales will be able to interchange power. This will provide industrial and domestic consumers in those three States, especially Victoria, with a more secure and stable electricity supply. At various times each State electricity authority will be able to reduce its costs of production by importing cheaper power. Gas turbine plants, which produce very expensive power and consume our relatively scarce hydrocarbon resources, will be used less frequently. I understand that the project will save consumers $14m every year. The historic agreement signed last Sunday by Premiers Cain, Wran and Bannon demonstrates what can be done when Labor leaders work together to build a better Australia. Mr Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the second Hawke Government's program, as outlined in the Governor-General's Speech. The Government's program seeks to encourage all citizens to work together to build a better Australia. I thank the House for extending to me the courtesy of being heard in silence. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Before I call the honourable member for the Northern Territory, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(5.29) —Mr Speaker, please accept my congratulations on your election to your high office. I certainly agree with the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) that a lot more money was needed for sewerage while the Whitlam Government was around. This Government, in outlining its programs for the next three years, speaks today of creating a stronger, fairer and more equitable Australian society. This commitment is of particular interest to the people I seek to represent both in the electorate of the Northern Territory and in my broader shadow ministerial responsibilities for local government and northern development. That is because the Territory electorate, the local government arena and all of northern Australia must rely upon the vision of the Government, to a considerable extent, for their sustenance and progress. Indeed, with the current media fad for naming members of this Parliament after their favourite occupations, I might be known as the member for the least influential. Certainly I would prefer that tag to the one of member for those under the influence, although that is how my areas of electoral and portfolio responsibilities might be seen. More than most other Australians, those in the Northern Territory, local government and all of northern Australia are under the influence of decisions taken at the Federal level. The words 'creating a stronger, fairer and more equitable Australian society' are nice words and sound great. But does the reality match the rhetoric? I must say at the outset that I am not greatly encouraged by these words, despite, or perhaps because of, the familiar ring that they contain. I am not encouraged because-let us face it-they were practically the only words in the Governor-General's Speech on which we can hang our hats. There were precious few mentions of local government or of the north, although once again we are to be the guinea pigs. Cash up front for exploration licences is to get its Australian premiere in the waters to our north. Honourable members will expect me to speak at length on the Northern Territory and I will not disappoint them, but, first, I shall deal briefly with the problems of local government. We are all familiar with local government. We tend to take it for granted. But the third tier of government deals with grass-roots problems, and with increasing pressures on its services and severe limitations on its revenue raising potential, local government is clearly headed for greater difficulties. As someone said at a recent local government conference, the Commonwealth Government has the money, the State governments have the power and local government has the problems. These problems cannot be solved by the Commonwealth alone. The States must be involved. My few short years in local government taught me that there are no easy solutions and it will take me some time to come to grips with those problems. But we will all certainly have to ensure that we do come to grips with them, or we will risk the wrath of the electorate at the grass-roots level. I will be keeping a close eye on the work of the new Department of Community Services which has been given a brief to ensure that services are equitably distributed and better co-ordinated with those of the States, local government and community groups. Let us hope that this will not turn out to be just another departmental exercise in viewing grass-roots problems from on high, or a power grab by empire-building bureaucrats. Turning now to my northern responsibilities, I recall the words of Prime Minister Alfred Deakin, who in 1904 asked Federal Parliament whether it was 'prepared to confess our incapacity to cope with the development of one half of Australia' north of a line from the Gascoyne River to Gladstone. I do not know whether the Parliament ever collectively made such a confession, but I do know that there are some three million square kilometres of northern Australia in which a little under 800,000 Australians live. That is about 48 per cent of our continent, containing about 5 per cent of our population, which seems to me to answer Mr Deakin's question. But there is hope. The Government now speaks of a more equitable Australia. That principle must apply on a geographic as well as a socio-economic basis. We hear through the media that even the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) now sees the need for a railway to link north and south, if only to carry Federal funds to the Northern Territory. Last year in Adelaide the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), under some election pressure, I might add, said that the railway would eventually be built-no doubt recalling the promises given to South Australia and the Northern Territory by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) in the previous year, shortly before the 1983 election. It is true that they broke their promises, claiming that an unexpected deficit made the necessary expenditure impossible. Of course, the completion date could have been deferred beyond the projected 1988, to make allowance for the deficit, but that may have been too simple. Instead, the Government got Mr Hill of the State Rail Authority to invent a unique and incomprehensible methodology which, he said, made the railway not viable. The Minister for Transport is so proud of Mr Hill's methodology that he refused to release it to us under the Freedom of Information Act. The Government ignores the fact that the unquestionably independent Canadian Pacific Railway disagrees with it, that the Institute of Defence Studies recommends the project as a top defence priority and that the Department of the Arts, Heritage and Environment has recommended that, on social grounds, the railway should be built. Let us ignore altogether the Australian Labor Party's social audit approach to transport infrastructure. Of course, Australian governments have been promising the railway since 1910 so perhaps northern Australians might be forgiven for questioning the sincerity of this Government's commitment to a more equitable Australia. Previous Labor governments did have a vision which, although we may not have agreed with it, did at least encompass all of Australia-although they also had Rex Patterson-while this Government seems to have little real interest in or sympathy with northern aspirations. Perhaps that is not so surprising as it has no Minister from further north than Ipswich. Certainly, the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) seem to be among the castrati of the fourth grade. It is just another example of the lack of influence of which I have spoken. Let us contrast the Governor-General's Speech, which really only mentioned the north to tax it, with the 1982 ALP policy document 'North Queensland-Future Directions'. Of course, those were vote-grabbing days. I will cite some initiatives from that document: Domestic passengers to be able to use the Townsville international terminal. Air fare reductions through 'no frills' services. Upgrading and increased local control of regional broadcasting. An Inter-State Commission to ensure more equitable-- there is that phrase again- transport costs. Increased defence commitment to north Queensland, including five patrol boats to be built at Cairns. Cut out sales tax on freight. Sugar industry assistance. There are a whole lot more. These initiatives are a reflection of north Queensland's problems. But today, it seems, the Government hopes that they will just go away. Of course, they will not. As for creating employment, so far 300 people have been laid off because of the failure to keep the promise on building patrol boats in Cairns. Let us look at the sugar industry. Six hundred growers are likely to have to leave the industry and whole districts along the Queensland coast are dependent on it for their economic survival. In 1982, in 1983 and in 1984 this Government promised to give assistance to the industry, but to date absolutely nothing has been forthcoming. I can tell honourable members, from my recent visit to the area, that the growers in north Queensland are desperate. Why do not Government members go north and tell the people up there about a stronger, fairer and more equitable Australia? We should pity the poor tobacco growers. I know it is not fashionable to talk about tobacco today, unless to sneer. But we are talking about equity and we are all agreed that we hold with that. We should spare a thought for the tobacco growers who are facing increasing pressure to become more competitive in what has always been a back-breaking family enterprise. Growers understand the need to be competitive but, first, they would like a more equitable share of the price of a packet of cigarettes. A packet of smokes costs up to $2, of which the grower receives a lousy 4c. From tobacco sales Australian tobacco growers receive about $70m while governments receive in excess of $1 billion in tax on tobacco products. Is that equity? So far it seems that the Government's commitment to equity does not stand up to closer scrutiny and nor do the Government's policies seem to assist a stronger Australia. The north relies heavily on citizen forces for the defence of our coastline. The men and women who volunteer are often professional and technical experts who draw good salaries in their own right. Men and women of this calibre are required for the north-west mobile force-one of the most effective units we have-which operates from Arnhem Land to the Pilbara. But at the last Budget the Government decided to make our reservists pay tax on half of their Army pay. The result has been disastrous because the Government's decision has pushed them into the highest tax bracket. The result has been a loss of about 30 per cent of the force's manpower, and an even greater loss of morale. What of policies leading to the current uranium debacle which has made us an international laughing stock? Is it fair and equitable to say to one State that it may go ahead with developing its uranium deposits while other States, and the Northern Territory, may not? Is mining uranium moral in some States and immoral in others? What sort of hypocritical, canting humbug is that? Do such policies make Australians stronger? Some figures may help this Parliament judge the answer to that. Conservative estimates are that the discounted value of national income generated if all current and proposed uranium mines in the Territory were allowed to proceed would be some $9,000m by the year 2000, of which $1,600m would stay in the Territory. The loss of income if only existing uranium mines are allowed to fill the existing contracts will be $6,300m by the year 2000, with the Territory missing out on $1,300m. While the north's potential continues to be strangled by this sort of Left-Right-Centre hybrid ideology, we will