Thursday, 21 March 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(10.01) —Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Committee of Members' Interests, I present a special report from the Committee and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Dr KLUGMAN —Mr Speaker, I must congratulate you on the fact that today, for the first time, I was present for prayers-they were my maiden prayers. Mr SPEAKER —I am sure it was not my persuasion. Dr KLUGMAN —Mr Speaker, you do it well. The special report which I have just presented has been necessitated by the late establishment of the Committee of Members' Interests and, as a consequence, its inability to determine the form of annual return to be used by members in providing statements of their registrable interests. Nominations of all members to the Committee were not received until yesterday and the House agreed to the appointment of members to the Committee yesterday afternoon. The Committee met shortly afterwards but clearly it was quite impossible for it to determine the form of the annual return in the time available to it yesterday. Honourable members will recall that on the morning of 9 October 1984 the House adopted resolutions requiring, among other matters, that members provide statements of certain registrable interests within 28 days of making an oath or affirmation at the commencement of this Parliament. The statements were to be provided in a form to be determined by the Committee of Members' Interests. In the absence of an approved form, it has not been possible for any member of the House in the present Parliament to comply with the requirement as the period of 28 days expired yesterday. The Committee recommends in its report that, in the case of members of the House of Representatives of the Thirty-fourth Parliament who made and subscribed an oath or affirmation on 21 February 1985, a further period, namely 28 days from the day of issue of the forms of annual return by the Registrar of Members' Interests, be granted, within which they will be required to provide a statement of registrable interests to the Registrar of Members' Interests in accordance with the resolutions adopted by the House on the morning of 9 October 1984. I commend the report to the House. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.03) —by leave-I move: That- (a) in the case of Members of the House of Representatives of the 34th Parliament who made and subscribed an oath or affirmation on 21 February 1985, a further period of 28 days from the day of issue of the forms of annual return by the Registrar of Members' Interests be granted within which they will be required to provide a statement of registrable interests to the Registrar of Members' Interests in accordance with the resolutions adopted by the House on 9 October 1984 a.m., and (b) in all other respects, the resolution adopted by the House on 9 October 1984 a.m. relating to the registration and declaration of interests continue in force. It is unfortunate that the Committee of Members' Interests has only just begun its work. This arises perhaps from the fact that the Government was aiming to get both Houses in line to start this procedure, which it has been unable to do. The Government welcomes the Opposition's belated decision to nominate members of the Committee. We hope that this decision means that the Committee will now be able to go about its work quickly, smoothly and effectively. I reiterate the Government's firm commitment to the policy of registering members' pecuniary interests. There are elementary but basic principles at stake in this matter. We should not forget those principles, nor should we permit the Opposition to forget or distort them. We all need to work continuously to ensure that the highest standards of probity are upheld in this place. We need to ensure that correct practices are not only followed but also always seen to be followed. We need to guarantee that conflicts do not arise between public duties and private interests. Registering members' pecuniary interests is an essential step in advancing all those goals. Because of the Opposition's fears and fussing, we will be obliged to give this Committee an extension of time to prepare, endorse and issue the form required for statements of members' interests. That extension will be required for essential practical work, not for another round of tired Opposition objections to the principles at issue, principles which I remind honourable members that Parliament itself has already endorsed. The Government is keen to see rapid progress in this matter, but it is not inclined to hurry the Committee or in any way to pre-empt its important work. The Committee will need to consider, prepare and issue a form. Members will then need to examine the form, complete their statements and return them. Those two steps will need to be done carefully and with due regard to the precedents we will be setting. I therefore propose that we provide 28 days for members to consider and complete their statements of interest after the Committee has sent out the form. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.08) —I move: That all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the Resolution passed by the House of Representatives with respect to a Register of Members' Interest and Forms for completion by the Members of the House in the 34th Parliament be deferred until the Declaration of Registrable Interests is established on a common basis between the Senate and the House of Representatives.' The reason for moving this amendment is that we believe that for the Special Minister of State and Leader of the House (Mr Young) to come into the House and suggest that honourable members should disclose their pecuniary interests is like a highwayman advising a bank on security measures. He alone of the Ministers, after his return to the Ministry, has failed to have the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) table his new declaration of pecuniary interests. Not only did the last Parliament begin with a farcical exercise with the Prime Minister bringing in a first version of members' interests, but we then had amended members' interests. The Special Minister of State was sacked quite properly and then returned to the Ministry improperly, and the Prime Minister has failed as of this date, so far as I am aware, to have Ministers' declarations tabled in the House. Mr Young —We would love to look at yours, George. Mr SINCLAIR —I am delighted to hear the Minister's interjection. He is very sensitive on matters of judgment about personal behaviour, but there are few who have been so properly condemned by a senior justice of the courts as he has. We all need to remember that it is on national security that this Government is making an absolute mess of things-first, in failing to meet its obligations on MX missile testing, and then in failing to act properly with the New Zealand Government in trying to retain the whole of the ANZUS arrangement. It is this man who has failed in matters affecting national security. It is he who has the hide to come into this House and suggest that members should declare their pecuniary interests. This matter should be of great concern to all honourable members in this place. On the last occasion when the resolution to which the motion moved by the Leader of the House refers was before the chamber we on this side of the House first of all canvassed the format of the declaration the Government required. We pointed out the anomalies that were in that form, questioning the extent to which members were required to declare their spouse's financial interests. Not only were they required to declare their spouse's pecuniary interests but also they were required to declare those of their children. We regard that as a total breach of personal privacy. We see no justification whatsoever for members being called upon to act in the way the Government required. We are concerned about the many anomalies in the declaration form. As has been said on so many occasions in this place, no resolution of this Parliament will impose honesty on those who seek to be dishonest. The sooner honourable members realise that this declaration of pecuniary interests-- Mr Kent —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think that this debate has taken place last year. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no substance in that point of order. Mr SINCLAIR — It is important to remember that honourable members on the Government side of the House have far more to hide than anyone else in regard to their involvement in matters outside the Parliament. Even yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) came in here and said that he would refuse to give indemnity to policemen who could give evidence on matters pertaining to very serious criminal allegations. He is quite prepared to give indemnity to drug runners to disclose criminals but he is not prepared to give it to members of the police force. Mr Howard —He is part of the Wran cover-up. Mr SINCLAIR —Of course he is. He is part of the Wran cover-up. Looking at this amendment before us today, we must remember that Government members cannot get their act together in this Parliament. What we seek to do, and what my amendment seeks to do, is to suggest that if there is to be any type of register of members' interests it should not be peculiar to the members of the House of Representatives. Even honourable members on the opposite side of the House must ask themselves why senators are not to be asked to make the same disclosures. What is the purpose of requiring a declaration from members of this House when senators, some of whom are Ministers, will apparently be left scot-free? Apart from anything else, there is a significant distinction between the obligations of disclosure on the part of those who are Ministers as opposed to those who are ordinary senators or members of the House of Representatives. In the days of the coalition Government we accepted that there needed to be a disclosure of Ministers' interests. Indeed we all provided a declaration, which was periodically updated. That is more than can be said of what has happened in regard to the Ministers of this Government. Our declarations were held by the Secretary to the Prime Minister's Department. It would seem to me that our considering at this stage the motion that the Leader of the House has moved, which suggests that we will receive another 28 days grace, will in no way resolve that fundamental conflict; namely, why senators should be exempt from any disclosure. This matter has been brought before the House before. I am setting aside all concerns that we have regarding the adequacy and meaningfulness of the required disclosure. These are serious concerns which the Parliament needs to consider and which the new Committee needs to consider. I am sure that the Committee of Members' Interests will look very carefully at the meaningfulness of the form and at the ridiculous way in which the form which the Ministers filled in during the Thirty-third Parliament was set forth. We need to understand that there are many other people in this place who, if we are to disclose our pecuniary interests, should equally be involved. Are all honourable members opposite saying that members of the Press Gallery ought to be exempt from disclosing their pecuniary interests? They comment on what we do. They have exactly the same involvement. I see the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) sitting in the House. Each member of the Press Gallery has an immediate and vital financial interest in affairs relating to the transfer of media information around Australia. Will members of the Press Gallery in some way be required to disclose their interest in any of the means of communication that are controlled by the Communications ministry before they are allowed to comment on them? That is what is being asked of us. Henceforth, we will be told that we have to fill in a form. It is suggested that if we have an interest in the communications field we will in some way be prejudiced in what we say. One thing that needs to be remembered-I have mentioned that at least the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives should be on common ground-is that there are many others, therefore, who should be considered. If we are to have a declaration of pecuniary interests, I fail to see why such declarations should be restricted to the members of the House of Representatives. I am concerned that this motion will provide for a 28-days period within which the form will be distributed and members will be required to complete it. I believe that if there is to be a register, the motion is not unreasonable as after the distribution of the form members will have 28 days to complete it, but I see absolutely no justification for it to apply peculiarly to this chamber. If there is to be a form, it must apply equally to the House and to the Senate. I think we need to hear the views of the Committee of Members' Interests as to what other interests are to be disclosed. I think the present form of disclosure should not include references to members' spouses. I see no reason why children should be included in the disclosure. Indeed, I believe it is because they cannot be properly included that the whole farce is before us. Let me hark back to the attitude that was laid down by the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest from which we adopted the proper principles that ensued. Let nobody think that we are not concerned about conflicts of interest, for it is obligatory even under our existing Standing Orders that if any member has a conflict of interest, that is, an area where he has a particular interest as distinct from that of the community at large, he should declare that interest before he speaks and before he votes. We need to understand that in a democratic process, the very fact that a person is elected to the Parliament is of itself a measure of giving him a voice, not for himself alone but for all those he represents. If we deny a person a vote or a voice on matters we do not affect the individual member, we affect all those in his electorate who have a right to expect their voice, attitudes and philosophies to be expressed in this Parliament. The very essence of democracy is that there should be first an understanding that members of the House act with propriety, secondly, that there should be no conflict of interest, but, thirdly that they not be denied a voice. It is for that reason that we believe that the disclosure of pecuniary interests in the form now provided under the Standing Orders and the compliance with it is the preferable basis on which this whole matter should be considered. It is necessary, however, putting aside all the other intricate arguments about the forms that the original resolution of the Thirty-third Parliament provided, that we now in this Thirty-fourth Parliament start afresh. If there is to be a registration of members' interests, it cannot apply uniquely to this House, it must apply equally to the Senate. It has to be in a form that is acceptable to the members of both chambers. It has to be in a form, therefore, which is not just laid down by a House of Representatives committee in a manner that the motion that the Leader of the House has just submitted would require. It is essential that members of both chambers be subject to exactly the same consequences and responsibilities. After all, we are all answerable to the same Australian electorate. We are all elected members of parliament and there is absolutely no basis in reason or common sense why members of the Senate should not be called on to complete the same type of declaration as that which this motion would seek to require of those who are elected to the House of Representatives. It is with that in mind that I have moved the amendment that we have just introduced into the House which defers the implementation of the whole of the registration procedure until such stage as the Senate has accepted a form which is common to the senators of the Parliament of Australia and members of the House of Representatives. Mr SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.19) —I second the amendment moved by my colleague the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) because, as I think he has pointed out very clearly today, we are all members of this Parliament. If the Government is fair dinkum about this, it should apply its resolution to all members of the Parliament and not just to the House of Representatives. We should look at the basis of the resolution in the first place. This type of resolution reminds me very much of those adherents of things like Bills of rights, as though the mere statement of a Bill of rights guarantees that those things which the Bill of rights seeks to guarantee, actually occur. If we look at those countries which have a Bill of rights, we will see that many of the freedoms that we cherish in this country, which are supposedly guaranteed by a Bill of rights, are completely set aside. The totalitarian countries of the Left spring first to mind. What has that got to do with a statement of pecuniary interests? If we look at those countries which have a long history of revealing pecuniary interests of members of Congress for various parliaments we will find no greater history of public probity than that of a country such as Australia. The mere fact that these statements are required in no way guarantees that any individual will not seek to circumvent them if he or she is of that disposition. I find that there is a great propensity among governments of the Left, socialist governments, to invade personal privacy time after time. Here is another instance of a socialist government in a way attacking personal privacy. I do not think that we as a Federal parliament should allow this to occur. The last Parliament passed a resolution declaring that this was what we must do. When one opposes something like this, those who propose it always use the argument that one has something to hide. That is a lot of nonsense. It is not a question of having anything to hide; it is a question of basic personal liberties. I do not see why our spouses, male or female, should have their personal interests paraded before the people of Australia. Why should our children have their personal interests paraded before the people of Australia merely because we are members of parliament? It is an invasion of their personal privacy, let alone that of members of parliament themselves. I think that the members of the socialist side of politics should think very carefully about what they are seeking to do and what they have, in fact, implemented in this Parliament. There is really no justification for it. If people are crooks they will get around it anyway. If they are not crooks they do not need it. It is as simple as that. I go back to the point raised by my colleague the right honourable member for New England. If we are to have this declaration of pecuniary interest-we are, because the Parliament has so determined-it is obviously consistent for all members of this Parliament to have to fill in the requisite declaration. I can see that the Leader of the House (Mr Young), who is at the table, is not really giving the Opposition's amendment the consideration that it deserves. If he were a genuine member of parliament, rather than a time server in a socialist government, if he had a feeling for the Parliament as a parliament and for the history of the Parliament as a parliament, he would look at the arguments being advanced by the Opposition which suggest very clearly that all members of this Parliament, be they members of the House of Representatives or the Senate, should be required to undertake exactly the same responsibilities. But no, the Minister grins at his colleagues. That is his usual response when he is required to think. Matters of principle are at stake in this whole area. The first is whether there should be a requirement. As we know, that issue has already been decided. I opposed it. I still oppose it. I still think that it is wrong. I still think that it is an invasion of personal privacy, not only of members of parliament but more particularly of members of their immediate families. But that question has been dealt with. The second matter of principle is whether this requirement should be directed towards only members of the House of Representatives or all members of the Parliament. The Opposition strongly believes that this requirement should be imposed, if it is to be imposed at all, uniformly on all members of this Parliament, be they members of the House of Representatives or the Senate. It is up to the Government. The Government has not only the responsibility but also the opportunity to impose this requirement upon all members of this Parliament. I urge very strongly that, rather than rushing hastily into trying to put something on the books which in some way appeases the Government's socialist conscience, it considers the broader, more principled, approach that what applies to members of the House of Representatives should also apply to members of the Senate. This does not move away from an adherence to the requirements imposed by the Parliament on all members of the House of Representatives, but it seeks to impose that requirement on all members of the Parliament. To do so would be consistent; to do so would be logical. I urge the Government to accept the Opposition's amendment. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(10.26) —I appeal to the Opposition to withdraw its amendment. I do so not because I necessarily disagree with the sentiments expressed in the amendment but because it is my view that the amendment deals with a matter which will be dealt with by the Committee of Members' Interests. One of the terms of reference of the Committee is to consider what classes of persons, if any, other than members ought to be required to register and declare their interests. We know that any motions passed in this House are passed on party lines and would be considered to be binding on party members. It would seem ridiculous for members of the Committee from either side of the House to take a different point of view later when the Committee deals with these matters. I think it ought be left to the Committee set up by this House to look at the arguments in favour of doing the sort of thing that is proposed in the Opposition's amendment. As honourable members know, the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Young) proposes a period of 28 days from the time the forms are issued. Mr MacKellar —Do you have to report to the Parliament before you issue the forms? Dr KLUGMAN —No, I do not think we necessarily have to do that. The Committee could well come to the conclusion that it should ask the Parliament whether it really insists on members of the House of Representatives being the only ones to be issued with forms. This is quite apart from some of the other problems that arise. I can see many problems arising in respect of the instructions regarding registrable interests. I can see some reason for argument and I can see that some problems will arise. It is obvious that problems have arisen in the past. Mr Young —Are you the Chairman? Dr KLUGMAN —Yes. Some problems arose when Ministers were asked to provide something similar to what is now recommended. Of the 27 Ministers at least 14 or 15 admitted to making significant mistakes. I would argue that on top of that they all made at least one other mistake. I refer to the question about whether they have any other interests, such as membership of an organisation where a conflict of interest with a member's public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise. I would argue that it would be ridiculous for any of us not to include membership of a political party. The membership of a political party surely influences our decisions. We all give an undertaking to vote according to the decisions made by the political party to which we belong. I would say that it is extremely difficult for a Minister, whether he be from this side of the House or the other side of the House, to vote against a decision made by a Ministry, a Cabinet or a caucus meeting. If he does, he nearly always resigns. I can see arguments in favour of some of the things that happen in respect of such things as sponsored travel and hospitality received. I am thinking of people who go to countries such as Libya, Israel and the Soviet Union and who attend world peace council meetings or meetings of similar sorts of organisations. I think those sorts of things should be registered so that we know whether the kind of hospitality that was extended to them, regardless of whether or not it included Gaddafi watches, could possibly have influenced their point of view. I feel that all these sorts of things can be considered by this Committee. It appears to me to be a committee consisting of seven rational members of this House of Representatives. I do not think we should pre-empt one aspect. It is not as though honourable members have to fill in the forms tomorrow. Mr MacKellar —Don't you think it should report before that form goes out? Dr KLUGMAN —I think it is up to the Committee to make that decision. I have a feeling that the Committee will raise certain problems in a report before it finally decides that Mr Barlin should issue the forms. That is my view, but it was a very short meeting yesterday and I could be wrong about that. Mr Young —I think you should have another one. Dr KLUGMAN —We will have lots of meetings. I can see lots of problems arising before these forms are ready. I do not think we should go overboard now by passing something which could be considered to be binding on people in some way without having had a lengthy discussion at meetings of the Committee and hearing evidence for and against, including evidence from senators. My view is certainly that senators and journalists should be included. I am sure that many journalists are much more influential than any of us. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I seek leave to withdraw my amendment in light of the assurance of the Chairman of the Committee of Members' Interests. I do not want to interrupt the debate but I believe that if the amendment will in any way inhibit the consideration of the matter by the Committee there might be an advantage in our not proceeding with the amendment, although I in no way withdraw the meaning of the remarks I made a few moments ago. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —I think the Chairman of the Committee of Members' Interests has made a sound point. We withdraw the amendment on the basis that we do not retract anything we said, of course. But, if the Committee is prepared to look at the matter as broadly as the Chairman has suggested, we certainly think that is a good thing to do. Amendment-by leave-withdrawn. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(10.33) —I want to make a few brief comments. I refer to the manner in which the Leader of the House (Mr Young), who is sitting at the table, actually spoke his speech. With a look of feverish delight he looked across to this side of the chamber and asked: 'What are you hiding?'. I think this is one of the core problems of the matter: This is an act which the Minister supports but which is really not supported by the entire Parliament, either on this side or on the other side. This is a personal vendetta that the Minister is waging against members on this side of the House because of his background and because of the hangups that he developed. He is pursuing members of this chamber yet he is completely dismissing the fact that senators are not being forced at this time to do what he is prescribing for members of this House. For the people listening to this debate I will refer to a couple of the aspects of what the Minister has in mind in order to highlight what the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) said about this being an invasion of privacy. If a child of a member of parliament, during the life of the Parliament, is given a second hand push bike which is worth $110 by a grandparent, the member of parliament has to race to the Registrar of Members' Interests to advise him that little Johnnie, who is eight years old, has been given a push bike worth $110. I ask the Minister, every person sitting in the gallery and people listening to the broadcast of this debate whether they feel, as members on this side of the House feel, that we should say to the Minister who is sitting at the table that it is none of his business. There is absolutely no way that a gift such as that will have any influence on the thinking of members in this chamber or in the other chamber when they come to vote. I observe that in the 18 years I have sat in this place I have never seen a member here vote as a result of a pecuniary interest. I have seen members vote as a result of wishing to survive the wrath of a Whip and the wrath of their party but never because of a pecuniary interest. I sincerely believe that the integrity of members in this place is a lot higher than the impression that the Leader of the House, who is at the table is creating by this move, and I refer to those on the Australian Labor Party side, the National Party of Australia side and the Liberal Party side. I would like examples to be rolled out of where it is felt that a pecuniary interest caused a member to change his vote. I do not believe there is one example, and that goes for the Minister's side of the House as well. The Government is trying to dig into the possessions of wives and children as well as those of members. Surely when the Minister's pecuniary interests are declared some Paddington Bears will be listed and he will probably have to put them under the category of wife's possessions. Frankly, I could not care less-neither could my electorate-how many Paddington Bears he managed to bring into Australia. It has nothing to do with the administration of this nation. I said that my comments would be short and to the point. I also refer to the fact that if grandparents over the years give, say, $20 a year for each of their grandchildren's birthdays, and it mounts up, the children's savings accounts will have to be declared as a pecuniary interest. A child's account with a local Westpac Banking Corporation or Commonwealth Banking Corporation branch, which contains say $53 or more, according to the Minister at the table has to be declared. I ask the Minister: Is it any wonder that there is so much unrest on both his and my side of the chamber? Many members on his side have spouses in the work force, so from now on every little bit of interest that spouses can make will have to be declared. Heaven forbid, when Australia has to go to these lengths, we will put ourselves on skid row. The Government is creating mistrust in a system when, for a long time, there have been no public suggestions that people have exploited their positions here and had their outside interests as a prime concern. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.38) —I welcome the Opposition's decision to withdraw its amendment, but I do not welcome the comments of the Opposition members at the beginning of the debate. The instinct of Opposition members is to defend the propertied classes, the gentry, the classes that were for many years legislating in the Parliament for their own interests and not for the people of Australia. That is what the Opposition is doing and that is why our taxation system is in such a quagmire. Opposition members have never paid their taxes. They have protected those who were evading their taxes, and that is what they are trying to do again. Mr Ian Cameron —Why don't you go to Moscow? Mr KENT —This has nothing to do with Moscow. Honourable members pay their taxes here. The Opposition must not defend tax evaders. That is what we are talking about. Opposition members must not defend only the propertied classes who sent them to Parliament to do that. They must declare their interests. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) talked about little Johnnie getting a push bike worth $110, but he did not mention little Johnnie getting a family trust of $1m. How about that? Sir Garfield Barwick was good at family trusts. Mr Howard —Stop talking about your Treasurer like that. Mr KENT —The honourable member should shut up. He has been Treasurer. He had better keep quiet. He was in government for seven years and he ruined this country so he had better keep quiet on the Opposition benches. I am a member of the Committee of Members' Interests which will decide the way we will go about this matter. We can go about it in a sensible way. In every democracy it is only rightful to ask whether people have a clash of interests and to be able to establish those interests and verify them. People have to declare their interests. I do not mind being a member of that Committee and ironing out the difficulties in a fair way. We heard from the front runners in the Opposition, such as the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), who said that he had nothing to hide. Of course, two judicial inquiries were held in regard to the matters that he had to hide, so who can believe that he has nothing to hide? Another member of the Opposition, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who said that we cannot declare our interests carried into the country in his suitcase something which he would not declare. It was a black and white or colour television set. I question the credentials of members of the Opposition when they talk about a declaration of their interests. I do not mind debating this matter as a member of the Committee or in this House, but I warn honourable members that we will not use the debate to stall the issue. The question as to whether journalists should declare their interests will be debated, but that is a separate matter. In my opinion they are certainly in a different category. They do not legislate, but they have some influence because they report what members have said. That is sometimes very boring, I admit. But they do not affect legislation and they do not make the decisions. The decisions are made by the Parliament and I think the interests of members should be declared so that the public-the voters, the people of Australia-can see that there is no clash of interests as to whether members hold directorships, for instance, or properties, or whether they have not taken into account a million dollar investment in rural properties when they are fighting for rural subsidies. We want to be able to establish whether there is a clash of interest in that regard. The only way to establish that is for members to declare their interests. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.42) —If the purpose of the declaration that we are to make is to get on the record some kind of conflict of interest, it is as misconceived as the detail is incompetent. One needs only to look at it to see that some of the matters that are meant to be dealt with by declaration can have nothing to do with the work that we are meant to be doing in this place and are no more than a straightforward invasion of privacy. Let us look at some of the items dreamed up by the dunderheads on the other side of the House. One item is partnerships indicating the nature of the interest. Presumably, it is an interest in a partnership; it cannot be anything else. The activities of the partnership and the total amount of assets and liabilities-what relevance does the total amount of assets and liabilities have? It will certainly tell anybody who is interested in finding out whether a member is a good prospect to be knocked off and what is his worth. However, it has nothing to do with anything that a member does in this House. It cannot conceivably raise any question of conflict of interest. Let us look at another item-liabilities, excluding short term credit arrangements. If liabilities, are to be included why should we exclude short term credit arrangements? If we are looking for somebody who is experiencing difficulties, the short term credit arrangement-if it is included- will tell us a great deal more than the long term credit arrangement. Apparently, that is to be kept out. I wonder whether any members on the other side of the House have any short term credit arrangements which would be of some embarrassment if they were to reach the light of day. Anyway, they are not to be included. Members have to indicate the nature of any long term credit arrangements and the creditor concerned. Another item concerns savings or investment accounts. There must be a million or so savings accounts in this country. What possible relevance has that to any work that we do in this place? It has none. The same thing applies in relation to investment accounts. If a member has a savings account, he must not only say that he has it, but also indicate the nature and name of the bank or other institution concerned. Again, that will tell people in the criminal sector of our country just how one stands. That, it can be said, is a thief's charter. Another matter concerns the nature of any other assets, including collections. Is that not brilliant? We all know that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has a collection, of antique French clocks, I think, and he is on the record as saying proudly that he is a much better collector than any Tory. If we really want to keep the housebreakers of this country advised about things, let us state the nature of any collection and tell them where the collection is to be found so they can come in and knock us over. If we are going to have a declaration of interests of members of this House it is only sensible, as the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) pointed out, that the declaration of interests should be common to both Houses. It should be common in form and should be entered into at the same time. It is nonsense to operate on the assumption that in some way the interests of members of one House should be made public but the interests of members of another House should not be; each House having co-equal powers, save with certain exceptions. The last point to make is that if this Committee of Members' Interests is to do any sensible work-if we are to have this invasion of privacy perpetrated upon us-when it sits it should ask itself the question: What is meant by a conflict of interest? The next question it should ask itself is: What interests are likely to give rise or may possibly give rise to a conflict between interest and duty? They should put to one side some of those matters which I have referred to as irrelevant, dangerous and a gross and unwarranted invasion of privacy. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(10.47) —I am concerned that the withdrawal of the amendment moved by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) will mean that we will now be voting specifically for the latter parts of the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Young), which adopt the procedures set out previously by the parental resolution concerning this matter of pecuniary interests. I do not believe that if the Senate, also under Australian Labor Party direction, also introduces this measure that will make the measure any more proper or right than we believed it to be when we opposed it in this House on the first occasion it was debated here. I would have supported the amendment of the Leader of the National Party on the basis that it was some form of protest. I believe it is best that we as a House put off the operation of this proposal to a time far removed from the present, to a time when we can further consider the full ramifications. It is quite obviously ridiculous that a Minister of this Government who so offended the security of this nation by leaking information in a car park in this city that he was warned by a judge and by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) should have transgressed again and should have been subjected to further inquiry about a different matter of probity in relation to the operation of his ministerial responsibilities. If he did not learn the first time, I put it to the House, what would he have learned the second time? What, therefore, in what is proposed here, would prevent him from doing something further? I believe that the declaration of that Minister's pecuniary interests will do nothing to lift his desire to fulfil properly his responsibilities to the Australian community. We can distil this to the point of absurdity. Why is every elector, who has the first and primary responsibility of deciding this country's future, not required to make some sort of pecuniary interest declaration? If members are so to declare their interests, what about the persons who have the first and primary responsibility? Of course, that reduces the whole proposition to an absolute nonsense and farce. In any event, the Leader of the National Party has again fully canvassed the reasons why we ought not to be involved in this at all. I believe that in now supporting the motion of the Leader of the House we are beginning to support all the arrangements which we objected to so vigorously previously. On that basis, and without taking further time of the House, I move as an amendment: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the operation of the resolution adopted by the House on 9 October 1984, a.m. relating to the registration and declaration of Members' Interests be deferred until the commencement of the 35th Parliament'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.50) —I second the amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, and in so doing I demonstrate my support of the words expressed by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) when he identified the complete and utter ridiculousness of the situation that the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Young) and the original resolution would impose. At one stage I thought that for the first time in my married life I would find out how much money my wife had in her bank accounts. She has always failed to tell me. However, on my telling her that this matter was coming forward again she told me that I still am not going to find out because she is not going to be part of that declaration. I assure honourable members that the money which she has managed to save throughout our married life and has in a few bank accounts is not going to affect any decision which I take in this place. The simple and very good reason for that is that we trust each other and I know that she would not try to influence anything that I did in this place. That is just by the way. Let us get down to some of the serious matters members of the Government have left out of their silly motion. We all know that our bank accounts do not affect our decisions in this place. We all know those sorts of things. We all know, for example, that the value of our homes has little effect in this regard. We all know that if we are concerned about mortgage interest rates it is on behalf of our constituents that we are concerned and not on behalf of ourselves. We know that that is so for very good reasons. If we want to get down to it, one good reason is that we want to keep our positions in this place. But what has the Government left out again? What about rich and powerful friends? Do not let honourable members opposite tell me that rich and powerful friends cannot have influence. Of course, they have influence. Yesterday we heard the Government's moralistic Treasurer (Mr Keating) worrying about the casino situation in the Northern Territory. Government members-So he should. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, so he should. I am glad to hear honourable members opposite say that. Some Labor members of Parliament in Queensland were very moralistic about a certain Robert J. L. Hawke running around trying to get the casino licence up there for Eddie Kornhauser. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will refer to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Deputy Speaker, he was not the Prime Minister when he was running around up there; he was the honourable member for Wills. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will heed the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —I am happy to repeat that the honourable member for Wills was running around Queensland trying to get a casino licence for Eddie Kornhauser, a close friend. Is that a matter of influence? Of course it is a matter of influence. It is a matter of public record-we can read it in the Blanche D'Alpuget book-that certain very big people used to run around and take him for rides in their Rolls Royces and give him the keys to drive their cars. Now he is one of those who has to take a decision on whether Ansett Airlines of Australia is allowed to compete with Qantas Airways Ltd. I have a funny feeling that his mind is small enough to be influenced sufficiently by that Rolls Royce to give that particular gentleman a chance. Is that a conflict of interest? Why is that interest not being declared? That is absolute stupidity. We know the Prime Minister never has to worry too much about his bank accounts because he carries it all in his brief case. Why do we not have to declare what we keep in our brief cases? What about that? No, we do not have to declare that. Why do we not have to declare how much foreign currency we get? What about identifying our traveller's cheques? After all, that would be pretty simple. Why do we not have to do that? Let us look at this matter in all seriousness. Let us look at the fact that the Senate is not going to do anything about this. I repeat, the Senate is not going to do anything about this. The Government wants to impose a situation on the Opposition, which it will prove in a few minutes has no power to make decisions in this place. Yet the Government accepts that there will be no such constraints on senators, who individually can roll the Government's legislation any time they wish. That is silly, is it not? Yet honourable members opposite will go along with that. Knowing how Government members will vote in a few minutes, let us accept that we should give a bit of advice to the Committee of Members' Interests. I sincerely hope that when the Committee gets its priorities into place it will realise that it has a responsibility to investigate first those members who have the greatest opportunity to influence this country-the Ministers, starting with the Prime Minister. I am quite happy to give the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) a bit of advice if he gets lost investigating the Prime Minister. We have a bit of evidence for him. When the Committee finishes with the Prime Minister I suggest that it starts on the Treasurer. I think it is reasonable for the Treasurer, in the declaration of his pecuniary interests, to declare how a clerk working for a union can, after 16 years in this place on the penurious salary that is paid in this place, accumulate millions of dollars. That might be an interesting inquiry. I am not exactly sure to what extent it would become a conflict of interests. I merely put to the House that the Treasurer is a very wealthy man and I do not know how he has achieved that wealth. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor is getting close to impugning members' motives. Mr TUCKEY —I will say no more on that matter, Madam Chair. These are some of the issues. I would be very concerned if the Committee were to ask special questions of any member of the House, any back bencher, unless it would assure us that it had adequately inquired into those who take the big decisions and who deal with the big bickies, where influence and conflict of interest really count. The back benchers of this place are the area of government most removed from the problems of conflict of interest. It starts down in local government. We happen to know that in New South Wales the conflict of interest resides with power brokers there. It is they who make or break councillors, but it is councillors who take decisions on development. Mr Gear —Not at Carnarvon. MR TUCKEY —I was talking about New South Wales where the honourable member's Party in particular has badly corrupted the local government scene. The reality is that they are matters for conflict. Senior party officials are not to be included in the motion, but only back benchers who are so distanced from the situation. Mr Price —Read today's Herald. Mr Sinclair —About the police and Wran's cover-up, do you mean? Mr TUCKEY —We know a little about those situations, but I am more interested in the type of actions the Committee might take. It might ask for a little more information than the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) gave us about Coomel Pty Ltd. We had to dig that out. What a surprise arose out of that. At what stage will a Minister be influenced in his decisions on tax when he has made some rather peculiar ones himself? Let us get back to the point. If Government members want this type of motion, let them be dinkum about it. Let them guarantee to the Australian people that they are all clean, because that is where it should start. Before Government members get into these sorts of areas, they should stop and think about a declaration of past activities that might give some person great influence. Mr Keogh —What about yours? Mr TUCKEY —I am quite happy. Mine are all out in the arena. Nobody influences me. Nobody has been able to frighten me in my lifetime, and the blokes opposite have learned that. The Minister for Trade thought he was going to put me down, and if the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) wants me to start on him, I will take my time and do it. He should keep quiet. He does not know what he is talking about. He has not the power of sitting in the chair at the moment. It is my turn, so be quiet. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member for O'Connor that it is the Chair which decides who will be quiet. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Madam Chair. I will rely on your protection in the future. Let us think about people who have taken actions that may allow pressure to be applied to them so that there is conflict with their interests. There are activities that I can bring to the attention of the House very quickly. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) might consider that position when he is addressing his information to the Committee. There are plenty of others. I sincerely hope that everybody in declaring his pecuniary interests does not forget one little thing: It seems peculiar, and I do not know why, but mail keeps coming to me and I am anxious to assist the Committee in its inquiries. Mr McVeigh —And you won't charge for it, will you? Mr TUCKEY —I will not charge a penny, and I will volunteer it with goodwill. I think I have made my point that this is a foolish motion. The obvious solution is that which has been proposed by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall)-withdraw the motion. Because people work slowly in these matters and minds take a little while to understand, a period of three years should be given for the Committee to write a sensible pecuniary interests proposition, if at the end of that period the Government thinks it worth while. It is governments that must answer to the people; it is governments that must be squeaky clean. All those in government should make sure that they are squeaky clean before they move to this side of the House to muck around. Unfortunately, the Opposition has not yet got the power to influence the decisions of this Government. People in the Senate do, but the Government does not intend to ask senators to do anything because it cannot stand over them. The reality is that it is the Government's responsibility now, it is in the Government's hands, and the Government must wear it. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(11.00) — It is interesting to note that the House is hearing from the other side a recycling of arguments that have been put to this Parliament for the last 12 years. Nothing changes. Having heard the honourable member for O'Connor speak on this issue I would inform him that of over 600 members the only person in the House of Commons who opposed the introduction of the tabling of details of members' pecuniary interests was Enoch Powell. So there has to be something similar running through their veins here. One had the feeling that at Thredbo the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) must have been drinking petrol, judging by the way he spoke about this issue. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) took the opportunity to bring me under some personal attack to try to camouflage this issue. Can one imagine, with all the tactics the Opposition can adopt, three worse people being put up? Should the right honourable member for New England point the finger at anybody in Australia about somebody being a crook? For God's sake, $500,000 went missing out of the family funds and no one knew where it went. Mr Sinclair —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask that the Minister withdraw that imputation. It is neither correct, nor is it the sort of remark that should be made. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House will withdraw. Mr YOUNG —I withdraw. The fact is that the right honourable member for New England has been highlighted over a number of years for his activities and yet he stands before this House and says 'This is terrible', that I am personally involved and that this is crook because I am putting it forward. He is a great man of the people and will stand up for their rights. It is the same thing Opposition members have been saying for 12 years in trying to prevent proper practice in this House. The honourable member for Boothby says that this matter should be put off for another three years because it has not been looked at. I remind the honourable member for Boothby that the right honourable member for New England and several of his colleagues-the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), the former member for Braddon (Mr Groom), and others-were for the last two years on the committee that brought down this recommendation. We made several changes in the motion based on the propositions put to the Committee by Opposition members. It is not as if this motion comes before this House not having been considered. Mr Rocher —On a point of order, I remind the Minister that, although some of us sat on that committee, we submitted a dissenting report. He should mention that to complete the story. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! No point of order is involved. Mr YOUNG —In the final analysis when they were asked to vote on it, they said that they did not want it because that is the traditional conservative party attitude on this issue. I am saying that the motion encompasses some changes as a result of suggestions put forward to the Committee by Opposition members. We did not just come in here and say 'This is the way it will be' when we put the motion down on 9 October 1984. It does encompass some of the views which honourable members opposite put forward on behalf of their parties. They know the intent of the Parliament. The resolution was carried in 1983. It took almost two years for the Standing Orders Committee to look at it. The great argument from the other side seems to be that if we are not going to do something in the Senate, we should not do it in the House of Representatives. I ask honourable members opposite to understand and accept that the House of Representatives has the government of Australia. The Senate may want to sit around, as it seems to do. The Senate has had this issue before it for a couple of years, and it has not even been put on the agenda. The House of Representatives has the government of Australia. The honourable member for Moreton says that someone will have to worry about his eight-year old son getting a $100 bike. As the honourable member received three hundred thousand bucks out of the parliamentary superannuation fund, I would not have thought that he would have been so lousy. I would have thought he would have bought his son a decent bike, registered it and shown himself for what he is; namely, a kind hearted, generous person who got three hundred thousand bucks out of the superannuation scheme. We just hope that the honourable member invests it wisely and shows us that he has the potential to sit on the front bench. For God's sake, these are some of the arguments the Opposition uses against what we are trying to do! What the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) says is right. We laid down the guidelines in the resolution of 9 October. We have now extended the time for compliance. It may well be that the Committee of Members' Interests will come to the Government and say that there are certain proposals it wants to put before Parliament in relation to the operation of this resolution. The Government will look at those proposals and the Parliament can debate the matter again. But there can be no diverting from the Government's intention that this practice will be carried out for members of the House of Representatives. We have been saying that since 1973. The right honourable member for New England said that this procedure is practised within the present Ministry, as it was with previous Government's Ministry. The only difference is that we have said that all members of parliament should comply, and not just Ministers. That is the way it will be. Mr Sinclair —Where is your's, Mick? Why did the Prime Minister not table yours? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr YOUNG —It is quite okay, Madam Deputy Speaker, because my pecuniary interests were given to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in exactly the same way as were other Ministers'. Mr Sinclair —You did not table them. Mr YOUNG —They were not tabled because I did not happen to be in the Ministry when the declarations were tabled. All honourable members opposite have to fathom out is that no more declarations have since been tabled. Mr Sinclair —Are you not going to table the Customs form this time? Mr YOUNG —I can tell the right honourable member for New England that if he wants to swap his declaration with mine, his will make a lot more interesting reading than will mine. If the right honourable member wants to swap comic books-- Mr Cadman —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I invite the Minister to table the form now. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order; that is quite frivolous. Mr YOUNG —My declaration will be tabled in compliance with the rules applying to all other Ministers. It will be done in exactly the same way and at exactly the same time. I can assure the honourable member that it will not prove all that interesting. Mr Hodgman —As an expert on forms, will you help the new members in filling in their forms? Mr YOUNG —Yes, I certainly will. I say to the honourable member that my advice on forms would be better than his advice on horses. If new members want a little more advice I can advise them not to use the same vaseline that the honourable member uses. The Government will continue in the way in which it intended it should continue when it gave notice of this matter in 1983. Over the last two years the Standing Orders Committee has done an enormous amount of work on this matter. If the Committee comes back to Parliament with further suggestions they will be looked at. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Steele Hall's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H.Brown, John Langmore, J. V.Brown, Robert Lee, M.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J.Jones, Barry Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J.Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Everingham, P. A. E. Smith, W.Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M.Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Darling, E. E. Moore, J. C.Hollis, C. McGauran, P. J.Dawkins, J. S. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 27 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(11.17) —I am delivering this speech in the second reading debate on behalf of my colleague the honourable member for Gywdir (Mr Hunt), who is presently in a dentist's chair having some root therapy treatment. All of us who know Ralph would hope that the dentist is not hurting him too much. We send him a cheerio call and hope that the drill is running in honey rather than in water. On behalf of the Opposition and the honourable member for Gwydir, I move the following amendment: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that other factors such as export inspection charges are causing problems for primary industries including the honey industry'. That amendment will be seconded by my colleague, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). The Opposition supports this legislation but is moving an amendment drawing attention to the problems associated with inspection charges. The main purpose of the Bill is to alter the Honey Levy Acts (Nos. 1 and 2) of 1962 to allow producers to lodge annual returns instead of monthly returns. These returns are used to strike a levy on domestic sales and the levy proceeds fund industry research programs and the operation of the Australian Honey Board. No significant change to revenue will result from this Bill. In 1984-85 the total levy payable on domestic sales will be about $302,000. Of this, $22,000 will be contributed by about 300 producers. They are the larger scale producers selling or using more than 600 kilograms a year. The bulk of the levy, some $280,000, is to be paid by a relatively small group of 26 honey dealers. The dealers will continue to lodge their returns once a month. The current rate of the levy is 2.45c per kilogram, of which 2.2c funds the Honey Board and 0.25c is channelled into research. This domestic levy is one of two levies struck on the honey industry. The other smaller levy applies to exports and is administered under the Honey Export Charge Act of 1973. The Opposition supports this Bill because of assurances that it will not adversely affect either the research programs or the operation of the Honey Board. The Honey Board and research have helped to strengthen the industry, which was described in the Industries Assistance Commission report issued last Friday as: . . . relatively economically efficient and well suited to Australia's resources endowment and trading environment. The industry's continued strength is important, not only to those to whom it provides income and employment, but also to the wider Australian community. Like so many other primary industries, the honey industry does not only satisfy domestic market needs but also draws significant export income. Over the past five years, between 40 and 60 per cent of the total honey and bees wax production has been exported, returning $10m to $14m per annum. This is a most beneficial export industry. This export performance would not have been achieved but for the efforts of the Honey Board. Established in 1962, the Board's primary function was to fix minimum prices according to grades of honey. I pay a tribute to the first Chairman of the Honey Board, Mr Keith Mitchell, who is a former distinguished constituent of mine. His efforts certainly deserve to be placed on record in this Parliament. At the time of the Board's establishment, overseas buyers were attempting to play off one Australian dealer against another, to the point where declining producer income threatened the stability of the industry. The problem disappeared virtually overnight with the introduction of the Honey Board. The industry now enjoys more stable export returns both to dealers and producers. The main influences with which they must now contend are world supply, price levels and fluctuations in the value of the Australian dollar. In view of the successful operation of the Board, I call on the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to state clearly whether he intends to undertake a review of the Board's role and functions. Should the Minister be planning such a review, no doubt to make changes, the Minister must give an assurance that maximum opportunity will be provided to the industry to participate. Regrettably, there have been a number of instances recently where the Minister for Primary Industry appears to have set one section of an industry against another. The most recent example has been his rumoured decision to abandon the dairy industry's national marketing plan, which has now received the unanimous endorsement of not only producer bodies but also all State governments. There is widespread concern that the Hawke Labor Government has performed a massive con trick on the dairy industry and will implement another plan which will have a devastating effect on the industry. Mr Snow —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that we are debating a honey Bill, not a dairy Bill, and the honourable member is discussing what he states is proposed dairy legislation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I thank the honourable member. I trust the honourable member for Groom will make the rest of his remarks relevant to the Honey Levy Legislation Amendment Bill. Mr McVEIGH —Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact-and I say this without any ill will-that if the member for Eden-Monaro read the long title of the Bill, he would understand that it is quite appropriate to use examples from another industry to indicate what should not be occurring in this industry. I will be kind to the honourable gentleman and say that it was not a frivolous point of order; it was a point of order made from someone who is largely and vastly inexperienced in the procedures of this place. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will the honourable member for Groom now get back to his speech? We will be interested to hear the analogy which he draws. Mr McVEIGH —I quote from a telex last Thursday from the Chairman of the Australian Dairy Industry Conference, Mr John Bennett: The Commonwealth's proposal to introduce the market milk price as a variable determining the level of domestic manufactured product prices is an insidious attempt to divide the industry. I was talking previously about dividing the dairy industry and I used what happened in the dairy industry as an example of what the Minister must not do in the honey industry. The Minister would do well to heed these remarks. That is the pertinent point I was making when I was rather rudely interrupted. The primary producers of Australia will see right through any attempt to divide and to rule. The honey industry will not accept any repeat of the Minister's transparent attempts to impose unjustified and unwelcome changes. If the Minister wants to reassure the honey industry that he does not have some alternative plans up his sleeve he must spell out why a review is necessary and, if so, what the objectives of that review are. The Minister has a duty urgently to clarify his intentions. The growing export market for Australian honey and beeswax also focuses attention on the Hawke Labor Government's attempt to force unrealistic export inspection charges on the industry. Inspections have been provided at no cost to the industry. That was the decision of the Fraser-Anthony coalition Government and it is our policy. The Hawke Labor Government has tried to impose charges with a ceiling of $24 a tonne. The Opposition shares the concern of the industry that this figure is excessive and unacceptable. Having proposed an unrealistic ceiling and naturally finding this rejected by the industry, the Minister has now abolished regular inspection services. In 1982 the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations proposed that the honey inspection procedures be replaced with a system of limited random sampling and testing of honey by the Department of Primary Industry. Now the Hawke Labor Government and the Minister for Primary Industry have introduced a no charge, no service plan. This ignores the objective of the Export Inspection Service; that is, to provide a system of inspections which will detect any misgrading or other problems which could damage our export trade. This revenue-hungry Government appears to be ignoring the need for routine inspections for the sake of its own short term Budget expenditure savings. It seems prepared to risk our export standards because it has badly overspent in its first two years in office and is now desperate to recover some of that lost ground at the expense, unfortunately, of our productive export industries. To place export standards at risk because of its misguided budgetary priorities is quite simply not good enough. The Hawke Labor Government must recognise that it has a responsibility not only to the export primary industries but to all Australians to ensure that adequate inspection standards are maintained. I turn briefly to the Industry Assistance Commission's report of 4 May 1984 which was released publicly on Friday. The Acting Minister for Primary Industry announced that the recommendation not to provide for additional assistance at this time would be adopted. The Acting Minister also indicated that the state of the industry would continue to be monitored. I urge the Minister to honour the undertaking to monitor the industry, especially given the volatility of world prices. Although the 17 per cent devaluation of the Australian dollar in February has helped to increase export returns, the world market has been characterised by sharp fluctuations in prices and by substantial changes to world supply, in particular from the People's Republic of China. The Opposition supports the legislation in principle. I commend to the Government the role of the Australian Honey Board and the important research work funded by the domestic levy. I urge the Minister to ensure that these functions continue without any further bureaucratic meddling or disruption. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tuckey —I second the amendment. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(11.31) —The honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), true to his own tradition, dragged in a number of side issues in speaking to the Honey Levy Legislation Amendment Bill which, of course, relates to honey. One would have thought, from his speech, that we were talking about increasing the levy charges which apply to the honey industry. There is nothing in the Bill which does anything to alter charges. There is nothing in the Bill which is not welcomed by the industry. We are talking about a very important industry. The honey industry is an $11m export industry and at the moment domestic consumption of honey is at an all time high. Like most primary industries the honey industry is self-sufficient, but it has not been helped by inefficient administration mechanisms. If we are serious about promoting Australia's primary production, government regulations must help, not hinder, this major sector of exports. The present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has more than talked about primary industry. He has brought about long-overdue reforms in many of our rural industries, not only in the honey industry. He has brought about major reforms in the fishing, dairying and wheat industries, in meat marketing and inspection, feral animal control and soil conservation. As with the many Bills already introduced by the Hawke Labor Government's Minister for Primary Industry, this Bill will mean less cost for the honey industry. The provisions in the Honey Levy Acts at present require monthly levy returns. The Bill will amend this by introducing annual returns instead. I have found nothing but support for that concept from the industry. Currently, both honey producers and dealers are required to submit a levy return and to pay levy due each month. This amounts to over $300,000 a year. There are over 3,600 returns each year, with 92 per cent of them returning only $22,000. The Bill before the House will reduce this to 300 returns. The effort and cost per year involved in processing such a large number of forms for so little return is very large, both for government and for people in the industry itself. We had seven years of talk about reducing Public Service administrative loads and about reducing government controls on primary industry, but there was never any action on matters such as this. This is another notch in the success story of the Minister. He has increased efficiencies in many rural industries, thereby saving the Government, the taxpayer and rural producers unnecessary costs and onerous paperwork. New South Wales has the largest number of Australia's 2,500 apiarists, with more than half of the country's beehives. Many of these are in the electorate of Eden-Monaro. Indeed, the New South Wales President of the Beekeepers' Association, Mr Noel Bingley, resides and produces honey near Queanbeyan. Eden-Monaro also has a significant proportion of export beeswax which is a $1.6m export industry for Australia. Local apiarists in the south-eastern region of New South Wales are very enterprising. One example is the use of tourist points along the south-east coast to sell locally produced honey and the very tasty honeycomb. These enterprising people include the Grubers, the Shepherds and the Tansons of Queanbeyan. The Kockens, Frosts, Westaways and Cochranes, the Eden Beeline and the Whitbys are among many producers on the coast and the tablelands. It is good to see that honey consumption is up not only in the region but also in the whole of Australia. For many years I have had a drink every morning consisting of one teaspoonful of honey, one teaspoonful of apple cider and a squeeze of lemon juice in hot water. Mr Braithwaite —That is how you lost your hair. Mr SNOW —It has not helped my hair, so I do not recommend it to the honourable member for Dawson for that. It is alleged to prevent arthritis and stop people from over-eating. The honourable member for Dawson, like me, is not suffering from that problem. I do not know how true that folklore is, but I do know that that drink is very pleasant and certainly very healthy Eden-Monaro, with its milk and cheese areas at Milton-Ulladulla, Bodalla, Tilba, Cobargo, the Bega Valley and Bemboka and its many honey enterprises, can be called the land of milk and honey. In this Bill the Government shows its interest in honey. The Government's general economic policy has also helped the honey industry. The Government's move to deregulate the Australian dollar will further boost the honey industry by providing a purchase incentive to importing countries. Australia is ideally suited to the production of honey with numerous bee forage plants and a favourable climate. A constituent of Eden-Monaro, Lisa Brown, has drawn my attention to the potential for broadening honey variety and increasing production by the widescale planting of additional native species that have a multi-purpose value and are attractive to bees. I note that the Industries Assistance Commission in its recent report on the honey industry has recommended increased funding for honey research. Lisa Brown's ideas for broadening the bee forage environment may be an area of appropriate focus, especially now that Paterson's curse is under threat from biological control. The beekeeping industry not only provides substantial domestic and export income but also has other benefits for rural production such as crop pollination. The efficiency of honeybees as pollinating agents is recognised world wide. Many agricultural and horticultural crops, such as sunflowers and rape seed, benefit from pollination not only in terms of increased production but also in terms of improved produce and storage qualities. For instance, honeybees have been shown to be essential or at least beneficial to fruit set on apples, cherries, some cultivars of pears, some cultivars of peaches, apricots, Japanese plums, loganberries and feigoas. In addition to rural benefits, there are benefits to consumers of a totally nutritious, natural and relatively inexpensive product. I commend the Government for its support of this important industry by the introduction of the Honey Levy Legislation Amendment Bill. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.34) —As the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) has informed the House, the Opposition has no complaint with the moves the Government has made to facilitate the payment of various levies associated with the honey industry. However, I would like to take this opportunity in the interests of that industry to raise an issue which will affect the future export of honey. It is a matter that I hope the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), with his interest in trade and other matters, will consider. As is commonly the case, government-I say that advisedly; I am not referring to just the Labor Government-has got behind in recognising changed eating habits and other things. This applies in particular to the present great interest in health foods. I do not think that anyone would argue that honey is and always has been considered a health food. Unfortunately, in our attempts to present it as a very marketable product we have decided to classify it by colour in the honey export control licence regulations. This has meant that some of the more popular varieties of honey in this day and age have been ignored. An interesting example of this would be Western Australian jarrah honey. In fact, recently I had the privilege of tasting Tasmanian leatherwood honey. These honeys, which have unique flavours, are not a bright golden colour. Apparently we downgrade some of our honey because the regulations require that it should be classified by colour. A special section of Form 3 under regulation 12 requires a reading in millimetres according to the pfund colour grade. Apparently quite accurate classifications are set in respect of colour. It is a great pity that we should be doing this. To achieve the desired colour one has to remove any impurities. By 'impurities' I am not talking about dangerous materials. I am talking about things such as wax and pollen that bees happen to put in honey. As honourable members know, pollen is very fine. Filtration is the method used to remove impurities. Honey is very thick and the only way to get it to run is to heat it. I think we all agree that bees know more about honey than anybody else and bees go to great lengths not to let their honey get hot. In fact, apiarists would tell us that bees will do everything in their power to keep the honey in their hives below 80 degrees Fahrenheit. They do this by literally fanning the honey as well as bringing in and evaporating water in the hive. Bees have apparently discovered that their honey, which is their sole source of nutrition, is best looked after by not letting it get hot. Yet, because we want honey to look pretty, we heat it to a temperature well over 80 degrees Fahrenheit and probably closer to boiling point so that we can put it through a fine sieve to remove the impurities. People who are interested in the health aspects of honey have resisted the practice of removing impurities. They want it in the form in which it comes out of the hive. They accept the impurities and in fact would argue that the wax and pollen probably are good for people and add to the nutritional value of honey. We do not stop people from exporting honey containing impurities, but we require that they call it manufacturing grade honey. Wise people who use this honey for purposes other than manufacturing reduce the price that they are prepared to pay for it, whereas there is a substantial market and demand overseas for that type of honey. I make no criticism at all of that because, as I say, this situation has existed for some time. However, the reality is that government and those people controlling the honey industry clearly should be looking at how better to describe export honey which has not been filtered and which therefore has not been interfered with. Maybe such honey should be described as natural honey. Surely it should not be described as manufacturing grade honey, because this in some way implies that the honey is second class. I have a constituent who has identified the demand for this honey and wishes to export it. I notice that the regulations give a lot of consideration to the price that overseas importers pay for our honey. Clearly by categorising certain honeys as manufacturing grade we are removing the opportunity for our honey producers to bargain for higher prices when they choose to export honey. As I said, I am not being confrontationist at all. I hope that every word I have said shows that this is the case. I would like to think that the Government will consider the problems created by the present classification of honey according to its colour. It is assumed that this classification is some evidence of the quality of honey. However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with quality. In fact, many people would argue that darker coloured honey has unique flavours and is sought after. In the case of golden coloured honey, it appears to me that, as with many other products we have produced in the past, we want to take out all the flavour and goodness before eating it. We have recognised that that is not in the interests of our health. I raise that matter and ask that the Minister give consideration to it. It is a pity, because we do not frequently in this Parliament deal with matters relating to honey, that we have missed such a good opportunity to reconsider those things. The Australian Honey Board, which this Bill funds, might start to think about them. I point out that by moving this amendment we have sought the opportunity to express our concern as to some of the export practices of our rural industries. I got a shock recently when following up an inquiry from a gentleman in Hong Kong. He wanted to buy some Australian apples. I thought that was pretty good. I would have liked to have sold him the lot because I am aware that the Australian apple industry suffers from a lack of export markets. He was a person I had met. I did not know just what he wanted. He wanted Tasmanian apples, unfortunately. I contacted a Western Australian supplier and asked: 'Can we match those apples?' He said: 'No, we can't, but I know a chap who can get him those apples'. The man I had met wanted a container full as an initial order. The Western Australian supplier asked: 'But has he got a licence?' I said: 'What do you mean, ''has he got a licence?'', he's got money'. He said: 'Oh no, he has to have a licence to import Australian apples into Hong Kong'. In fact, we issue licences only once a year. I got a little irate about that, but I have to admit that the licensing people were able to get around that problem. But I still wonder why we have a law which says that a person has to have a licence to buy our products. I can see good reason to give people a licence to export a product because we wish to maintain our standards and reputations overseas. Anyway, I just raise that point. Having done so, in referring to the amendment which I have seconded, I would also like to touch on the great problems in one of our biggest rural export industries, the meat industry. I will be brief. I hope I do not take all the time allocated to me. My great concern-I have mentioned it before-is the development of the Australian Government supervised Moslem slaughter system. That is the system which applies to the exporting of our rural products in relation to halal slaughter. Mr Kerin —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Bill is about a very simple amendment to honey legislation. It is not about apples, cows, halal slaughter or anything the honourable member is talking about. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I point out to the Minister that the amendment reads: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that other factors such as export inspection charges are causing problems for primary industries including the honey industry'. That makes the debate fairly wide-ranging. We have been talking about honey, Australian natives and apples and we are about to talk about meat. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the seconder of the amendment I wish to address some of the matters the Opposition seeks to raise. Again, I just wish to make sure that the Minister is aware of my continuing concern and the meat industry's continuing concern about what is happening in the halal slaughter area. It is a substantial area of our export industry. It involves the religious ceremonies required for the slaughter of animals to go to certain export markets within Moslem areas, particularly the Middle East. I have called the Minister's attention to a development of great concern in that one religious group is setting out to gain a monopoly in that area and, by so doing, is affecting our export industry. After gaining a substantial percentage of the market the first thing this group seems to have done is to increase the cost to the export industry. The Minister is probably aware that the meat processing industry has, in fact, complained bitterly about this development, where it is going and the Export Inspection Service inasmuch as the Service has been unable to deal with this matter. In fact, it seems to have little intention of doing so. It is now conducting a review, but it is being told things like this: The fundamental flaw in AGSMS is that it is draconian. It is based on the premise that: E.I.S. should provide an elaborate set of Regulations governing each and every aspect of Halal policy and operations AGSMS was promoted to Industry as being the means of solving the three problems arising with Halal. 1. Integrity of product and certification 2. Avoidance of a monopoly by any one Islamic Body- in fact, that is happening day by day- 3. Regulation of certain fees. Industry was assured by Government that overseas countries had welcomed AGSMS AGSMS was being developed with the support of all interested parties . . . AGSMS would reduce and, preferably, eliminate excessive demands for slaughter and certification costs; and counter moves for any one Islamic Body to create a monopoly. That was said again. The reply was that AGSMS: has not been ''welcomed'' by importing countries. was not developed with the support of all Islamic Bodies. In fact, months after implementation, at least one Body stated it was not committed to AGSMS. It has still not been satisfactorily evidenced that such commitment has been given. These are responsibilities of the Export Inspection Service. The document I have states that AGSMS: has not countered the move towards a monopoly by a single Islamic Body. In fact evidence shows that AGSMS may have contributed to monopolisation of Halal slaughter and certification They are all responsibilities of the Government and its Export Inspection Service, a service which, since 1979-80, has increased in cost from $31m a year for the killing of 8.8 million cattle and 30.5 million sheep to over double that, $79m a year, in 1983-84 for a reduced kill of 7 million cattle and 24 million sheep. Of course, AGSMS applies mostly to the slaughter of sheep. But the people complaining go on to state that AGSMS: has not been able to regulate slaughter and certification costs. AGSMS offers the Industry no protection from excessive demands for such costs. This is the point I am making-- In fact AFIC- that is, the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils-- refuses to co-operate with the Government's Fee Justification Tribunal. In fact, it is doing something worse than that. I have now a legal opinion which I have referred to the Trade Practices Commission. That opinion certainly suggests that breaches of the Trade Practices Act by this group are occurring. It is interesting that the solicitor who wrote that report in one part, when referring to the Department of Primary Industry, said: It is not necessary to set out the somewhat unconvincing reasons advanced by the Department for its decision. That is not a rural person speaking; that is a lawyer giving a legal opinion. He is not convinced by the sorts of arguments that the Department has put up. Of course, these are the sorts of things that the industry, particularly the processing sector, is complaining about. It is complaining that costs will continue to rise and that that will eventually result in lower prices to the producers, who are already sorely pressed. The document goes on to state that AGSMS: grossly overregulates Industry. That is just another complaint. The document continues: AGSMS has been ineffective in areas in which Industry hoped it could be useful. AGSMS is inappropriate in that it incorrectly confers on E.I.S. a most detailed and substantial role in Australia's Halal Trade. As such it underutilizes or ignores the proper roles and responsibilities of other Groups. Of course, I could go on. The reality is that this system is a total failure. The Government has ignored totally my protestations in the previous Parliament that there had been this development of a very nasty monopoly by a particular religious organisation, probably in breach of our trade practices legislation. I am constantly amazed at the activities of the Trade Practices Commissioner. He is, unfortunately, very selective in the cases he chooses to prosecute, particularly in regard to secondary boycotts applied by the union movement. I hope he will seriously consider the problem that this group is causing. It is denying people the right to work. It is demanding that they should not be certified as slaughtermen other than by its organisation, and it is refusing them the right to work if they refuse to be solely committed to that group. These are things of which the Government and the Department are well aware. They are matters that a strong government would overcome. It is a pity that for the umpteenth time I have had to raise this matter in this place. If the Government will not recognise the problems and the rights of meat producers surely it will look at the rights of certain individuals to be employed under certification and with the sorts of detailed religious affiliations they have. This is being denied them. They must now either be members of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils or they find it very difficult to find work as Islamic slaughtermen. Other people who have those detailed religious connections and who were offering their services now find they have no business at all because they have been thrown aside. The major works are being pressured by AFIC and they find it easier to give in to AFIC than to fight the two things. It is a problem. Clearly, the meat industry is most disturbed about it. It is time the Government did something about the situation, in the interests of our exports-which is what the amendment refers to-and in the interests of human rights, both of which are being interfered with and denied at the moment. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(11.57) —The purpose of the Honey Levy Legislation Amendment Bill, as has already been stated, is to amend the Honey Levy Act (No. 1) 1962, the Honey Levy Act (No. 2) 1962 and the Honey Levy Collection Act 1962 to allow for the annual, rather than monthly, payment of honey levies by honey producers. I endorse the comments of previous speakers on the value and importance of the honey industry in export and domestic product terms, and note the support of the Opposition for this Bill. As a Bill which seeks to increase efficiency while reducing costs, it is certainly worthy of the support of all members of this Parliament. As an amateur apiarist I have a particular interest in the honey industry and in this Bill. It may not at first glance seem to be a Bill of great significance, but it will considerably reduce the paperwork burden and the costs of small honey producers as well as the associated administrative costs of government. Under current arrangements both honey producers and honey dealers are required to submit a levy return and pay the levy due each month. However, of more than 300 returns submitted each month only 26 relate to dealers, the remainder pertaining to honey producers. Dealers' returns provide more than $280,000 in levies with the balance of collections, being approximately $22,000, paid by producers. It has been estimated on this basis that the average monthly payment by each producer is about only $6. Obviously, as was pointed out by my colleague, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), it is expensive to administer such small payments and this Bill will substantially reduce the administrative costs involved in honey levy collection. From 1 January 1986 this Bill will permit producers to submit a single annual return, in lieu of monthly returns, with levy payments being due on 28 February of the following year. However, it is not anticipated that the delay in the collection of the producers' portion of the levy will create any problem for the Australian Honey Board or for the Honey Research Committee. This Bill will also allow the current monthly exemption limit of 50 kilograms to be expressed in annual terms for producers. An annual exemption is a fairer and more relevant method of assessment given the nature of honey production, which I will not go into because it has been so well canvassed already. I am sure that all producers will be grateful for the consideration which this Bill affords their position. As has already been said, the changes which this Bill will bring about in the honey levy collection process, have the support of both the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations and the Australian Honey Board. I commend the Bill to honourable members as an indication of this Government's willingness to look at and implement ways of minimising costs to the industry wherever possible and appropriate. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(12.00) —I rise to support the Honey Levy Legislation Amendment Bill, while, at the same time, drawing strongly to the attention of the House the expressions in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) and, of course, so clearly explained in the debate thus far. The honey industry is an important industry in Australia. It is very significant in a number of electorates. In my own electorate the industry has been carried on for many years by dedicated apiarists who have over that period seen its potential. That potential is now being very largely recognised not only through the improved marketing outlets in Australia, through health food shops and many other avenues, but also as a consequence of the work of the Australian Honey Board in developing a very strong export trade. The purpose of this Bill is to give some assistance to the industry by recognising the cumbersome process in relation to the collection of the levy. I commend the action being taken to alter the system so that only monthly returns will be required and the collection processes will be much easier. On the broader spectrum of the industry, the work of the Honey Board is the significant consideration and it is because of the existence of the Board that the levy is imposed. It is because of the requirement to try to create greater efficiency to assist the industry in many respects that the whole question comes before the House at this time. I am interested that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) admitted to being an amateur apiarist. Of course we all recall with some affection a former honourable member of this House who was so dedicated to this field that he had permission especially to have a couple of beehives on the lawns outside Parliament House and was often seen attending those beehives during lunch time and on other occasions. Mr Barry Jones —Wearing his bonnet, too. Mr IAN ROBINSON —Wearing his bonnet, exactly, and doing it very well. I must admit a pecuniary interest inasmuch as I am very happy to allow an apiarist to place his beehives on part of my land from time to time. My pecuniary interest admission is that, annually, I am presented with a couple of containers of very attractive honey. Alistair Maloney, who has a long tradition in the apiarist field, and all his friends who conduct apiary businesses in northern New South Wales, I am sure, welcome the alterations that this Bill provides. I do not want to take too much time of the House because so much has already been said about the industry, particularly its technical advances. The classification of honey for export is a very important consideration and I hope that more work will be done to try to blend the two avenues-the difficulties of ensuring that honey is of the highest quality yet, at the same time, that it has an attractive presentation for export purposes. I believe that some of our smaller export industries-and honey is a typical one-can have a strong link with the promotion of tourism and the promotion of the Australian scene. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who was at the table until a few moments ago, I am sure would be well advised to look at the link that is so obvious in the promotion to attract tourists to this country and the opportunity for tourists to come to know more about industries such as the honey industry. There are thousands and thousands of people around the world who have a dedication to enterprises such as the production of honey and all that is related to it. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) mentioned the sale of honey and honeycomb by entrepreneurs in certain parts of the country. That is something that can, of course, accord very much with what I am referring to-the appropriate link between tourism and the promotion of industries of this kind.The natural flora of this country is used in the production of honey. Timber stands are an integral part of honey production. The apiarists must know, of course, where the bees from their hives will gather the honey. This is of deep interest to many people. As time goes by, particularly with the expansion of interest in health food, much more can be done to bring recognition to the honey industry in Australia. In regard to export aspects, I believe that the industry faces the same problem that so many other industries are facing at present in respect of export inspection charges. I hope that the Government will look again at some aspects of this matter. It is referred to specifically in the Opposition's amendment in order to bring under notice the need for some further review in respect of the export inspection charges which were debated in this House in the last session of the previous Parliament. At that time, of course, many of the difficulties that exist were very properly described. I will not endeavour to go over them again today. I conclude by saying that from a very humble beginning the honey industry has become a recognised industry. The honey industry, through the sheer dedication of the few apiarists who promoted it, has become an industry that is today-and this is clearly outlined in the Industries Assistance Commission report-an industry of worth. It is one that deserves the commendation of all sections of primary industry and the support of kindred primary industries in its endeavours to continue and to become an even greater industry. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(12.09) —I would like to make a few remarks following the debate on the Honey Levy Legislation Amendment Bill. The Bill is not about apples, cows or halal slaughter; it is about honey. Some members have even spoken about honey during the debate. The Government rejects the Opposition's amendment to the motion for the second reading because it was simply a device to be able to speak widely on some of the topics I have just enumerated. Also, a bit of a motherhood issue is involved because this question of inspection charges was a policy of the previous Government. In regard to inspection charges in the honey industry, we have met the industry's concerns. We are now undertaking a monitoring role. We are taking into account customer needs, not any bureaucratic interpretation of inspection procedures. I think we have moved a long way. We have certainly moved a lot further than the previous Government had on this question. I will not enter into a debate on halal slaughter. I listened to the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) on this question. Halal slaughter is about God, money and politics. That is not a very good combination to try to sort out. Australia is not an Islamic country. We do not set down religious standards. We do accept the views of Islamic countries which import our goods. In terms of that part of this question relating to dollars, we are making progress. I have no comment on the alleged breaching of the Trade Practices Act. But, if the honourable member sent me a copy of that view, I would respond to it, as I would to some of his charges on the broader question of halal slaughter. A very basic problem is: How do we sort out who shall be the Islamic certifier? Many people in Australia want to be certifiers. Various mosques in Australia feel that they have particular attributes and are particularly qualified to conduct the religious ceremony so that the meat in question can be given halal certification. That problem has been with us for a long time, and it was a problem of the previous Government. As I said, we are making progress on the question. The Bill basically concerns minor amendments to the levy collection procedure. It is the levy that provides the money to finance the operations of the Australian Honey Board and to provide funds for research administered by the Honey Research Committee. The only substantive point raised about the honey industry concerned the reasons why there is to be a review of the operations of the Australian Honey Board. I think it goes back a long way because the review was recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations in May 1982. It may come as a great surprise to the Opposition that the Committee reported on the Fraser Government's attempt to introduce export inspection charges for honey. The Opposition has the strange idea that the policy sprung from the present Government. That Committee recommended that the size, functions and role of the Honey Board should be reviewed. This Government accepted the Senate Committee's recommendations and the only reason why the review was delayed was the Industries Assistance Commission's inquiry into the honey industry. That was set up to meet the industry's request for a stabilisation scheme to be inserted into the honey industry. The IAC has finalised its report and we are now proceeding with the review. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the size, role and functions of the Australian Honey Board are appropriate to deal with the current market conditions. The present size and most aspects of the Honey Board go back to its formation in 1962. The Government will be actively seeking the views of the industry in this review. The Department of Primary Industry is currently finalising a discussion paper on the review. This will be circulated to the various State beekeeper bodies prior to their annual meetings in May and July of this year. If State bodies so wish, an officer from my Department will attend the meetings to assist in consideration of the issues. Industry input is important and will be taken into account. Finally, it is particularly pleasing again to have an active apiarist in the Parliament. Bill Yates certainly made something of it. We look forward to the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) carrying on that tradition. Perhaps we could receive some sort of benefits from time to time if she chose to establish a few hives in the Senate or House of Representatives gardens. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Debate resumed from 22 February, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.15) —The purpose of the Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Amendment Bill 1985 is to extend the bounty period from 1 January 1985 to 30 June 1985 and to make provision for a further extension to 31 December this year. Although the Opposition does not oppose the Bill there are a number of matters I would like to comment on in this context. The Government forwarded a reference on the heavy commercial vehicle industry to the Industries Assistance Commission on 3 May 1983. The Commission was asked to report within 12 months on whether assistance should be accorded the industry and, if so, its nature and extent, including advice on what changes, if any, would be appropriate to current arrangements should the Government decide to continue this form of assistance. The Commission was asked, in addition, to prepare an interim report on any temporary assistance measures pending the long term report. That report was forwarded to the Government on 1 July 1983. On 16 September the same year the Government accepted the IAC's recommendation that no temporary assistance would be provided. It also requested the IAC to bring its final report forward by two months to 29 January 1984. In fact, the IAC's final report was received in early March 1983 and released some 12 months later. Strangely enough, no Government decision has been forthcoming on the future of this industry. The goods under reference in this inquiry include: Firstly, general purpose commercial vehicles, that is, vehicles the primary purpose of which is the transport of persons, goods or materials, with a gross vehicle mass rating of 2.72 tonnes or more; secondly, special purpose vehicles including, for example, fire engines, truck- mounted cranes, street sweepers, breakdown lorries et cetera; thirdly, prime movers for articulated vehicles; and, finally, parts and accessories for the aforementioned vehicles. According to the IAC in its report, the Australian market for heavy commercial vehicles was nearly 47,500 units in 1983. Of these just over 15,000 units were locally assembled. Local production is now concentrated on vehicles with a gross vehicle mass rating in excess of eight tonnes. Imports supply most of the market for vehicles with a gross vehicle mass rating of between 2.72 and 8 tonnes. Since 1978 the level of local assembly in fact has declined quite markedly. This principally reflects the loss in market share of locally assembled vehicles with a gross vehicle mass rating of 8 tonnes or less and a reduction in total vehicle demand since 1982 due to the economic downturn. However, at June in that year employment in vehicle assembly component and vehicle body production and bus and coach manufacture was estimated to have been just over 11,000 persons. However, between June 1982 and June 1983 employment in those sectors of the industry declined by some 2,300 people. Yet in effective rate terms, assistance to the vehicle industry is estimated to be about four times that provided on average to the manufacturing sector. Most components can be imported duty free under the by-law. To minimise the impact of the by-law, bounty assistance has been provided over the years for the local sourcing of a number of specific components. On the other hand, the local production of components not eligible for bounty which may be imported under by-law receives negative levels of assistance. Thus the existing assistance is high for vehicle assembly and disparate for component production. The continuation of bounty assistance has not been recommended by the IAC as it contributes to the high level of assistance to assembly and because no other activity in the passenger and commercial vehicle sector receives the same degree of bounty. The IAC also recommended that the heavy vehicle industry should be reviewed in conjunction with the passenger motor vehicle industry, which has been the subject of major decision in recent months. Such a review should also include light commercial vehicles, as this would enable long term assistance for vehicles, vehicle bodies and components to be looked at as a whole rather than the present rather piecemeal and fragmented system. A review of the passenger motor vehicle industry is scheduled for 1990. The Commission also noted that the immediate implementation of the recommended long term rates of assistance would result in a contraction of local vehicle assembly of between 8 and 19 per cent, which obviously could represent a loss of employment in the industry. The loss could be of between 200 and 400 jobs in that sector alone. The Commission went on to recommend the phased introduction of long term rates in order to avoid any undue disruption and the phasing involving the gradual elimination of the bounty and by-law arrangements over a six-year period. It is worth noting that in 1981 and 1982 the cost of providing bounty to the wider range of components was about $26m. Having initiated the IAC inquiry into heavy motor vehicles and then asked the Commission to hasten its response, the Government has now wasted over a year. All we have in this legislation is an extension of the present bounty arrangements from 31 December 1984 to 30 June 1985 and provision for a further extension of six months. No further bounties will be paid after 30 June. At a time of industry uncertainty the last thing that is wanted is a government that cannot make up its mind. Some months ago we saw unveiled the Government's seven-year motor vehicle policy, which has received general acceptance by the industry and has given the five producers an atmosphere of reasonable certainty in which to make medium and long term plans. Unfortunately, the Government's stop-go attitude to the heavy motor vehicle industry has to date lacked any equivalent sense of direction. The least that can be asked by the Opposition with the passage of this Bill-which, as I said earlier, we do not oppose-is that the Government give a firm indication that within the next six to 12 months it will be in a position to unveil a comprehensive long term policy for the future of the heavy motor vehicle industry in Australia. The heavy commercial vehicle industry in Australia comprises a number of sectors, notably vehicle assembly, component production, body building, importing, distribution and retailing. That covers both heavy commercial vehicles and components. There are 14 firms engaged in the assembly of heavy commercial vehicles. In 1981-82 the assembly sector employed some 3,300 people and had a total turnover of $540m. However, employment had declined to around 2,100 by June 1983. The share of employment in this industry has declined despite the level of support provided by government in recent years. The IAC estimated that the total market for components used in locally assembled vehicles was around $430m in 1982. Of this, components to the value of $300m were imported under the by-law arrangements applying to the industry. The remaining $130m of components used were locally produced, including in-house production to the value of $20m. Employment by specialist component producers was said to be around 3,000 people but again that had declined to about 2,000 by June 1983. The sector producing car bodies and trailers employed about 3,250 persons in June 1982 and had a turnover of around $200m in 1981-82. There are 14 firms producing bus bodies for fitting to bought-in assembled bus chassis-but such production is limited mainly to large buses. In regard to the recent trends in the market, which are particularly relevant to this legislation, it should be noted that the share of the total heavy commercial vehicle market held by imports increased from 45 per cent in 1978 and 68 per cent in 1983. Most of the import share was accounted for by the increased import penetration in the market for trucks and prime movers, from 27 per cent in 1978 to 35 per cent in June 1983. This increased share occurred principally in the market for vehicles weighing between 2.72 and 8 tonnes. Registration of locally assembled vehicles for the same period declined from around 24,000 in 1978 to 15,000 vehicles in 1983. Most of the decline occurred in the assembly of trucks and prime movers, reflecting two major factors: Firstly, the loss of market share of locally assembled vehicles weighing less than eight tonnes and, secondly, a reduction in total vehicle demand since mid-1982. However, since that time the local market has recovered to some extent. In the second half of 1983 registration was some 17 per cent higher than in the first half of that period. The decline in local assembly is reflected in a reduction in employment from an estimated 5,400 persons in February 1978 to 2,100 persons in June 1983. Most vehicle assemblers in Australia are currently operating at a loss and some have been unprofitable since as far back as 1978. An assessment of the current assistance arrangements is important. The IAC noted that the assistance package provides vehicle assembly with very high levels of assistance through a duty on imported vehicles and the availability of most components duty free under existing by-laws. The effective rate of assistance is estimated to be about 100 per cent, or, as previously noted, about four times the average for the manufacturing sector as a whole. The effective rate of assistance afforded to the assembly of heavy commercial vehicles is as much as 60 per cent higher than that afforded to the assembly of non-derivative light commercial vehicles, and 80 per cent higher than that provided for the assembly of four-wheel drive vehicles weighing less than 2.72 tonnes. This is due primarily to the existence of the by-law arrangements which have made most components for use in heavy commercial vehicles available at duty free prices. There are a number of issues which arise from the Commission's report. If the Commission's recommendations are to be accepted by government, the effect will be that the prices of vehicles will go up due to the increase of tariff from 22.5 per cent to 25 per cent. An increase in vehicle costs will obviously have an impact, not only on the road freight industry but ultimately on all consumers, as it is estimated that freight costs represent between 20 and 25 per cent of the final costs for all consumer goods. It is important to note that the heavy commercial vehicle industry has significant links with the Australian economy. The Bureau of Transport Economics has indicated that road transport accounts for almost 80 per cent of the total freight carried throughout Australia, and freight transport and associated costs have an important bearing on all sectors, including major export industries. For example, they have been estimated to represent at least 20 per cent of the value of exports of coal and crude petroleum and non-metallic minerals, and 13 per cent of the value of agricultural exports. The IAC, in its report, estimated that the value of freight movement activity accounts for about 3.5 per cent of gross domestic product, and that associated employment is at least 250,000 persons. Consequently, any increased direct costs, as a result of government policy, must be seen against their overall economic impact. The IAC has recognised that these changes relating to the removal of bounty by-laws will cause a reduction in the level of vehicle assembly and thus have an impact on employment in the industry, which is currently approximately 5,000 persons. There will also be an impact on component manufacturers. On the other hand, the removal represents a Budget saving of between $4 and $6m. In addition, there will be a customs duty collection, but this could be offset if there is a need to pay unemployment benefit at least in the short term to people who lose their jobs as a result of these reductions being implemented. An important issue which arises out of the IAC report is the recommendation that duties be increased from 22.5 per cent to 25 per cent for all heavy commercial vehicles in excess of 10.16 tonnes. It appears to be at variance with the previous public position taken by Australia in the context of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, where we had agreed not to increase rates above 22.5 per cent for trucks in excess of 10.16 tonnes. I hope the Minister, in the context of this debate, will explain to the House this apparent inconsistency with previously established policy. The extension of the bounty assistance to 30 June 1985 is estimated to cost revenue an additional $2m on the current levels of sale. However, no provision appears to have been made for this in the 1984-85 Budget estimates. We wait to see whether any provision will be included in the estimates for the next financial year. In his second reading speech the Minister claimed that the extension of bounty assistance was necessary to remove uncertainty created in the industry in regard to locally sourced components. I believe that this is a weak excuse because, had the Government not lost the year in developing its heavy motor vehicle industry plan, it is reasonable to conclude that by now the industry should have been in the position of knowing exactly what are the Government's long term intentions. To describe the extension of the bounty as a 'holding action' is little more than an excuse for continuing inactivity. Current assistance arrangements for the heavy motor vehicle industry comprise three elements-tariffs on imported CBU vehicles and some components; by-law entry for original equipment components for use in general purpose vehicles and prime movers; and bounty assistance for certain locally sourced OE components for use in general purpose vehicles and prime movers. A tariff of 22.5 per cent apply to most imports. However, there are some exceptions. For example, special purpose vehicles weighing less than 10.16 tonnes, which are dutiable at 25 per cent; fire engines weighing less than 2.72 tonnes, are dutiable at 2 per cent; and crane lorries are dutiable at 35 per cent in respect of the crane section and 25 per cent for the remainder. In addition, OE components not under by-law and replacement parts for all heavy commercial vehicles are mainly dutiable at 25 per cent, while assembled trailers for use with prime movers are dutiable at 22.5 per cent if imported with a prime mover, or at 25 per cent if imported separately. By-law imports apply to a broad range of components whether imported separately or as part of a vehicle pack. Bounty assistance is also available to assemblers of general purpose vehicles and prime movers for their use on certain locally produced components. For example, bounty is paid at a level of 20 per cent of the into-store cost of the assembler of various components. Bounty assistance is not available if these components are produced in house by the assembler or if local content is less than 65 per cent. In the case of the heavy commercial motor vehicle bounty, the cost to the Government depends essentially on the extent of the sales of Australian produced bountiable components to assemblers. In turn, that will depend on the demand for heavy motor vehicles and the competitive position of Australian component producers compared with overseas producers. In 1982-83, $3.7m in bounty was paid; in the next year, 1983-84, $4.2m. For the six months from June 1984 to December 1984 it was estimated that $3.5m in bounty was paid. For the six months from January to June 1985 the bounty payable is expected to fall to $2m because a major component producer whose sales accounted for 30 per cent of the bounty ceased to operate. The effect of tariffs and bounties as distortions to consumer demand occur when different forms of assistance affect the prices of substitute products. For example, prior to 1984 passenger motor vehicles were given protection by a quota that yielded significantly greater protection than the relevant tariff provided for light commercial vehicles. Accordingly, consumers chose a light commercial vehicle rather than a passenger motor vehicle because the tariff inflated price of light commercial vehicles was seen to be comparatively attractive in comparison with the substantially greater quota inflated prices of passenger motor vehicles. Had the prices not reflected Government assistance policy, they may have chosen a passenger motor vehicle. In relation to the international market in which Australia ultimately has to operate, I refer to two major Swedish exporters of heavy vehicles and