need a railway to freight Federal funds northwards. If the mines were allowed to proceed, we would need the railway to send those thousands of millions of dollars to Federal coffers. In addition, thousands of jobs would be generated, but honourable members opposite would prefer those jobs to be created in South Africa, Canada or Botswana-anywhere but Australia. In that context, I deal with the apparent avowed intention of the Minister for Finance to sacrifice the Territory on the altar of cost savings. At self-government, a financial deal was struck with the Federal Government which sought only to bring services in the Territory up to the standards of New South Wales and Victoria. The financial formula was worked out to encourage and support population growth in the north. The agreement, under the memorandum of understanding, has gone a long way towards achieving those objectives. Honourable members should remember that when we negotiated that agreement against the might and resources of the Commonwealth, the Territory, before self-government, possessed just one Public Service level 1 financial adviser. There should be no need for me to assure this House that the Territory is not over-funded. The Commonwealth Grants Commission carries out an independent assessment and has found instead the need to top up funds. These financial arrangements make for a stronger, fairer and more equitable Australia, but it seems that they are now under attack. I ask honourable members what Federation is about if it is not to assist the disadvantaged areas of Australia; the Territory is, after all, one sixth of Australia. A mile of road in the Territory is no shorter or less costly to build. I could hardly address this House without some reference to the land rights issue, although it seems to have been swept under the carpet in the Government's program. Land rights issues are different in each State and within States, but one thing is common to all States: There is enormous division about land rights in the community. We are now seeing divisions within the Government and within the Labor Party. The way in which land rights have been enacted and administered in the Territory has caused fear elsewhere. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) would do well, as he licks his wounds after his first term and ponders whether he will seek a closer acquaintance with the truth, to remember that the people on the ground have the most experience-the Territory has had eight years experience-of the effects of land rights. Do honourable members opposite expect us to trust them after the king-hit decision about Ayers Rock? I have opposed land claims in the past, not because I am opposed to Aboriginals owning land, but because each successful claim amounts to a total alienation of any interest in the land the general community has. Aboriginal land should be held as far as possible on the same terms as land held by other Australians. I put some questions to honourable members. Should conversion of Territory land to Aboriginal freehold be completely open-ended? Should there be no government requirements on people to use pastoral land productively? Should land claims be allowed to be lodged repeatedly? Should there be no time limit for the lodgment and hearing of land claims? Should Crown land, including national parks already dedicated to a public purpose, be able to be claimed? If such claims are successful, should normal public access be denied? Finally, should the great majority of Aboriginals living on pastoral properties be prevented from gaining secure title to the land on which they live? Any honourable member who answers 'No' to only one of those questions believes that changes are necessary to the Land Rights Act in the Northern Territory. Despite land rights legislation in the Territory, locking up almost half of the Territory to exploration, and despite the Government's uranium policies, Territorians, mainly through mining earnings, record a per capita export figure of some $4,000 per annum, as against an Australian average of a little over $1,000. Despite the odds, we are doing our best towards building a stronger Australia. The Territory electorate has gained two new islands in the past year, Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I will visit those islands at the first opportunity. There is one plane a week and my visit will entail a 4,000 kilometre journey into the Indian Ocean on top of my electoral duties across 1.4 million square kilometres of Australia. I know that the people of Christmas Island have their own land problems, since there is not one square centimetre of land available for islanders on a freehold or leasehold basis. This means no market gardening, no horticulture of any kind, and precious little in the way of commercial retail space, as the Australian Government and mining companies hold it all. I know too that in many cases housing is in short supply and not up to the standards that would be considered acceptable in other parts of Australia. The Northern Territory, indeed all north Australia, is a resource rich and energetic region, contributing to national goals; in many cases it does so in spite of government policies. With our small population and lack of a protected manufacturing sector, we are geared up with the right policies to take maximum advantage of the technological, nuclear society. I have said that I am the member for the least influential, for those who most rely on equity and fair dealing. Inhabitants of the three million square kilometres of north Australia have just seven members to fight on their behalf. I will finish by quoting the words of Senator John Button, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, in September 1982. If honourable members read 'north Australia' for 'north Queensland', the sentiments apply equally well. Senator Button said: North Queensland is an area with great natural resources and its contribution to Australia's financial health and stability has always been high. But is has rarely received a fair return for its contribution to the national wealth and in recognition of its strategic position. National governments have never fully grasped their obligations to north Queensland. The ALP is determined that this situation must end. The Government's program for the next three years goes nowhere near living up to those words. North Australians, indeed all Australians, look to this Government for action, not words. They hope for a government which will set the lead, and build a stronger, fairer and more equitable Australia by relying on individual competitiveness and the great wealth of natural resources that our nation contains. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Before I call the honourable member for Chifley, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(5.48) —Mr Speaker, I offer you my congratulations on your re-election to your high office. I wish also to be associated with congratulations to the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) on her election as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Chairman of Committees, for the kindness and courtesy shown to me as a new member on the Government side. Indeed, that courtesy was shown to all new members on both Government and Opposition sides. I trust that I should not be disorderly if I say how pleased I was, as were a large number of Government members, to see a lady Serjeant-at-Arms at the opening of this Parliament. I am sure that many young women in my electorate will be inspired to aspire to positions which might otherwise be seen as male preserves. I stand before my peers as the third member for Chifley. I thank my predecessors, John Armitage and the honourable member for Greenway (Mr Gorman), for the way in which they administered the electorate. I record my appreciation for the tremendous public support I received on election day and subsequently. It was a ringing endorsement of the Hawke Government's policies as they affect western Sydney in general and Chifley in particular. I pay a special tribute to my wife, Robyn, and my children, Michelle, Stephanie, Benjamin and Courtney, who have endured much and have never wavered in their support and encouragement. It is as much a win for my family as it is for me. Victory in Chifley on 1 December largely reflected the tremendous dedication and commitment of the members of the Australian Labor Party who worked tirelessly throughout what was one of the longest campaigns on record. Organisationally, it was difficult for the Party to reform the Federal Electorate Council, hold a quick-fire preselection and then organise and raise funds for the campaign. However, the Party responded magnificently. I thank my friend and campaign director, Richard Amery, the State member for Riverstone and his Deputy, John Aqualina, the State member for Blacktown, the President of the FEC, Keith Squire, his executive and council, the seven branch campaign directors and all the branch members. When one mentions individuals one can run the risk of offending those one omits. If I were properly to acknowledge those I would like to, or who merit it, I would run out of time. However, I mention two people. The first is Tony Johnston, the former State member for Riverstone-I was privileged to be his first campaign director some 13 years ago-and president of the State Electorate Council. I was pleased to be close to him and am indebted for the experience I gained. The other person is Alderman Sylvia Whilesmith, who has always been a very loyal and dedicated supporter and now is establishing her very own high credentials as the first ALP women alderman on Blacktown City Council and Chairperson of our Community Services Committee. The seat of Chifley is situated in the western suburbs of Sydney, generally west of Parramatta and east of Penrith. It is the heartland of Labor's western stronghold. The heart of my electorate is Mount Druitt, where I am proud to say I live and where I have insisted on opening my electorate office. The people of Bidwill, Blackett, Dharruk, Emerton, Hebersham, Lethbridge Park, Shalvey, Shane Park, Tregear, Whalan and Willmot have a special place in my heart. They are not only part of Chifley electorate but form the fifth ward of Blacktown City Council. These good people are the ones who thrust me into public life some three years ago in a council by-election with 76 per cent of the vote. At the 1983 council elections I was returned from the No. 3 position on the ALP ticket by some 54 votes. Honourable members perhaps can appreciate my keen interest in seeking out those 54 voters. The other suburbs of my electorate are: Blacktown, Prospect, Doonside, Rooty Hill, Minchinbury, Colyton, St Clair and North St Marys. The electorate of Chifley is cosmopolitan and multicultural and is distinguished by the large number of young people and significant numbers of senior citizens. Its distinctive feature is the number of people who have moved or are moving into the electorate. This is the centenary year of two great Australian Prime Ministers, two great Australians and two great leaders of the Australian Labor Party. I refer, of course, to John Curtin and Ben Chifley. I should like to say a little about Joseph Benedict Chifley. I cannot, of course, claim to have known him. Indeed, at the time of Ben Chifley assuming the prime ministership, I was taking a more substantial form than a gleam in my mother's eye. However, as a young man I read Chifley's biography by Crisp and was deeply impressed by the example provided by Chifley. In this centenary year I fondly hope that some of my younger constituents will similarly be inspired. In October 1941, Labor assumed office under John Curtin and Chifley became Treasurer. Without a doubt he was Australia's greatest Treasurer, although I suspect that Chifley would demur to Scullin and Theodore. His achievements as Treasurer include the introduction of widow's pensions and unemployment, sickness and hospital benefits. Perhaps his greatest contribution as Treasurer was to marshal the financial resources of Australia to maximise Australia's contribution to the war effort at a time when the conservative parties, the precursors of the Liberal and National parties, had so badly betrayed the trust and faith placed in them. Chifley was also Minister for Post-war Reconstruction. He became Prime Minister on 13 July 1945, retaining the portfolio of Treasury as well. He led his party to victory in the 1946 election. The achievements of his Government include the beginning of the mass migration scheme and the establishment of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority, Trans-Australia Airlines, the Stevedoring Industry Board and the Joint Coal Board, the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, the nationalisation of Qantas Airways Ltd and overseas telecommunications, and support for Indonesian independence from the Dutch. If I have one misgiving, perhaps those like me who remember 11 November 1975 would rather not have seen proportional voting introduced for the Senate. I congratulate my colleague, the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) and the Bathurst City Council on the centenary celebrations they have organised. I sincerely hope that Blacktown and Penrith councils will be able to organise celebrations on a lesser scale. Until recently, I was proud to be Deputy Mayor of the great city of Blacktown comprising some 200,000 people. I was very proud that Blacktown was the first council in New South Wales to introduce a system for the payment of rates in seven equal instalments. In its first year of operation the system secured a 50 per cent adoption rate, which is proof of its enormous popularity. With great respect, I suggest that the underlying assumptions behind the introduction of the scheme are applicable equally to State and Federal authorities. I was pleased to be involved in the establishment of the greening of the City of Blacktown committee. I commend the work of that committee and the success it has achieved. Specifically, I mention one project, the Nurragingy Reserve. Indeed, I would be very proud to say that this was my idea. Unfortunately, it was not, However, I can say that I became a very enthusiastic advocate of the project, which captured my imagination. This area of approximately 90 hectares is to be developed as a bicentennial project from funds supplied by Blacktown City Council and both Federal and State governments. The reserve will include 13 individual picnic areas where families can enjoy barbecues and outings, three group picnic areas which can be reserved for the exclusive use of clubs and organisations, natural bushland and an urban forest, artificial lakes, gardens, walking trails, bicycle trails, carparks, public conveniences and maintenance yards. Some $2,182,028 has been allocated to the project with over $1.5m being provided under the Federal Government's community employment program. Some 166 persons have obtained employment on the project. This Government, Blacktown City Council, the people of Chifley and those who are working on the project can be assured that we are providing a wonderful social asset which will be enjoyed by generations of Australians. I trust that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and Blacktown Council will provide an appropriate opening function. The Blacktown City Council, in consultation with the Dharruk Aboriginal Land Council, Blacktown Historical Committee and the Blacktown Bicentenary Committee have officially named the area Nurragingy Reserve after one of Blacktown's best known historical figures. Nurragingy was a member of the local Aboriginal Dharruk tribe and was one of the first Aborigines to receive a land grant in his own right from the colonial government in approximately 1819. I believe it is appropriate that I should briefly mention the infamous record of the previous Liberal-National Party Government and the record of the first Hawke Labor Government. The Fraser Government was conceived in blood-the blood of the former leader of the Opposition, Sir Billy Snedden-and delivered in a dark cloud of deceit and duplicity which rent asunder long-standing conventions. Whilst continually blaming the Whitlam Government, Fraser and his Liberal-National Party Government presided over an unprecedented period of confrontation, when Australian was pitted against Australian, an unprecedented period of economic stagnation and mismanagement. The rewards went to the privileged few and the brunt was borne by the many, particularly the disadvantaged in our society. Nothing became Malcolm Fraser nor humanised him more than the news of his humiliating defeat. The nation rejoiced. Bob Hawke had promised national reconstruction and reconciliation. I sincerely believe that if one had taken a poll of Federal parliamentary members of the ALP at the time they would not have predicted the outstanding success achieved on the economic front in a short 21 months in office. Confrontation and division were replaced by consensus. This Hawke Government has consulted widely. It not only governs with the support of the trade union movement but also with that of the business community. The results have been dramatic. Double-digit inflation has been halved. A negative growth economy has been replaced by one of the fastest growing economies of the free world. Banking is being deregulated. The Government is poised to embark on reform of the taxation system. This taxation mess largely has been the legacy of successive Liberal-National Party governments in 30 of the previous 35 years. It is the ordinary men and women of Australia, through the pay-as-you-earn system, who carry an unfair burden of taxation because they do not have the opportunity to minimise their taxation. This reform will be achieved without increasing the overall incidence of taxation. I welcome it and regret that former Liberal-National Party governments continually spoke up about reform but never did anything about it. We are privileged in Chifley to have many young Australians. I am deeply committed to the concept of equality of opportunity for them and for all Australians. We have many fine schools and facilities in Chifley. However, I do not necessarily believe that this guarantees equality of education. I am dissatisfied with the low participation rates of our students in the last two years of high school. I do not presently have the answers, but I believe the role of teachers is not merely to possess expert knowledge but to have the real ability to reach out to students, to communicate that knowledge and to instil an interest, enthusiasm and understanding for the subject. Teaching is an interesting area. It is the only area where the inputs-the students rather than the teachers-are blamed for the outputs. Nevertheless, I recognise that there are many dedicated teachers in Chifley and I look forward to meeting them and discussing solutions. I am determined to achieve results. It was a pity that the State Government's proposals for a senior high school at Whalan were torpedoed. The John Paul II High School stands as a shining example of what can be achieved in the west. Equality of opportunity for employment is a major issue within the electorate of Chifley. I take pride in this Government's distinguished record of economic management and job creation, but I am far from satisfied. Unemployment and rising interest rates with their effect on mortgage repayments tear at the social fabric of our community. It is the unemployed who are the victims, not the villains. I have many people in my electorate who are desperately seeking work. I seek jobs, jobs and more jobs for my electorate. I believe that the Federal, State and local governments have an historic opportunity to transform the western suburbs into the industrial heartland of Sydney. I hope to be at the forefront of seizing that opportunity. The Minister for Industry, Commerce and Technology (Senator Button) has, for the first time, sought to heed the numerous reports on manufacturing industry and has started to rationalise and restructure industry. Once again we had the situation, particularly in the 1960s and late 1970s, where the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia in government did absolutely nothing, providing years of wasted opportunity. I have confidence in Australian invention,innovation and the skills of our work force. I believe that government direction and assistance is required to provide growth and more jobs for manufacturing industries. I suspect that neither serendipity nor market forces will generate the growth that we need. We need not only to cut out jobs but also to create them. I look forward to making an input into the Caucus infrastructure committee. I am an optimist, but even the most optimistic prediction still leaves us a long way short of full employment-indeed, we are unlikely to return to it for some time. It has been rightly said that the accord is central to the Government's management of the economy. In many ways the accord represents what the trade union movement is prepared to forgo for itself for the greater opportunities of the unemployed. I welcome that sacrifice and commitment. However, as a society we must realistically face up the issue of long term unemployment. As I said before, the unemployed are the victims, not the villains. I hope that the Government has the opportunity to review the unemployment benefit with a view to further increasing it. As a society, we need to rethink our attitudes to work. I do not think that the traditional view of a job being 35 or 40 hours a week will survive. I should like to thank the senior citizens clubs of Mount Druitt, Rooty Hill, Doonside and Blacktown. I was thrilled to be invited to their functions and I appreciated the warmth of their hospitality and friendship. It was, nevertheless, quite disgusting during the election campaign to witness the distress and trauma that these good people suffered as a result of the scare tactics adopted by the Opposition parties when discussing the assets test. These are the people in our community who should be esteemed and supported rather than preyed upon. I am pleased to have been associated with the Mount Druitt Hospital from its inception and have been pleased to serve as Deputy Chairman of the Board of Directors with His Lordship Bishop Murphy as Chairman. From the outset we have sought to treat the whole person and instil a team approach to the delivery of services. Our most important committee of the board is on patient care review. I must say that I abhor the current doctors' dispute and was stunned that the Opposition should come out in support of the rebel specialists. What this dispute is all about is: Firstly, money; secondly, who should control the hospital system, be it doctor or state; and, thirdly, whether Medicare patients should have an equality of access to the best medical treatment. I could give many examples, but I shall give only one of where a doctor in surgery halted proceedings on the patient-a child-to ring up the parents from the operating theatre to determine whether the child was privately insured or a Medicare patient. I am concerned that there are many people in our community who need medical attention but because of the dispute they are not getting it. There are children whose fractures will never be properly set; there are others waiting for the onslaught of another attack, with attendant pain and suffering, so that they may be classified as emergency cases. I regret that the ladies of Our Lady of Consolation Nursing Home and Doonside Nursing Home are being shuffled from one hospital to another. I cannot rule out the possibility that some may have died in the process. The attitude of these rebel specialists is callous and totally indifferent to individual dignity and needs. The whole community condemns them and their advocates, the Liberal Party. Mr Speaker, I sincerely look forward to the next three years and the opportunity to speak out on behalf of my constituents. I sincerely hope that I will live up to the trust and responsibility placed upon me. I thank the House. Mr SPEAKER —Before I call the honourable member for Hinkler, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesy. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(6.08) —Thank you, Mr Speaker, for drawing the attention of the House to the fact that this is my maiden speech. At the outset, I thank you, Mr Speaker, and Madam Deputy Speaker for the warm way in which you greeted the new members of this Parliament and for being such gracious hosts during the seminar that we had. As you said, Mr Speaker, I rise for the first time to address members of this Parliament. I am aware of the convention which suggests that a first speech by a member of this House should be heard without interruption. I am conscious of the fact that this is a courtesy that I will probably receive only once in this House. In such circumstances I will refrain from straying, as far as conscience dictates, on to matters which might be considered so political or so sensitive to Government members that they might tempt some to respond through spontaneous reaction. That is not to say that at another time in this same forum I will not seek to draw reaction in the thrust and parry of political debate. While speeches in this House may be more savoury with a little salt, I seek today to tempt honourable members' attention, not with spicy oratorical flavour, but rather with the materialistic matters which briefly describe the new Federal division of Hinkler, a few of the problems being faced by constituents and a short resume of that great aviator who has been honoured in that naming. Hinkler is a provincial and rural coastal electorate in which the main centres of population are situated at Gladstone to the north and Bundaberg to the south. The division stretches from the coast westward across the Dawson River to the boundary of the Duaringa and Banana shires. Prior to redistribution by the electoral Commission, each of three Federal divisions partially serviced the present region. I speak, of course, of Kennedy in the west-represented by my good friend sitting beside me-Capricornia to the north and Wide Bay to the south. The honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) and the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) have continued their service in this House, whilst the former member for Capricornia chose to retire and has been succeeded by another. I thank those past custodians of what is now encompassed in the new Hinkler division for their long and dedicated service to the people now enrolled in the new division. I look forward to co-operation with the three current representatives of Wide Bay, Maranoa and Capricornia in matters of common interest on our boundaries during the term of this Parliament. Whilst one member is not of the same political persuasion, I have known each person for a long time and some affinity has already been established even though, perhaps, in a more relaxed environment. The history of this House bears testimony to the fact that politics are not a barrier to friendship and respect, even though members may be philosophically divided. So should it be at all times. The Federal division of Hinkler is almost a microcosm of Australia, with a great diversity of economic endeavour and social thinking. The large aluminium processing industries and power house complexes in and near Gladstone have brought a measure of stability to that city. Nevertheless, in the aftermath of massive development, we perceive the difficulties of transition as the itinerant construction and technical workers leave in search of further employment. Small businesses have been closing with demoralising regularity, bringing further unemployment and disruption to families. The social problems we perceive are not unique to Gladstone when we compare the situation with other such growth centres which have slowed down. It is vital for government to recognise, however, that such areas require special consideration and finance to lessen the impact of this demoralising reversal in the economy. Just a short distance north of Gladstone lie some of the world's richest deposits of oil shale. Demands for this energy resource could escalate sooner than expected if, as aviation indicators suggest, the denser synthetic fuels can provide longer ranges in flight against an equivalent fuel load of fossil derivatives. The city of Bundaberg and the immediate district are also feeling the effects of the recession as the sugar farmers and the dependent industries within that infrastructure face a crisis of serious proportions. Decisions on the future of the sugar industry should place heavier reliance on the short term social problems so created, rather than economic philosophies devoid of compassion. Unfortunately, compassion is not a criterion by any dimension within the academic field of the economist. I remind honourable members that good government is first and foremost a people-orientated institution, and therein lies the purpose of its establishment. The region around Bundaberg has a viable fruit and vegetable industry which has the capacity to become the salad bowl for South East Asia and other countries. But as the sugar growers turn to these alternative crops to survive, there is a real danger of creating a glut on the domestic market, thus threatening the livelihood of the traditional small crop growers. Support for the continued viability of agricultural production throughout the division will be addressed vigorously by my office during future deliberations in this House. The conventions of this maiden speech preclude such action now, although, Mr Speaker, I am sorely tempted to be more outspoken. However, I ask all honourable members assembled here to recognise the important contribution that primary industry has made to the economy of Australia through vital export income. It is noteworthy, though, to consider that even in these distressing times just one by-product of Bundaberg's sugar production-a little drop probably known to many members of this House; I refer to a famous rum-from one factory contributed over $50m to government revenue by way of excise and sales tax in the last financial year. The income from agricultural production to successive governments has subsidised many projects of benefit to this nation, and the farmers' plea for assistance now should not be so lightly discounted. The division of Hinkler is also a significant contributor to the economy of Australia through citrus fruits, grains, cotton, beef and other meats, tobacco and dairy products. All these are affected by cost increasing decisions of government. A vigorous export promotion campaign should be maintained with relentless zeal to secure stable markets against the heavily subsidised produce dumped on the international market by the European Community. No members of this House should countenance or support an import parity price philosophy for Australian primary production. Farmers, too, are entitled to a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. I have read the submissions to the Government by the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation calling for urgent action to restore confidence to the dairy industry. The proposals contained therein have the support of each State organisation. I join them in a call to government to take urgent action to alleviate the financial pressures on the member farmers. Milk is a basic food. The industry has continually argued that holding down dairy product prices could be counterproductive in respect of milk production. Faced with a decline in price, the farmers' first reaction is to increase production in order to maintain gross income and meet commitments. Milk production declines only after the dairy farming community exhausts its capacity to work harder and longer. When this point is reached, farmers leave the industry in great numbers and the resulting decline in production becomes excessive. It should be further noted that the prices of manufactured dairy products in Australia are relatively cheap in comparison with almost all Western countries. It is true to say that we can purchase many of our agricultural commodities more cheaply today on the international market; but if we allow those primary industries in Australia to be destroyed for consumer orientated expediency, who will guarantee continuity of supply? Who is prepared to guarantee that the price of imports will not increase substantially in the near future? Who will care for the people who have depended on farm income in the many towns the farmers now support? Who indeed? The people on the land have enough to contend with as they battle the elements of nature. Let us not now add indifference of government to the vagaries to which they are exposed. This nation's wealth and progress emerged from the sweat and tears of primary producers and therein still lies our future. Before we throw in the towel to signify the demise of those rural industries now in serious trouble, let us at least offer a tissue of support and encourage them to go just one more round. They have the will and they have the courage. Let us give them interim financial support. The known mineral wealth of the Hinkler division is also significant to the economy. Large coal deposits are mined by Thiess Dampier Mitsui Coal Pty Ltd at the Moura and Kianga fields. The old Cracow goldfields are being reworked with new technology and equipment. Many other goldfields are being assessed as the potential to rework the old diggings is improving. Nearer the coast, at Biggenden, one of the few magnetite mines still operates successfully. Additional reserves of oil shale are located at Lowmead and Nagoorin near the coast and at Duaringa in the west. For those who like to go rock-hounding and fossicking, there are many fine gems to be found in the western shire of Banana. The offshore waters of the Hinkler division also support a large fishing fleet which mainly utilises the facilities for berthing and processing at Gladstone and Bundaberg. The seafood delicacies from these fishing grounds are renowned for the quality and variety of their selection. Yet, the fisherman too face the problems of increasing costs for services and fuels. There are indications also of dwindling stock resources caused by the incursion of large fishing vessels from other centres, and destructive influences affecting traditional fish breeding environments. The coastal areas and offshore islands in the Hinkler division combined with the historically rich hinterland could be the mecca for increased tourist traffic. There are numerous well-established resorts along the coast and on the islands of the Great Barrier Reef. The many small inland towns offer an old world hospitality which complements the charm of the various localities. Off the beaten track, the adventurous traveller will find breathtaking views of the countryside and many splendid gorges. The residents of Gladstone are justifiably proud of the great natural harbour on which the city nestles and to which they flock for aquatic recreation. Although Port Bundaberg, at the mouth of the Burnett River, is not as well known as the major trading port of Gladstone, it is still a vital sugar, molasses and oil terminal. The Burnett River is also an important recreation facility for the district. Before concluding, it would be fitting if I were to dwell for a short period to recognise Squadron Leader Bert Hinkler, after whom the Federal division is named. This famous pioneer aviator was small in physical stature, but as Major Turner wrote in the London Daily Telegraph following Bert's tragic death: 'He was a small man with a giant's heart'. Herbert John Louis Hinkler, affectionately known as Bert, was born in Bundaberg on 8 December 1892. During his pioneer aviation days Bert Hinkler became the idol and hero of all Australians as they proudly sang the praises of Hustling Hinkler, up in the sky. His principal feats were the first solo flight from Great Britain to Australia and the first solo flight across the South Atlantic Ocean from west to east. His flight across the South Atlantic was an admirable performance, but there is no doubt that the 16-day flight from England to Australia is one of the best remembered. Enduring extreme discomfort in a small Avro Avian, lacking ground and communication support, with primitive navigational aids, and with only an atlas map to guide him, Bert Hinkler displayed courage and determination. The last flight of this great Australian was another solo attempt from England to Australia. Tragically, he lost his life when he crashed in the Prato Magno Alps in Tuscany, Italy, on 8 January 1933. It is a fitting memorial to Bert Hinkler that the new Federal division of Hinkler has been so named. The holder of the Distinguished Service Medal for bravery in action over Germany in 1916 and the Air Force Cross presented for the finest aerial exploit of 1925, Squadron Leader Bert Hinkler was also presented with the International Aeronautical Federation gold medal in the same year. It is interesting to note that another nominee for the gold medal in the same year was Squadron Leader Charles Kingsford-Smith. Any person elected to represent the division of Hinkler would be hard-pressed to mirror the feats of this famous man, yet strength can be gained in striving to emulate those personal traits which he displayed. Bert Hinkler was not deterred by the formidable barriers he faced on the way to success. He set a true and faithful course towards his objective, with a determination to succeed against any adversity; fearless in thought, deed and action; believing in what he was doing and the eventual benefit to mankind. Yet Bert Hinkler was constantly humble amidst all the accolades bestowed on him by many nations. Reference to the life and success of Bert Hinkler surely places a heavy responsibility on this division's representatives to refrain from any action which could demean the name of Hinkler by association. Under such circumstances a representative can only draw strength if he too is not distracted from any course considered true in the navigation of matters political. I am honoured to be known as the member for Hinkler, which I understand, will be the only term used to recognise me in this House. Debate (on motion by Mr Humphreys) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(6.24) —First I would like to congratulate all those honourable members who have made their maiden speeches today. I think we have heard some excellent speeches, and I look forward to hearing many more from those who have broken the ice, so to speak. In the brief time available to me I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to an article in the Age today, entitled 'An audit of Victoria'. In the preamble to the article, the author begins by saying that he will be attempting to give an independent audit of Victoria under Labor, which I think is very appropriate when one considers that there is a State election on Saturday. Of course, the first area we touch on is taxes. It is very interesting to read what this article says. It states: So far as the Cain Government's performance has been under scrutiny in this election, it is largely over the question of tax rises. Its problems stem from the 1982 election campaign, when Mr Cain said he saw no need to increase taxes and promised to reduce train, tram and bus fares, electricity and gas charges, petrol tax and motor registration fees. Mr MacKellar —He did that? Mr HAWKER —He did that before the 1982 election. He has broken every single one of those election promises. The article continues: Everyone knows that taxes, fares and charges- not only have risen but- have risen faster than inflation. Mr McArthur —Faster than inflation! Mr HAWKER —Yes, they have risen faster than inflation. So much for that great promise from Mr Cain. According to the Victorian Opposition the actual rises have totalled 55.4 per cent. This is including inflation. The Cain Government tries to exclude the fact that the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, the State Bank of Victoria, et cetera, now have to pay a public dividend tax. Mr Cunningham —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask whether the honourable member is prepared to substantiate what he is reading from the newspaper? Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAWKER —Mr Speaker, obviously the facts hurt. The point is that in Victoria we now have one of the highest taxing State governments this country has ever seen. In fact the Age article continues: On any realistic measure, then, the rate of tax increases has been higher under Labor than under the Liberals. I think that debunks one of the arguments put forward by the members of the State Government. The article further states: It is certain, however, that in its first two years in office, Labor increased taxes more sharply than any other state government. These are the facts in an independent audit. Mr Charles —No, that is not the truth. They are not the facts. Mr HAWKER —It is telling honourable members opposite what they do not want to hear. As I said, this is an independent audit of the performance of the State Labor Government. If we look a bit further on the spending side we see that the total net Government spending figure shown in a graph in the article, which honourable members can look at later if they like, reveals a big increase-from $5,766m to $9,089m. Mr Donald Cameron —In what period? Mr HAWKER —That is an increase of 57.6 per cent in three years. Mr Donald Cameron —Gracious me, you're gangsters down there. Mr HAWKER —In real terms, that represents a 26.7 per cent increase-- Mr Young —No one has done better than you out of the public purse. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The House will come to order. The honourable member for Wannon has the call. Mr HAWKER —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is another important fact that puts it all into perspective. A 26.7 per cent increase in spending in real terms compares with a 3.3 per cent increase in the last three years of the Liberal Government. I think that kills yet another argument that has been thrown around. It is nothing more than furphy. Therefore, the Cain Government has been not only the biggest taxer but also the biggest spender. It is no wonder that when we pick up today's Australian Financial Review we read on top of the front page 'Business turning sour on Cain'. It is amazing to read the article. One part states: The Australian Small Business Association yesterday dismissed the Cain Government's claims of a 'partnership' with business, describing its relations with the Government as 'more like a state of war'. So much for Cain and his talk about co-operation with business. I could go on if I were not running out of time. The Cain Government has put taxes up, increased spending and now has the audacity to promise before this coming election that it will not increase taxes at a rate that is faster than increases in the consumer price index. I do not believe that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(6.29) —I would like to say that there are probably just two things that we can believe about what we read in the newspaper; one is the price and the other is the date. Also I could suggest that the sub-title of the Small Business Association of Victoria should be the Roger Shipton support society, but I will not do so. Tonight I wish to take up a much more positive theme which has been one of the most satisfying underlying themes of my time as a representative of my constituency. That theme concerns the co-operation between this Federal Government and the Cain Government in Victoria and the co-operation between the state government members and myself in my electorate. The list of achievements for our constituents resulting from that co-operation is a list which demonstrates the enormous difference to the lives of the people that results from getting things done instead of simply talking about them. In my electorate and the State electorates of Box Hill, Bennettswood and Syndal we have in a matter of three years completed the long overdue reconstruction of the Box Hill Hospital at a cost of $7.25m-and I wonder whether my colleagues on the other side of the House would suggest that that $7.25m was badly spent-to provide badly needed new operating theatres, reconstructed wards and a new kitchen. I think that that $7.25m was spent extremely well and I am glad that we spent it. Also long overdue for construction was the Eastern Suburbs Geriatric Centre, about which the previous Liberal Government talked for 20 years. That is now in existence and providing day care services, referral services, and assessment services for elderly people, of whom we have many in our mutual electorates. The money for that centre was also well spent in my opinion. I think the first sod was turned by the appropriate Liberal member in 1972 after there had been some discussion about it. As of this moment bricks and mortar are there and so are the services. In-fill housing, and housing projects involving the proper use of serviced land-held for years by the Education Department under the previous Government, for some extraordinary reason-are now a fact in the State seat of Bennettswood, where high quality housing is being provided for a number of public and rental and private dwellings. On the subject of housing, let me say this: Of the Federal housing budget of $148m spent on housing in Victoria, $1.9m has been spent in Chisholm and the State seats of Bennettswood, Syndal and Box Hill. The first home owners scheme has provided 543 new home owners with $1.45m to enable them to purchase new homes in the areas where their families live and the services are provided. That is extremely good. The Box Hill College of Technical and Further Education, a college which has 20,000 students and is a very good college, providing an essential educational service, has had $5.5m worth of capital works provided. Is that money badly spent? Is that something a government should not have done? Is the education of young people not a consideration when members talk about spending governments. The Box Hill Co-educational Technical School, a school providing the skills that we so badly need, has had $1.4m provided to demolish the 60 portable classrooms that the Cain Government inherited from the previous Liberal Government, and for the provision of proper educational facilities for those students. The Box Hill Special Development School, which was talked and talked about, has had $1.1m worth of capital works provided to cater for those young people who need the services provided by a special development school. The police buildings have been upgraded to the extent of $160,000. I again ask: Is that money badly spent? Is that money that government should not have spent? The long day care program in Box Hill, a Federal and State initiative, has been provided with $175,000. Do children not need care? A capital works program to provide a 35-place day care centre for children is in place. I mention also the Box Hill Transport Centre, a $60m combined private and public effort, which every day provides-this is something that might be worth listening to-15,000 commuters who travel on 500 buses and 900 trains with the ability to change from bus to train under cover and to do their shopping in a big retail centre on the way. Is that something on which governments ought not to have spent money? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(6.34) —I join the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) in congratulating those members of the House who have made their maiden speeches both yesterday and today and commend them on that important milestone in their role as members of the House of Representatives. A number of the maiden speeches, from both sides of the House, have alluded to the fact that among the most disadvantaged in Australia's community today are Australia's primary producers. Australia's primary producers-not because of the unpredictability of nature, which often beleaguers them, but because of falling world markets and the falling Australian economic state-find themselves no longer as profitable as they were. As the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has so carefully and skilfully explained, a number of Australian primary producers face on average a 17 per cent fall in their annual incomes. We should feed that to the public servants who have been causing this government distress or to the power workers in Queensland. I make that point this evening simply because this is the season when primary producers find themselves busiest of all. While we have been in this House talking, people in all our electorates have been carrying out work that is sometimes most unpleasant. I think of those who are on clover harvesters, doing the dusty work of harvesting small seeds; I think of those who are without any shade at all in grape patches harvesting grapes; I think of those who, in the itch of a peach patch, are currently harvesting clingstone peaches, in spite of the itch and fluff that is implicit in that work. The honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) has already alluded to the importance of hard work, and I rose this evening because I was astonished to see in yesterday's Australian an article that said: New South Wales and Victorian- note 'Victorian'- fruit growers are facing an employment crisis. They cannot find enough pickers to harvest their pears, peaches and grapes. Should a nation with the unemployment statistics of this nation carry an article like that in its leading daily? What sort of reflection is it on the Australian nation when we have work to be done and people who are unemployed, but growers are unable to find people from that unemployment pool to do the work that needs to be done. It is absurd to find that article in the Australian and then to find attached to a press release from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) a comment that he is planning to spend $24,571 to create four jobs for 16 weeks to expand a community vegetable garden. A little further down it is said that he is planning to spend in the Lockhart River community $23,071 to create four jobs for 16 weeks to expand another community vegetable garden. All this is happening while the fruit growers of Victoria are unable to find people to pick their temporarily profitable crops. It would be the height of irony if we were to discover that the unemployed in Australia were not prepared to harvest the crops we need harvested while the Asian people, with their green revolution, are becoming increasingly productive, achieving grain production levels we scarcely dare to hope are possible, and are employing people who were once unemployed. It is in the interests of the fruit growers of South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria that I make this plea. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(6.39) —At the outset, Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on once again achieving election to your high office. I also congratulate those honourable members who have presented their maiden speeches today. At the start of this adjournment debate I listened with some interest to the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) quoting extensively from an article in today's Age. Part of that article referred to Mr Cain's analysis of the difference in tax rates under his Government and its predecessors, the Hamer and Thompson coalition governments. The figures referred to by Mr Cain, as reported by the Age, which were calculated by the Liberal Party, indicate a 29 per cent increase in per capita taxes under the Liberals and an 8 per cent increase under Labor. I wholeheartedly endorse the terms of that article. It shows the economic illiteracy of the Victorian Branch of the Liberal Party for it to use the CPI index as an all-encompassing economic measure. As the article points out, the appropriate measure to be used in the context in which the Liberal Party wished to use it was the implicit price deflator. If one is to enter into economic debate it is important to get the fundamentals of the debate correct. As I have said, to use the CPI is simply an indicator of economic illiteracy. The Cain Labor Government has a strong record of performance over the last three years but, more importantly, it has a program for the next 10 years. For the first time in the post-war period an Australian government has put down a concise and well thought out program. This program maximises the relative advantages that the Victorian economy has over other State governments and, more particularly, over our overseas competitors. The 10-year program set down-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr GRIFFITHS —This may be boring to those members of the Opposition who are not interested in economics. Perhaps I should mention some of Mr Kennett's statements, such as whether one would allow one's daughter to go out with the Premier of Victoria-a juvenile and stupid statement. Another related to working out the difference between adult wages and award wages. Clearly he was unable to do so when he promulgated the so-called YES scheme, a scheme I might add, that has been universally condemned by most observers and by almost all young people to whom I have spoken. He made comments about the National Economic Summit Conference, which was very important to Australia. We have reaped some rewards from that Summit. Mr Kennett believed that it was akin to the Council of Fascists. We have to draw the line somewhere. Someone who is aspiring to the leadership of a State really needs to be able to project a degree of responsibility. I note with some interest the stunned silence of honourable members on the other side of the chamber. Of course they are embarrassed by that sort of juvenile behaviour, and well they might be. I come back to what is important in the election campaign-plans for the future of Victoria and of its economy. The Victorian Government, as I have indicated, has laid down a 10-year program to maximise the relative advantage that Victoria has over its competitors. It is all fairly complicated stuff, but I would commend the reading of that program to honourable members opposite because it is much better than coming up with advertising jargon or gimmicks in an attempt to hoodwink the Victorian electors. For example, the program sets out some major areas that Victoria will concentrate on in the next 10 years. It looks at the extent and diversity of Victoria's industrial skill base, something that simply was not addressed under previous governments. The program looks at the development of Melbourne as an industrial and international commercial centre. It looks at the location of the Port Phillip region as a major component in transport, distribution and communications for the south-eastern part of Australia. I could go on, but my time is limited. Suffice it to say that when one is faced with a choice between two parties, both promulgating their platforms, it is important to look a little further than the nearest advertising gimmick that one can come up with. It is my submission, and I am sure it is supported by most Victorians, that the present Government in Victoria has done a great deal over the last three years and, given the chance, it will be in a position in the next three years to reap some significant rewards for the Victorian economy and to try to set about achieving reasonable rates of employment and growth in the Victorian economy. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 6.45 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 26 February 1985: Acts Interpretation Act- Statements relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report-Australia Council, report for year 1983-84. Statements relating to failure to furnish periodic reports within specified period- Australian National University Council, report for 1983 (Part II). Commonwealth Legal Aid Council, report for year 1983-84. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Determination, dated 15 January 1985, listing fees for purposes of the Pharmacy Ordinance. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1981-Statement of particulars of direction given by Minister under sub-section 42 (2). The following notices were given: Mr Young to move- (1) That a joint committee be appointed to inquire into and report on- (a) all proposals for modification or variations of the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and its environs published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 19 November 1925, as previously modified or varied, which are referred to the committee by the Minister for Territories, and (b) such matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory as may be referred to it by- (i) resolution of either House of Parliament, or (ii) the Minister for Territories. (2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 4 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party of the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups on independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (7) That 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub-committee shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at the meeting. (10) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (14) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the Senate or the House of Representatives. (15) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) That the committee in its inquiries take account of the investigations of other parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory appointed during previous Parliaments. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Mr Young to move- (1) That a joint committee be appointed to consider and report on- (a) foreign affairs and defence generally, and (b) such matters as may be referred to the committee by- (i) The Minister for Foreign Affairs (ii) The Minister for Defence, or (iii) resolution of either House of the Parliament (2) That the committee consist of 28 members, 11 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 5 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 5 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and 4 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (6) That the chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the deputy chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee. (7) That the committee have power to appoint not more than 3 sub-committees consisting of a minimum of 3 of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matters which the committee is empowered to consider. (8) That, in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (7), the chairman and deputy chairman of the committee be ex-officio members of each sub-committee appointed. (9) That the members of a sub-committee elect one of the voting members of the sub-committee to be the chairman of that sub-committee. (10) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (11) That the committee, or any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and meet and transact business in public or private session and notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament. (12) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (13) That 9 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee and 3 members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (14) That in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman or the deputy chairman when acting as chairman, have a casting vote. (15) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the minutes of evidence and records of Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, appointed in previous Parliaments, relating to any matters on which those committees had not completed consideration. (16) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (17) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Mr Young to move- (1) That a joint standing committee be appointed to act for and represent the Parliament, as the client for the new Parliament House, in all matters concerned with the planning, design and construction of the new Parliament House and all matters incidental thereto. (2) That the committee consider and approve the developed design for the building, which, in conjunction with the revised brief for Parliament House, dated August 1980, shall be used as the basis for the design and construction of the new Parliament House, unless both Houses resolve to vary any section of the brief or have any section reconsidered by the committee. (3) That the committee determine user requirements for approved non-building items and consider other issues relevant to ensuring that the requirements of Parliament are fully met when transferring to the new building. (4) That the committee also consider and report on matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 as may be referred to it by- (a) the Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957, or (b) resolution of either House of the Parliament. (5) That the committee consist of- (a) the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (b) the Minister responsible for administering the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979; (c) 6 Members of the House of Representatives, 3 to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip and 3 to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and (d) 6 Senators, 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (6) That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be joint chairmen of the committee. (7) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (8) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (9) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to appoint the chairman of each sub-committee, and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter that the committee is empowered to inquire into. (10) That the committee or a sub-committee so appointed have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate or of the House of Representatives. (11) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (12) That 5 members of the committee, one of whom is the President or the Speaker, constitute a quorum of the committee and a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (13) That in matters of procedure, each of the chairmen whether or not occupying the Chair, have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman occupying the Chair have a casting vote. (14) That in matters other than those of procedure, each of the chairmen, whether or not occupying the Chair, have a deliberative vote only. (15) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committees on the New Parliament House appointed during previous Parliaments. (16) That any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it or any information obtained in the course of its inquiries or any document presented to it. (17) That the committee be authorised to provide, on behalf of the Parliament, all necessary information concerning the functional requirements for the new Parliament House and matters incidental thereto direct to the Parliament House Construction Authority as the authority responsible to Parliament to undertake or arrange for the planning, design and construction of the new Parliament House. (18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (19) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Young to move- (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon all aspects of the conduct of elections for the Parliament of the Commonwealth and matters related thereto, including- (a) legislation governing, and the operation of, the Australian Electoral Commission; (b) the provision of 'free' radio time for political messages during election periods; (c) the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 concerning the defamation of candidates for election; (d) tax deductibility of political donations; and (e) the establishment of fixed formulae for determining the number of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives to which the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and other territories are entitled. (2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and the deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (7) That 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (10) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (11) That members of the committee, not being members of the sub-committee, may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of- (a) submissions lodged with the Clerk of the Senate in response to public advertisements placed in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 26 November 1981 relating to a proposed Joint Select Committee on the Electoral System, and (b) the evidence and records of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform appointed during the 33rd Parliament. (14) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (15) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time. (16) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee report as soon as possible. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (20) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Young to move- (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the operation of Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to videotapes and videodiscs and in particular- (a) the effectiveness of such legislation by comparison with previous legislation purporting to govern the importation, production, reproduction, sale and hire of violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (b) whether the present classification system, as applied by the Film Censorship Board, is adequate as a basis for import and point of sale controls; (c) whether video retailers are observing the conditions of sale or hire attached to 'X' classified material, particularly in relation to children under 18 years; (d) whether Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations is adequate in identifying categories of prohibited material, and operating effectively in preventing the importation of videotapes/ discs falling within the prohibited categories; (e) whether children under the age of 18 years are gaining access to videotapes/discs containing violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (f) whether the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 should be amended to make it an offence for persons purchasing or hiring videotapes/discs classified above 'R' to allow, suffer or negligently permit children to view such material; (g) whether cinemas should be permitted to screen for public exhibition material classified above 'R', subject to prohibition from entry of persons under the age of 18 years; (h) whether films which would merit a classification above 'R' are being produced in Australia and if so whether Australian men and women are adequately protected by existing law from pressure to act in such films, and (i) the likely effects upon people, especially children, of exposure to violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material. (2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (6) That 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (7) That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to move from place to place. (8) That the committee report as soon as possible. (9) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Senate Select Committee on Video Material appointed during the 33rd Parliament. (10) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (11) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Young to move- (1) That the following matters be referred to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings for inquiry and report: (a) the televising of the proceedings of the Houses of the Parliament and their committees in the present and the new Parliament House, and (b) the radio broadcasting of the proceedings of the Houses of the Parliament and their committees including the continuous and simultaneous broadcasting of both Houses. (2) That the committee, for any purposes related to this inquiry, have power: (a) to appoint a sub-committee consisting of 2 or more Senators and 2 or more Members of the House of Representatives, 2 members of the sub-committee to form a quorum of the sub-committee; (b) to appoint the chairman of any sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of chairman at that meeting, and (c) to refer to such a sub-committee any matters into which the committee is instructed to inquire. (3) That a sub-committee appointed by the committee for any purposes related to this inquiry have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (4) That for any purposes related to this inquiry the committee or any sub-committee have power: (a) to send for persons, papers and records, (b) to move from place to place, and (c) to consider and make use of any evidence and records of the committee appointed in the 33rd Parliament. (5) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (6) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting its concurrence. Mr Young to move- (1) That, in accordance with section 54 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority shall be as follows: (a) That the committee consist of 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (b) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (c) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (d) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (e) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman, or the deputy chairman when acting as chairman, have a casting vote. (f) That 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (g) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (h) That the committee appoint a chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at the meeting. (i) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (j) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (k) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (l) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (m) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate or of the House of Representatives. (n) That a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (o) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (p) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the committee appointed during the 33rd Parliament. (q) That, in carrying out its duties the committee, or any sub-committee, ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies, as far as possible, be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest. (r) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr Young to move- (1) That a standing committee be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to the circumstances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people and the effect of policies and programs on them as are referred to it by- (a) resolution of the House, or (b) the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. (2) That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects. (3) That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and 1 member to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (4) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (5) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (6) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (7) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (10) That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (14) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (15) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committees on Aboriginal Affairs appointed during previous Parliaments. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Mr Young to move- (1) That a standing committee be appointed to inquire into and report on: (a) environmental aspects of legislative and administrative measures which ought to be taken in order to ensure the wise and effective management of the Australian environment and of Australia's natural resources, and (b) such other matter relating to the environment and conservation and the management of Australia's natural resources as are referred to it by- (i) the Minister responsible for those matters, or (ii) resolution of the House. (2) That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects. (3) That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition whip and 1 member to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (4) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (5) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (6) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (7) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (10) That a majority of the members of sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum. (12) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to move from place to place. (14) That any sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (15) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publications of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources. (17) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (18) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (19) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committees on Environment and Conservation appointed during previous Parliaments. (20) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Mr Young to move- (1) That a standing committee be appointed to: (a) consider any papers on public expenditure presented to the House and such of the estimates as it sees fit to examine; (b) consider how, if at all, policies implied in the figures of expenditure and in the estimates may be carried out more economically; (c) examine the relationship between the costs and benefits of implementing government programs, and (d) inquire into and report on any question in connection with public expenditure which is referred to it by the House. (2) That the Committee consist of 16 members, 8 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 4 members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 3 members to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, and the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts or his nominee who is a Member of the House of Representatives. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (7) That 6 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (10) That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum. (12) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to move from place to place. (14) That any sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (15) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources. (17) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (18) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (19) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committees on Expenditure appointed during previous Parliaments. (20) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Mr Young to move- (1) That a standing committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the practices and procedures of the House generally with a view to making recommendations for their improvement or change and for the development of new procedures. (2) That the committee consists of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip and 1 member to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (7) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (8) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at the meeting. (10) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (11) That the committee or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (13) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjustment of the House. (14) That a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (15) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (16) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Mr Young to move- (1) That a standing committee be appointed to inquire into and report on: (a) the main causes of accidents in air, sea, road and rail transport in Australia; (b) the most effective means of achieving greater transport safety in Australia; (c) the particular aspects of transport safety to which those concerned could most advantageously direct their efforts; and (d) the economic cost to the community of transport accidents in Australia in terms of- (i) cost of treatment of accident victims; (ii) loss of manhours and earning capacity; (iii) material damage, and (iv) other associated costs. (2) That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects. (3) That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and 1 member to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (4) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (5) That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (6) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (7) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (9) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (10) that a quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (11) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (12) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (13) that the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (14) That any sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (15) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (16) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (18) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Select Committee on Road Safety appointed during the 28th Parliament, and of the Standing Committees on Road Safety appointed during previous Parliaments. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Mr Young to move- (1) That a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on all aspects of Aboriginal education with particular reference to: (a) the educational needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people including the effect on these needs of environmental, social and cultural factors. (b) means of promoting wider and more effective participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people at all levels in the development and implementation of appropriate programs and curricula. (c) the most effective methods of providing appropriate education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people at all levels, having regard to the expressed needs of the Aboriginal communities and organisations and to the respective responsibilities of- (i) the State, Northern Territory and Commonwealth Governments, and (ii) Aboriginal communities and other agencies administering Aboriginal education programs. (d) the effectiveness of funding arrangements, including (i) whether the best use is made of available funds, and (ii) whether present priorities as between States Grants and Grants-in-Aid are appropriate. (e) the effectiveness of existing programs and special support schemes including- (i) Aboriginal student assistance schemes; (ii) enclave support schemes; (iii) independent Aboriginal schools; (iv) bilingual and bicultural education programs, and (v) pre-employment and vocational training courses. (f) the recruitment and training of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal teachers and teacher assistants. (2) That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and 1 member to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (4) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (6) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (7) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (9) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum. (10) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (11) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (12) That any sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (13) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (14) That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources. (15) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (16) That the committee or sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records relating to the Inquiry into Aboriginal Education undertaken by Standing Committees on Aboriginal Affairs appointed during previous Parliaments. (17) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Mr Young to move- (1) That a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the effects of aircraft operations on the environment surrounding airports including, but not limited to: (a) the extent of the impact of aircraft noise on- (i) the health and welfare of persons, institutions and communities, (ii) property and property values adjacent to major metropolitan airports; (b) the effectiveness of administrative procedures and regulations (including curfews), designed to lessen noise, and the monitoring of such procedures and regulations; (c) the extent to which aircraft noise should be taken into account in establishing priorities and programs for the development of existing airports and the building of new airports within and adjacent to major urban areas; (d) compensation schemes for aircraft noise operating in the United Kingdom and other countries and the effect of those schemes on airport planning and development; (e) the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth, State and local Governments to legislate for the adequate control of aircraft noise and how these powers could be used for that purpose; (f) the effects of aircraft operations (other than noise) on property; (g) the effect of aircraft engine emissions on people and property, and (h) such other matters which the committee decides should be drawn to the attention of the House. (2) That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip and 1 member to be nominated by either the Leader of the the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker. (4) That the committee elect a Government member as it chairman. (5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (6) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (7) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee. (9) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum. (10) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (11) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to move from place to place. (12) That any sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House. (13) That any sub-committee have power to authorise publications of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (14) That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources. (15) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (16) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (17) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Select Committees on Aircraft Noise appointed during the 27th Parliament, and of the Standing Committees on Environment and Conservation appointed during previous Parliaments. (18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Mr Young to move- That standing order 25 (Standing Orders Committee) be suspended for the remainder of this session. Mr Downer to move- That this House condemns the Minister for Education- (1) for her failure to respond to representations made to her by members of the Adelaide Hills Montessori School and the Member for Mayo through written correspondence on the 7 January 1985, and telegram on the 1 February 1985; (2) for allowing the uncertainty of funding arrangements for the Adelaide Hills Montessori School to linger on for almost 2 months without response, and (3) for allowing this situation to extend into the 1985 school year, causing confusion and concern amongst the staff, students and parents of Adelaide Hills Montessori School.