buses, namely, Volvo and Scania. Sweden has a market similar to Australia's with relatively high costs of production, especially in terms of labour costs. Yet, by judicious use of modern technology, Sweden has been able to create a world-wide demand for its products. One of the reasons for Sweden's success is that its manufacturers source certain components from various other countries-for example, Germany, Belgium and France. They are applying in fact the same production principles developed by General Motors with its world car concept. This should be contrasted with Australia where we have 14 assemblers of heavy trucks, buses and so on and a market of only 50,000 units a year. Clearly, there are lessons here which Australia can learn from the Swedish experience. In the wider international market it is worth noting that the largest markets for heavy commercial vehicles are found in the United States of America, Western Europe and, not surprisingly, in Japan. In the United States there are in excess of one million vehicles produced annually and in Japan, 500,000 with western Europe producing about 350,000 vehicles principally in West Germany, United Kingdom, France, Sweden and Italy. European producers have a high degree of specialisation. As I said earlier, Sweden imports most requirements, especially those for units below 7 tonnes, from overseas. Domestic production tends to satisfy most of the demand in both the United States and Japan. Imports of heavy vehicles into Japan are effectively negligible. Assistance arrangements vary, with the tariff being the main form of assistance. In the United States duty rates range from nought to 25 per cent. European Economic Community rates range from 2.5 per cent to 22 per cent, while higher rates apply to larger engined vehicles. Japanese rates stand at zero, although allegations have been made in regard to the Japanese market-and they were noted in the IAC report-in a paper by Bhaskar which states: . . . access is restricted in practice by a barrage of troublesome administrative problems and a tightening of safety and anti-pollution measures. Of course, this does not relate specifically to the Japanese market; it can be found elsewhere. I make the point that while there is a strong argument for the lowering of tariff barriers, no government can stand idly by while observing the international implications which would result from replacing tariff barriers with government controls which would have the same impact of reducing access to the international market. Implementation of the IAC's recommendations would be expected to result in a reduction in the level of vehicle assembly and employment in Australia. The longer term implications for the component sector are more uncertain. Component production would be influenced by both the decline in demand which would result from a contraction in local assembly and by an increase in assistance for the production of components that were previously unassisted. While the local industry is expected to contract if these recommendations are implemented by the Government, the IAC has suggested that in the longer term reducing disparities in assistance within the industry would encourage a more efficient use of resources by encouraging the industry to specialise in activities requiring lower levels of community support. To the extent that these recommendations encourage resources to be allocated into more economic activities, the IAC has emphasised that the implementation of these recommendations will contribute towards an improvement in overall community welfare. It is worth noting that when the IAC's preliminary results were put to the industry, witnesses generally rejected the Commission's tariff only assistance proposals. They claimed that its implementation would lead to a severe reduction in activity and employment in the industry. They also noted that under uniform tariffs most vehicles currently being assembled from vehicle packs would instead be imported in the completely built up form, and that the surviving high-medium local content assemblers would therefore lose their market share and not increase their demand for local components. Local assembly activity was expected to be limited to very heavy custom built vehicles. Witnesses disagreed with the Commission's estimates of the effects of implementing its draft proposals, which suggested an increased level of component production. The time has come when the Government must make some important decisions in regard to the future of the heavy vehicle industry so that manufacturers can plan ahead with some certainty as is now the case in the motor vehicle industry. The ultimate responsibility rests with the Government to put to the House and to the industry its proposals for long term restructuring which will assist the industry and will ensure that Australian consumers have access to heavier vehicles in Australia which they can afford. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(12.39) —In expressing my support for the Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Amendment Bill 1985 I wish to thank the Government for recognising the problems which would have resulted for the heavy commercial vehicle industry if the existing bounty assistance scheme had not been extended beyond 31 December 1984. I must say also that I am pleased to have more time to deliver my speech today. On other occasions I have been told that there were only a few minutes to spare. I wanted to get a lot into Hansard and people listening to the debate in the gallery and elsewhere have said that on those occasions I gabbled my speeches. I do not have to do that today. Mr Barry Jones —Do not forget that we are breaking for lunch. Mr MILTON —I assure the Minister for Science that I will not forget. As the Minister indicated earlier, the Bill proposes that the current assistance will continue until 30 June 1985 or until a long term industry assistance plan has been announced. There is no doubt that the metal industry as a whole has suffered from a lack of forward planning. Over the past 10 years there has been a severe decline in our metals and engineering industries, resulting in a net loss of 152,000 jobs. This decline has occurred mainly as a result of competition from local east Asian countries, particularly Japan. In this respect, it is interesting to note that Japanese manufacturers are strongly assisted by the Japanese Government. I have spoken before in debates in this House in support of the industry development plan of the Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights Union, and I make no apology for doing so again. Together with the other metal trades unions, the AMFSU has produced a long term industry development plan which will overcome the need for stop-gap, short term measures such as bounty assistance. The plan recognises that development policies are not cost free. However, it also recognises that economic rationality requires resources to be allocated where the greatest gain is to be made from the assistance dollar. In particular, assistance resources should be allocated to specific industries and not spread evenly, and rather thinly, over the whole of the manufactured goods sector. The plan sets out in great detail the selection criteria which need to be established for the provision of government assistance based on growth potential and on the ability to adopt and diffuse new technologies. In this respect, the findings of a report to the Prime Minister prepared by the Australian Science and Technology Council and entitled 'Computer-related Technologies in the Metal Trades Industry', which was tabled in January, are most relevant. On page 2 the report states: Our view is that if the manufacturing sector is to retain its valuable role in the Australian economy, it must be both required and assisted to become more productive, more flexible and more innovative and actively to seek markets both home and abroad. The report continues: Assistance is required to effect this transformation, for without any form of assistance, the sudden shift to a substantially more competitive environment is likely to result in avoidable social and economic dislocation. Whilst it is true that the ASTEC report is referring to computer-related technologies in the metal trades industry, the manufacturing companies involved are closely linked to the motor vehicle industry. Thus, their efficiency levels can have significant implications for the level of performance in all sectors of the manufacturing industry. Heavy commercial motor vehicle production in Australia has been assisted since 1978 by tariffs, by-law entry and bounties on locally produced original equipment components. It appears to me that one of the problems with the present bounty is that it is piecemeal in operation. I am sure that the industry as a whole would prefer a long term development plan in the manner proposed by the metal trades unions. It is interesting to note that the metal trades unions have not been content to rest on the production of their industry development plan but have also produced a new publication entitled Australia on the Brink. I ask leave to continue my speech when the debate is resumed. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Acting Prime Minister) —The Prime Minister indicated earlier this week that he would be travelling to Canada today to address the Canadian economic summit meeting. I am acting as Prime Minister until he returns on Monday evening. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of the more unorthodox valuations being conducted by officers in the Australian Taxation Office for purposes of valuing property, company shares and life assurance policies for the assets test? Does the Minister realise that grave anomalies have been created through these valuations? When will the Minister move to correct these anomalies? Mr HOWE —I am interested that the Opposition has finally asked a question about the assets test in this House. A lot of the scaremongering, the misrepresentation and the suggestion that somehow the assets test would cost more to administer than what it would produce, have all been shown to be completely wrong. The justice and equity involved in the Government's decision to introduce the assets test has been demonstrated by the results. We currently estimate that the assets test will save expenditure for the Government of $100m, which will be directed to the people most in need. One of the things that surprise me about the Opposition members is that they talk a great deal about the people most in need. When they were in government they did not have the guts to take the kinds of measures that are necessary to ensure that we are able to direct assistance to the hundreds of thousands of people within this country who are around or below the poverty line. The question raised the specific matter of valuations. As honourable members will know, under the Act the Taxation Office is responsible for carrying out valuations. We have recognised and responded to the need to ensure that when valuations are carried out they are carried out in a non-intrusive manner. It is recognised that it is very difficult to carry out valuations of properties, particularly rural properties, on the basis of an external inspection. Despite all the scaremongering and intimidation that has occurred in respect of the aged people in this community we are anxious that procedures ought to be established which, while protecting the principle of non-intrusiveness, at the same time will give ample opportunity for people in an appeals situation to defend their own valuations. We are in the process of reviewing the valuation procedures to ensure non-intrusiveness on the one hand and, at the same time, achieving an objective analysis and evaluation of properties. Mr CHARLES —I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Why has the present Government pursued the objective of a comprehensive test ban through international fora when the Leader of the Opposition implied in a question yesterday that in his view a comprehensive test ban would be unverifiable, could destabilise deterrence and would be a particular disadvantage to the West? Mr HAYDEN —I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition yesterday made it patently clear that he thought a comprehensive test ban would be unverifiable, could destabilise deterrence and would be a particular disadvantage to the West. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition supports himself with the courage of other people's convictions because he bases that on something he alleges somebody wrote and immediately adopts it. However, on 21 January 1979 before the Committee on Disarmament, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said this: Of the matters facing this committee, the elaboration of a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons testing in all environments is of primary importance and deserves the earliest attention. The United Nations General Assembly expressed in December its sincere hope that the negotiating powers would present a Comprehensive Test Ban (CTB) agreement to the committee by the time it began its deliberations. It is to be regretted that this has not been possible. He went on to say of a comprehensive test ban treaty that it: . . . will be a significant milestone in arms control and disarmament efforts. It will be a barrier to both the spread of nuclear weapons and the expansion of existing nuclear arsenals. It will contribute to a greater level of confidence among states in all regions of the world. However, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was saying that it would be unverifiable, would destabilise deterrence and would be a particular disadvantage to the West. He has taken a 180-degree turn. It should be clearly understood that the proposals of the Labor Government in Geneva at the Committee on Disarmament are that there should be a mandate with a view to negotiating a comprehensive test ban treaty. We have adopted that formulation because we recognise that there are some technical obstacles in relation to establishing effective verification procedures with broad acceptability. We have accordingly proposed that there should be a study of those things. We have proposed that there should be an international seismic data network. So that the record will be clear as to what we are proposing, I will outline the key principles of our approach to the negotiation of a comprehensive test ban treaty. The Government's view is that a combination of verification techniques would be needed: Firstly, an international seismic data network using the latest scientific techniques, including so-called level II seismic data in graph form, known as wavelength data; secondly, so-called black boxes; thirdly, an international atmospheric monitoring network to detect clandestine atmospheric tests or radioactive leakage from clandestine underground tests; fourthly, on-site inspections-our preference here would be for continuous on-site monitoring by technical teams at suspected test sites; and fifthly, so-called national technical means. Combined with these verification measures we envisage a political structure to help ensure compliance with the comprehensive test ban. This would include an international management panel comprising technical experts to handle complaints at a technical level. There would also be a consultative committee comprising representatives of states parties to pronounce on the evidence of suspected violations. Of course, a role for the United Nations Security Council is also envisaged. On the basis of present technical capabilities, a 100 per cent verification process technically would not be possible, but the sorts of procedures which I have outlined here would go a long way towards a level of verification effectiveness which we believe would be generally acceptable. In the circumstances, I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he return to the principles which were enunciated by him, in his 1979 speech. Mr REITH —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security and refer him to the Prime Minister's promise to review anomalies and inconsistencies resulting from the assets test-a promise made on Tuesday following yet another Caucus uprising. I ask the Minister: Will the Government now act immediately to remove the anomalies and to make the test more equitable? Mr HOWE —The assets test was introduced after very extensive discussion in the Parliament and very extensive consultation with representatives of pensioner groups and other interests representing the pensioner community in this country. It was also subject to a review, chaired by Professor Gruen. I believe the test, as it has been introduced, is a very fair test. We have introduced it in a way which provides for treatment of people in special hardship circumstances. It is subject to quite exhaustive appeals provisions. There is provision for appeal to the Social Security appeals tribunals and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I believe there is ample opportunity for people who believe they have been unjustifiably affected by the test to use those appeal processes. I encourage people to do that. It is true that the Prime Minister has given a commitment that we will monitor the introduction of the assets test. I remind the House that the test was introduced only over the last several weeks, so at this stage we are not in a position to have monitored the test and to be looking at possible modifications of it. Nevertheless, I am taking a personal interest in cases that are drawn to my attention. I am ensuring in the Department of Social Security that we do meet that commitment in relation to monitoring the test in these early phases. There may well be situations in which we will need to make some change, but we will do that only after we have had a very good opportunity to look at the particular cases concerned and to make a rational judgment. I think that the Government's approach contrasts with that of the Opposition, which consistently over the last few months sought every opportunity to scaremonger in relation to the assets test. Responsibility for this certainly has to be shared by the media. The stories that have been floated at times, reflecting no doubt the kind of scaremongering that has occurred in this House, undoubtedly have caused thousands of pensioners in this country needless hardship. I regret that. I believe that that hardship is not the result of the administration of the test by the Department, which on the whole has been carried out very sensitively. It is a reflection on people who are prepared to shed any sense of political principle whatever for short term political advantage, no matter who are hurt and how much they are hurt. Mr KENT —Mr Speaker, I address my question to you. Has your attention been drawn to the fact that the cutlery in use by the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms was imported from Korea? Will you ensure that all future acquisitions of material and equipment used in the Australian Parliament are made in Australia, thus giving example to the people to support our own Australian industry? Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —I am surprised at times that defenders of the Westminster system show themselves so incapable of behaving in a manner befitting that system. Over a period of 16 years I have had opportunity to examine the cutlery in the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms. I can assure the honourable member that the source of that cutlery is a number of areas. A general principle applies to all parliamentary departments; that is, Australian made goods should be bought where possible. There are difficulties in this area. I advise the House that, with regard to the small-wares for the new Parliament House, an officer of the Joint House Department is examining this question. I understand that there are difficulties with Australian made cutlery, that blanks are imported from other countries, plated in Australia and stamped in Australia. However, the principle applied is that Australian made goods should be used. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to previous answers he has given, and in particular his most recent answer wherein he said that the application of the assets test had been 'very fair'. Will the Minister confirm that the assets test, in a full year of operation, will now raise 219 per cent more revenue than first predicted by the Government and that the number of pensioners subjected to the imposition of cancelled or reduced pensions is 10,000 greater than the Government first admitted? On the basis of those figures to date, how can he describe this test as fair? Mr HOWE —I hear an interjection from behind: 'Fewer than 100 per electorate'. The original estimates from the Department of Social Security were that of the order of 2 per cent of the pensioner population of Australia would be affected by the assets test. The figures as they stand at the moment indicate that the pensioner population affected will be of the order of 2.5 per cent. The expenditure which will be saved as a result of the assets test will be in excess of $100m. I concede that that figure is considerably above the original estimates. The reason is that we found that a rather higher proportion of pensioners would lose their pensions altogether as opposed to those who would have a partial loss of pension. The Leader of the Opposition seems to think that he has achieved something by bringing out these facts which have been coming out in the form of Press releases in the last week or so. The reality is that 2.5 per cent of the pensioner population of Australia, which is a little over 50,000 pensioners, is a very small proportion of the total number of pensioners. If I might say so, it indicates that a percentage of the people who have been in receipt of the age pension are people of considerable wealth. One of the unfortunate things is that so many people have arranged their affairs in such a way that they translate income into assets to avoid the existing income test. We know what the previous Government believed, and in opposition believes, about avoidance. Under the previous Government, at least in the tax area, the avoidance industry become the only substantial growth industry in this country. In relation to social security, it is proper, if we are in favour of means testing-I am beginning to wonder whether the Opposition is in favour of means testing-that we apply a test in a way which is consistent for both people with income and people with substantial assets. I just want to cite, if I may, some of the cases which have come out in relation to the way in which people have arranged their affairs. In one case a pensioner disclosed that he had $400,000 divested in a non-interest bearing family trust. Under the income test that person qualified for both a pension and fringe benefits. An invalid pensioner in Queensland revealed that apart from his home he owned several blocks of land with an unimproved value of $490,000. He was receiving a full rate pension. A married couple were receiving a full rate pension because the business they ran in an outer Sydney suburb was supposedly running at a loss. The business is valued at $700,000. Their home, which they used for wedding receptions, is valued at $400,000 and its contents at $70,000. We have come across a number of cases in which very wealthy people have arranged their affairs in such a way as to translate income into assets to force the Government to pay them a full rate of pension. There is, no doubt, concern about people who, for example, are elderly and in nursing homes, but in one case which has come to light an elderly woman in a nursing home was shown to have $500,000 'invested' in a non-interest bearing form with her accountant. Her form, which was filled in by the accountant, also revealed that she had $50,000 invested in a bank. If the $500,000 were invested on the woman's behalf at the relatively modest rate of 12.5 per cent interest it would provide her with an annual income before tax of $62,500 a year. The Opposition is not concerned about the pensioners of this country. It is not concerned about the aged and the invalid. What the Opposition is concerned about is protecting its friends-protecting people who can benefit by ripping off the aged through the kind of scheme to which I have just referred. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I wonder whether the Minister will table the papers from which he was reading. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Was the Minister quoting from a document on public affairs? Mr Howe —No; just personal quotes. Mr KEOGH —Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House of the Government's attitude towards the actions of the Bjelke-Petersen Government which are clearly directed at destroying the industrial relations system in Queensland? Mr WILLIS —I am aware of the actions of the Queensland Government in recent times in relation to industrial relations. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. As I understood the question, it had something to do with attitude and was about a State government. Does either of these matters come within the responsibility of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations? Mr SPEAKER —The final part of the question was completely pertinent to the Minister's portfolio. Mr WILLIS —Mr Speaker, as I was saying, I am aware of the actions of the Queensland Government and of the situation in Queensland today in relation to industrial relations which is, to say the least, precarious. In fact, an extremely serious situation now exists in Queensland. It is a situation of which honourable members opposite might do well to take notice. I have seen reports within the last day of the intention of unions to conduct an industrial campaign to force the Queensland Government to repeal recent industrial legislation, to withdraw various legal actions and to reinstate various Electrical Trades Union members who have been dismissed. The Government cannot condone any industrial action of that kind. At the same time, it has to be said that the Bjelke-Petersen Government must take a large part of the blame for any industrial disputation which results from the actions which it has taken in the last few weeks. There is no doubt that the Queensland Government has embarked on a course of total confrontation with the trade union movement in Queensland and that it is prepared to take extraordinary action to achieve its objective of crippling, if not totally destroying, the trade unions in that State. In the course of the last few weeks we have seen the introduction of savage industrial legislation which is without precedent in this country, we have seen that legislation forced through the Queensland Parliament with little time for debate, and we have seen absolute contempt for the State Industrial Commission being shown by the Queensland Government. That legislation is so bad that some of it is clearly in breach of International Labour Organisation conventions and also appears to be in breach- Opposition members interjecting- Mr WILLIS —I am pleased to hear how contemptuous honourable members opposite are of ILO conventions. I thought that the Opposition stood for the ILO and supported the ILO in the United Nations. Apparently it does not. It is also likely to be the case that that legislation is in breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We are advised that the widespread powers given to the Electricity Commissioner under the Queensland Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act are in breach of ILO Convention 98, which is concerned with the right to organise, ILO Convention 29, which is to do with forced labour, and ILO Convention 105, which is also to do with forced labour. The rest of that legislation involves such things as totally eroding existing conditions under awards of the Queensland State Industrial Commission; providing summary dismissal and fines for not obeying an order of the Electricity Commissioner; greatly broadening the definition of 'strike' to include any ban or limitation upon the work; extending liability for offences in regard to strikes, as more broadly defined, to individuals as well as unions; and greatly increasing the level of penalties. The behaviour of the Queensland Government and the Premier towards the State Industrial Commission has been extraordinary and contemptuous in the extreme. In the last month or so the Queensland Government has twice totally ignored the State Industrial Commission's recommendations in relation to the power dispute. Those recommendations were that everyone should go back to square one, the unions should withdraw all bans, the employees should be reinstated and the basic issue in relation to contractors which created the dispute should be discussed. The Queensland Government twice rejected those recommendations of its own State Industrial Commission. The Queensland Premier then went on to denigrate publicly his own Commission, saying that it only gave the unions exactly what they wanted, and thereby earned a public rebuke from the President of the Queensland Industrial Commission. Not satisfied with that, the Queensland Government then moved to remove the powers of the Queensland Industrial Commission to deal with the electricity industry and established a new tribunal, which has been brought in today-- Mr Peacock —Come off it! How many more pages? Mr WILLIS —I know you do not like this, Andrew. Presumably the Queensland Government hopes the tribunal, which will operate from today, will be much more compliant. In conclusion, I say that this Government totally abhors the confrontationist and contemptuous actions of the Queensland Government. We will take up with the Queensland Government the breach of ILO conventions, which is a disgrace to this nation. We will support the application by some Queensland trade unions to come under Federal awards, where civilised industrial relations procedures can be obtained. In our period of office we have pursued industrial relations policies which have been extremely successful. Those policies have led to the lowest level of industrial disputation in 16 years. Those policies have been the exact opposite of the Queensland Government's policies. The Queensland Government's industrial actions are not based on industrial relations procedures at all. They are based on objectives to distract the attention of the Queensland people from the fact that Queensland is the worst managed State in the nation with the highest level of unemployment of any State. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Mr Duffy —He made 100 between lunch and tea. What do you want? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister for Communications to cease interjecting. Mr HOWARD —No, he might run into a period of bad light. I refer the Minister to the interesting speech he delivered to the Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service last night and in particular to his claim that a broad indirect tax on goods and services could trigger a financial crisis among Australia's low income households. Is it not a fact that a properly structured broad-based consumption tax applying to, inter alia, discretionary services such as restaurant meals would be less regressive in its impact than the existing narrowly based indirect tax system which can have such a regressive effect on some low income earners? Mr HOWE —I am not sure that the honourable member has grasped all of what I said last night. Essentially, I was pointing to the need in relation to any system of indirect taxation to look at the whole question of compensation. Of course, at this stage we are not talking about specific schemes, so one's comments tend to be of a general nature. The reality is that associated with indirect taxation is the need-I do not think the Treasurer would have any quarrel with this; I think it is recognised-to look at the whole question of compensation for people on very low incomes. I think the Opposition perhaps does not recognise to the extent it should the situation of so many low income people within the Australian community. We talk a great deal in this Parliament about incentives, and so we should because it is important that people have incentives to invest in productive enterprises and to contribute to building the wealth of the Australian community. I think we have to look at the situation at the moment. I do not want to talk about the future structure of the taxation system but its structure at the moment in terms of some of the problems with the overlapping nature of the social security and taxation systems are such that many low income people pay extraordinarily high marginal tax rates. They are a disincentive to those people to work and to become independent. I think that is an important and a central issue which needs to be looked at within any overall restructuring or tax reform. Mr TICKNER —I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It concerns unscrupulous white lawyers. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the recent reported comments of the honourable member for the Northern Territory concerning the transfer of Uluru and the honourable member's suggestion that the Aboriginal community was being manipulated by unscrupulous white lawyers? Does the Minister agree with the honourable member's reported comments? Can he comment on the role of unscrupulous white lawyers? Mr HOLDING —Yes, I have seen the references made by the honourable gentleman. I must say that I was surprised by them. I was surprised, firstly, in respect of his reference to the handing over of the title to Uluru. That comment by the honourable gentleman might have had some veracity if he had pointed out to the media that when he was Chief Minister as early as February 1980 he offered the same Aboriginal community title to Uluru and in January 1982 he offered the same community a perpetual freehold title. He said it was the 'strongest title in Australia'. That is quoting him. There are only two problems about that: The Commonwealth had the title, not the honourable gentleman; and the Aboriginal people did not trust him. Of course, as the Treasurer pointed out yesterday in respect of the casino, the honourable member for the Northern Territory is very adept at giving away other people's property. On the matter of the ethics of so-called white lawyers I say this: I have had dealings over some years with the two legal advisers who acted on behalf of the community. Whilst I do not always agree with them, they are men who fight very hard for their clients and uphold in every way the ethics of their profession. Mr Everingham —They lock out the media too. Mr HOLDING —They do not describe themselves and have never described themselves as shyster lawyers. The honourable member for the Northern Territory describes his legal career as being that of a shyster lawyer. Mr Speaker, I assure you that they are the terms of the honourable gentleman, and not mine, because if I had used them they would have been unparliamentary. Mr SPEAKER —That is quite correct. You would have been asked to withdraw them. Mr HOLDING —But I suppose the honourable gentleman could pose as something of an expert on shyster lawyers. I understand that the honourable gentleman, who is not really distinguished or recognised for his outstanding legal talent, on receiving this worthy promotion to the front bench-in front of some of his more distinguished legal colleagues-as a shadow Minister, a position which carries some privilege and benefits in this place, also received a $20,000 retainer from a Queensland firm of solicitors named Morris, Fletcher and Cross. I understand that that arrangement had the approval of the Leader of the Opposition. I understand from Press comments that this legal firm, which is based in Brisbane, had made this offer on the basis of the honourable member for the Northern Territory providing ongoing legal advice about events in the Northern Territory. Mr Ian Cameron —What is wrong with that? Mr HOLDING —What is wrong with it is that the honourable member for the Northern Territory does not currently hold a lawyer's practising certificate. Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point or order which I submit is a substantive point of order in that the matters the Minister is raising are clearly matters which he regards as being of a substantive nature. They ought to be the subject of a substantive motion which would give the honourable member equal opportunity to defend himself. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is some substance in the point of order. I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to return to the answer to the question. I remind the Minister about the standing order with regard to the imputation of improper motives. Mr HOLDING —I am simply pointing out a set of facts which are publicly known. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order so that Question Time can continue. If the behaviour continues I will be forced to name members without warning. I call the Minister. Mr HOLDING —I cannot understand why the Leader of the Opposition is getting so upset because according to the Press reports he approved this transaction and therefore has the unique distinction of being a Leader of the Opposition who has created a new principle within the Westminster system, and that is the principle of shadow Ministers for hire. It is all right for the honourable member for the Northern Territory to attack a couple of solicitors acting on behalf of an Aboriginal community-- Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, in light of the Minister's remarks I would like to move for the suspension of so much of the Standing Orders as would preclude the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs moving a substantive motion to canvass the issues with respect to the honourable member for the Northern Territory which he has canvassed in an improper way before the Parliament during Question Time this afternoon. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Leader of the National Party of Australia that he got the call of the Chair in the middle of the answer of a Minister in the belief that he wanted to raise a point of order. I call the Minister. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I wanted to move for the suspension of Standing Orders-- Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party is not entitled to the call in the middle of an answer to a question. I call the Minister and trust that he will conclude his answer. Mr HOLDING —I simply make the point that there cannot be two standards, a standard by which the honourable member for the Northern Territory attacks legal advisers for an Aboriginal community-- Mr Peacock —You have blotted your copy book on this one. I will not be able to hold them back. Mr HOLDING —Come on, let us deal with it. Let us ask ourselves the reason why this firm of solicitors in Queensland was so attracted by the talents of the honourable member for the Northern Territory. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to round off his answer. Mr HOLDING —I will finish on this note: The firm that has paid the honourable member for the Northern Territory a $20,000 retainer has an interest in the Northern Territory. It was the legal adviser to White Industries Ltd, the developers of Yulara, which the Northern Territory Government is underwriting 100 per cent. It acted for two companies which were used as vehicles to buy the casinos. It acted for the Northern Territory Government in the casino takeover and now acts for the Northern Territory Government in respect of the Yulara development. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, this is a total abuse of Question Time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is a matter for the Chair. So far the Minister has not offended. I take it that the Minister has concluded the answer. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the Standing Orders which preclude any member of this House, Minister or not, taking any steps which impinge on the character or otherwise of a member of this House. What is being suggested at the moment by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs goes right beyond the bounds of propriety within that standing order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am well aware of the standing order with regard to imputation of improper motive. I have been listening to the answer with a view to that. I do not uphold the point of order. Has the Minister concluded his answer? Mr HOLDING —All I have done is state a number of facts. I finish on this note: I believe that if the Leader of the Opposition had been aware of these facts he would not have approved this particular arrangement. I suggest he examine it and I suggest he-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest the Minister resume his seat. Dr WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer him to his previous answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and to the claim made in his speech last night that 'the vast majority of pensioners and welfare beneficiaries would not be assisted by cuts to personal income tax and broader indirect taxes'. He stated further: . . . it will drive poor Australians into debt, run down their savings, force them to sell off assets or tighten their belts to make ends meet. Is it not a fact that any price rises resulting from the introduction of a broadly based consumption tax would be recouped by such pensioners and beneficiaries through the process of automatic indexation? Mr HOWE —I have very little to add except to make the point that the honourable member obviously does not understand that, while the principal pensions tend to be indexed, many of the other associated benefits, particularly for children, are not. Mr MAHER —I ask the Minister for Communications: Is the performance of Australia Post in New South Wales considered satisfactory? Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —I realise that there was some association of ideas in the question from the honourable member for Lowe which was a cause for hilarity, but I do not think it was that funny. I call the honourable member for Lowe. Mr MAHER —I ask further: What hopes exist for improvement in the service and a reduction in letter delivery delays? Mr Coleman —What about answering my question on the ABC? Mr DUFFY —If the honourable member had enough brains to ask the question without notice, rather than putting it on notice, he would have had an answer. I thank the honourable member for Lowe for his question. No doubt over a period he will become the favourite back bencher of all Ministers in this place. I make no pretence of being satisfied with the performance of Australia Post in New South Wales and commend to the honourable member the reading of a speech made at the opening of the Wodonga Post Office. The service standards in New South Wales are, in my view, far below what the public has a right to expect. No organisation can survive constant attacks on its performance standards, which is a problem at the moment as there is consistent criticism of Australia Post. However, I think it should be noted by everyone in this place that the problems of Australia Post are extremely complex and will not be solved overnight. I believe that if Australia Post is to provide a comprehensive and affordable service across the country it must hold a monopoly over the postal network. That, of course, does not appeal to the born-again economic rationalists who sit opposite. Members of the National Party of Australia at some time in the future will have to show sufficient guts to state their position on that issue, because the fact is that if that monopoly is not maintained by Australia Post the constituents of National Party members will suffer dramatically. As I indicated in the speech I referred to earlier, it is interesting to speculate on what level of service private operators would provide, and at what cost, on the many non-profitable routes that Australia Post services. The honourable member for Menzies, who was then the Minister for Communications, of course, received a report which addressed the monopoly position of Australia Post. That was the report of the Bradley Committee of Inquiry into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission. That, of course, as I said earlier, was before this Government came to office. We addressed that report and rejected the main thrust of it. It is well worth remembering-honourable members on both sides of the House should remember-that as a matter of principle the report recommended that Australia Post should retain the monopoly. In that sense the Bradley Committee noted that rural areas received a subsidy of about $20m because of the protection of Australia Post's monopoly. The fact is that the complex problems which every Minister for Communications in recent years has faced in regard to Australia Post are being addressed at this stage by management and by the unions. The criticism made of Australia Post was directed at both management and the unions. It was not, as reported, directed only at the unions. That would have been a totally unfair position because there are problems on both sides. They are being addressed. The question asked by the honourable member for Lowe is a timely one in the sense that I agree with him. As I said, the performance is not satisfactory and in future no doubt it will improve. If it does not, the solution to the problem is something from which this Government will not run away. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.53) —As I indicated during Question Time, I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs moving forthwith a substantive motion setting out the allegations made during Question Time about the honourable member for the Northern Territory. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Leader of the National Party to provide a written copy of the motion. Mr SINCLAIR —This procedure is necessary so that the people of Australia, who are no doubt sitting in their motor cars or their homes and wondering what the devil is going on in this place, might know. Yesterday, quite contrary to the principles that are laid down in the Standing Orders of this chamber, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) decided that he would initiate an attack on the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham). This motion to suspend Standing Orders- Dr Theophanous —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The Leader of the National Party of Australia has moved a substantive motion concerning- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should get to his point of order. Dr Theophanous —I am coming to the point of order. He is now referring to events that occurred yesterday and that have nothing to do with the point of order raised- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is the judge of whether the right honourable member is in order. Mr SINCLAIR —In order that everybody in Australia will know what this is about, let me say that the Australian Labor Party is making a mess of the Northern Territory. The honourable member for the Northern Territory was the Chief Minister of the first self-government that was constituted in the Northern Territory. He was able to establish within the Northern Territory a government which gave enormous impetus to a State-to-be-a presently self-governed territory of the Commonwealth which is enormously important within this nation. As Chief Minister he established a reputation. We all remember that at the time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was 'Mr seventy per cent', he enjoyed a popularity rating of about 82 per cent. Today the barb of my motion is addressed specifically to the totally unprincipled remarks of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who used Question Time to condemn a member of this chamber. Mr Speaker, while I totally respect the judgment that you exercise while you are the incumbent of the position of Speaker of this Parliament, we all need to understand that if a member of this place is to be condemned he should not be denied the opportunity of responding. While I understand that the honourable member for the Northern Territory, as a relatively new member of this chamber, might not have been able to put all the details of his case yesterday, in responding to the accusations of the Treasurer-which again were unjustified-to have further accusations in this place today compounds the felony. For the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, of all people, to suggest that in some way he is the upholder of the principles of propriety in the legal profession is absolutely laughable. While I think it is quite interesting to hear the Minister suggest to us that in some way there are matters that he wishes to canvass about the practice of lawyers in regard to Aboriginal people, it is not proper for that type of a response to be given in Question Time. It is a total abuse of the principles and propriety of a member of this chamber. I do not only seek in this debating forum a response to the procedural motion; I ask that the honourable member for the Northern Territory be allowed the chance to hear what the Treasurer-who, I might add, has left the chamber-or the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs might have to say about him and that he have a chance to respond properly. Mr Holding —I am here. I will be in it any time. It is a matter of fact. Mr SINCLAIR —It is no use for the Minister to gargle and gabble simply because he has had bitter rows in Caucus. We know all about the Right, the Left, the far Left and the far, far Left. If the Minister wants to make accusations against any member of parliament, he should make them in public. If he wants people in the community to know whether we are men of propriety, we are quite happy to defend our honour, as is the honourable member for the Northern Territory and, indeed, any other member of this place, including any member on the other side of the House. If Government members want to have accusations made against them, I am quite happy to say what I like about a few of them. But I would like to do it properly. If Government members are members of honour, if they believe that this is a forum in which these issues should be canvassed, they should not gurgle when the Minister gives a smart response. Mr Cohen —When you start talking about honour, I start counting the silverware. Mr SINCLAIR —I will do it at any time in answer to you, my dear fellow. I think it is proper that the man who is accused have a chance to defend himself. I have moved this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders not because I want to talk about the issue but because, if an accusation is made against any individual member, the principles of propriety and fairness require that he be given a chance to respond. Mr Speaker, I put it to you, and I put to each honourable member: Sure, members will have thrown at them a fair load of one thing and another about the electoral traps. Sure, within this Parliament members will say things against us. But if things are said against a member, why should that man or women be denied a chance to respond? That is what the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is doing. He wants to hide away from the trammels of providing answers at Question Time. He is not prepared to give the honourable member for the Northern Territory a proper chance to respond. It is not a matter of my wanting to proceed on a procedural motion; I am saying to the Minister that if he wants to say something about any of us let him do so, let him move his motion and we will be very happy to respond. If the Minister now accepts the suspension of Standing Orders, as I strongly recommend he does in the light of his colleague's remarks, I will be very happy to conclude my remarks on the formal motion. It is not the formal motion that concerns us, it is the propriety and the practice of the Parliament. It is the way by which accusations made against any man or woman in this chamber are to be responded to. The Government has had two goes. That is fair enough. Yesterday we had the Treasurer making certain remarks and today we have heard from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Certainly we have all copped a little bit over time, but what I like is an opportunity to respond. If the Government really wants to make something of this, it should let us have a go, and let us make sure that the accusations are aired and played out in this place-it should move a substantive motion and give the honourable member for the Northern Territory a chance to respond. In that light I have moved for the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.03) —Mr Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I second the motion moved by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), because I want the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) to be given an opportunity to defend himself. That is a fairly fundamental concept to anyone who is supposed to have practised law. We all know how well Holding, Ryan and Redlich have done over the years out of the trade union movement. We know how well the senior partner did after his service in the State Parliament before he came here. We know how closely he was connected with the charred, dismissed Richmond City Council and what occurred with a commission of inquiry there. I do not want to get into the matters of creaming off the trade union movement or utilising the membership of a State parliament for profit, but if the Government wants to start making allegations there are plenty more out there. All I want the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) to do is to lay the charges against the man he impugned some time ago in this Parliament. That man has every right to defend himself, but beforehand the Minister has a duty to lay the charges. What the Minister has sought to do is to impugn the character of the honourable member for the Northern Territory for receiving some funds for outside activities and outside work. I remind the Minister that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in this Parliament on 13 September 1983 confirmed that he received fees as Opposition spokesman on industrial relations. On that occasion an honourable member asked: Was it only $150? Mr Hawke said: No, it was more than that. The report is inaccurate. In fact, I received $1,100. This was in payment for a speech on industrial relations, as I recall. That gentleman, who has left the country to fly to Canada, also said that day: Let me make it quite clear that there is no general restriction on ordinary members of parliament obtaining income from other than their duties as a member or senator including, of course, paid speaking engagements. I imagine that the honourable member who asked the question is aware of that fact and operates accordingly . . . Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition should return to the reasons why the Standing Orders should be suspended. Mr PEACOCK —An allegation has been made that the honourable member for the Northern Territory is engaging in other activities for which he receives pecuniary award. We are asking the Minister to detail the charges, but in detailing them to remember that the man he supports-but for that support perhaps he would not still be in the Ministry-has affirmed, as recorded in Hansard at pages 649 and 650, that he makes a distinction between members and senators and Ministers in their right to engage in outside activities. I will not continue reading from the Hansard record; it is there to be quoted and affirmed. Not only is what the Minister has done today against the spirit and the principles of the Standing Orders; he is not engaging in any element of fair play. If the Minister wants to make the allegations I ask him to stand up here and be specific, thereby giving my colleague the right to defend himself. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is in fact the most incompetent Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to have been appointed to that position. His portfolio is in total disarray. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to return to the question of the reasons for the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr PEACOCK —Support for the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory is at its lowest ebb. That is the reason for the gross and manifest injustice being done at present. I ask the Minister to put up or shut up, and when he puts up to let my colleague defend himself. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.07) —The Government obviously, and quite correctly, opposes the suspension of Standing Orders for the purposes put forward by the Leader of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair). I am amazed at the lengths to which the Opposition will go to uphold the good behaviour of members in this Parliament. These are the members-the same group-who from 11 November 1975 to March 1983 harangued and harassed almost every Australian Labor Party member who had served in the Labor Government between the years 1972 and 1975. Let us recall some of the names. Did we get a debate every time honourable members opposite said something about the late Rex Connor, Jim Cairns, Clyde Cameron or Gough Whitlam? We are into politics here. We are not into having an afternoon tea party with a bit of needlework. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) can look after himself. If he is going to run around Australia making all these stupid statements he will be called to account for them in the House of Representatives. I tell honourable members opposite something else: If he keeps saying them he will end up sitting on the back bench with John Hodges and Wally Fife will come down to the front bench. I warn Paul that he has to be careful. He is in the big league. He has long pants on now. He is no longer up in the Northern Territory, with 12 parliamentarians, getting $100,000. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Leader of the House to return to the question, which concerns the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr YOUNG —Mr Speaker, it is not a case of everyone who comes to the House of Representatives being spoon fed. We are not going to put the bib on the honourable member for the Northern Territory and feed him every time the green bells ring. He is like poor old senator Arthur Field, who when the bells rang asked 'What is that?' and was told: 'They're coming to get you'. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) stood up here and gave an answer to a question concerning something the honourable member for the Northern Territory said about lawyers in the Northern Territory. Privately, behind the Speaker's chair, if the honourable member were to talk to me about lawyers I might agree with him. However, if the honourable member is going to place on the record such statements about people who are advising the Aboriginal people on Uluru, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs obviously will make a comment on it. The Leader of Opposition Business said that the honourable member for the Northern Territory was impugned. The Speaker makes that judgment. He did not say that the honourable member was being impugned. Even after this debate, which will be knocked over because if one counts the heads one will find that there are more on this side than on the other side, there will still be opportunity for the honourable member to make a personal explanation if he feels that he has been misrepresented. That is the way the Parliament operates. We know what the exercise is today. Ian and Andrew, having put the team together on the front bench, are trying to protect their boys. Thredbo at the weekend was not very good for Andrew. A lot of people in the back are making their moves. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Leader of the House get back to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. He is even travelling up into the mountains. Mr YOUNG —In moving for the suspension of Standing Orders, the right honourable member for New England and the honourable member for Kooyong touched on every other subject one could conceivably think of: Holding, Ryan and Redlich, trade unions, and former Labor governments. Then the right honourable member for New England said: 'I appeal to you. The decent thing to do is to face up and say that the honourable member must have the right of reply'. For God's sake, the right honourable member for New England would kick one's head in if he could. If he were on this side of the House in my job and somebody asked for an opportunity to explain, he would pull out a gun and shoot him. If ever there has been a professional in running this Parliament and making sure that the Opposition has no say irrespective of where the honourable member concerned comes from, it is the right honourable member for New England, and, even with all Porky's credentials, he would not let him up. The proper procedures can be followed. The honourable member for the Northern Territory has not been impugned. That has been judged by you, Mr Speaker, sitting in the chair. The Chair did not call on the Minister to retract anything he said as an imputation against the honourable member for the Northern Territory. If the honourable member for the Northern Territory wants to play in the big league, as is his wish, he should know that he will be responsible here, at the Dispatch Box, for things he says around Australia. In addition, if he is misrepresented at Question Time, he has the opportunity to seek the Chair's indulgence to make an explanation. That is the proper way to go about it and that is the way the Government intends to see these things are dealt with in the Parliament. I move: Question resolved in the affirmative. That the question be now put. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Sinclair's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lee, M.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Martin, S. P.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cleeland, P. R. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Darling, E. E. Moore, J. C.Hollis, C. McGauran, P. J.Dawkins, J. S. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 19 fo the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969, I present the Fishing Industry Research Committee annual report for 1983-84. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to section 16 (2) of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973, I present the annual report for 1983-84 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority, dealing with the general administration and working of that Act, and of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948 for the year ended 30 June 1984. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, and on behalf of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), I present the final report by the Panel of Commonwealth Schools Commissioners on planning and funding policies for new non-government schools together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Pursuant to section 72 of the Health Commission Ordinance 1975, I present the Capital Territory Health Commission annual report for 1983-84. Motion by (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —On behalf of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and for the information of honourable members I present the Industries Assistance Commission's report on the honey industry. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —On behalf of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) and for the information of honourable members I present the minutes of the twenty-sixth meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council, held in Tasmania on 11 May 1984. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 42 (1) of the Australian Film and Television Act 1973, I present the Australian Film and Television School annual report for 1983-84. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented and I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr EVERINGHAM —In a cowardly and disgraceful attack this afternoon the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) made gross misrepresentations against me. Because of the uproar in the House I was unable to ascertain the full extent of those allegations. I foreshadow that I will be seeking leave at a later stage to make a full statement to this House. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LEO McLEAY —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr LEO McLEAY —An article on page 4 of this morning's Sydney Morning Herald related to a report of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group which was tabled yesterday. Every other paper in Australia got the report right. The Herald got it wrong. In what would seem to be a typographical error, the Herald reversed an allegation and make it read like one of Mr Justice Stewart's findings. Honourable members will appreciate that that places a substantially different slant on the report. Mr Mildren —Sue them. Mr LEO McLEAY —I thought of suing them but my legal advisers told me other parts of the paper had got it right. So I do not even have that option. I make the point that Mr Justice Stewart's findings, as they relate to me, are reported accurately in his report. The report in the Herald quite significantly is an inaccurate statement of what Mr Justice Stewart said and I draw that to the attention of the House in my own defence. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —by leave-On 7 June 1984 the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House tabled its 'Report on the Future Use of the Provisional Parliament House'. This report contained several recommendations on complex issues which are of critical importance to the proper planning and development of the parliamentary zone. The Government is currently examining the matters raised by the report. It is intended to respond in detail to the Committee's recommendations before the end of the current sittings. 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 the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: (i) The financial situation of students enrolled at Australian post-secondary institutions is already extremely difficult and any increase in the financial commitments of students would gravely worsen their financial difficulties. (ii) The imposition of post-secondary tuition fees of comparable levels to those imposed prior to 1971 would force many currently enrolled students to discontinue their studies and deter many persons willing and able at present to undertake post-secondary study from doing so. (iii) Those students and potential students from social groups currently under-represented and disadvantaged in the education system would be most severely affected by the reintroduction of fees for post-secondary education. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. post-secondary tuition fees not be re-introduced for any category of students. 2. any form of Stamp Duty or similar system of the ''user pays'' principle in education not be introduced. 3. emphasis should be on increasing access to eduction by, among other things, increasing student financial assistance. 4. the visa charges upon private overseas students be removed immediately. 5. the Minister for Education and Youth affairs immediately clarify the government's attitude to the reintroduction of post-secondary tuition fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Mr Beddall,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Dawkins and Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows that the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth- that the Australian flag reflects Australia's membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, her position in the southern hemisphere, and her federation of original colonies, recognizes that the flag is a symbol of pride for most Australians, such that several organisations, including the ALP, incorporated the flag in their motifs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will resist moves to change the Australian flag, or if change is contemplated that the question be put to the Australian people by referendum to seek their views. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of 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. 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 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 Cadman and Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the current 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. 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 utilizing 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. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully 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. 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 we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Enquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. 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. 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 Cowan. 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 cost 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. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are concerned at the lack of a truly Australian flag. 2. We ardently desire the Australian Federal Government to adopt a new flag which truly represents our status as a nation and our identity as Australians. 3. Our new flag should represent Australia's future, not its past. 4. Our new flag should be for all Australians, not just white Australians. 5. The unfurling of the new flag should be timed to coincide with our Bicentennial celebrations. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Howard. 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 their great concern for the need for a Child Care Centre in Carramar. Due to the special features of Carramar which include its ethnic diversity, isolation from transport routes, lack of community facilities and services, the area is in great need of services. In particular there is no child care services available to local residents and this is of extreme concern to your humble petitioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that funding be made available for a Multipurpose/Multicultural Child Care Centre in Carramar. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Klugman. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That on-going funding should be available for the Free Standing Day Care Centre conducted by the Townsville Blue Nursing Service. That the existing staff of the Townsville Day Care Centre be retained when the present community employment grant expires. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lindsay. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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 purposes 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 Webster. 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 Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. 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 immediately to raise the Tertiary Education Assistance allowance to the level of the Unemployment Benefit, 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 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. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's lack of compassion towards elderly Australians with the implementation of the iniquitous assets test from today. 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 BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.38) —I propose this matter of public importance because today is an auspicious day in that the Government has shown its lack of compassion towards elderly Australians with the implementation of the assets test from today. I suggest that today throughout Australia 30,000 pensioners will be wondering whether they will still receive a pension. A million or so other age pensioners will all be wondering whether they have retained their full pension or what they were receiving before. They will not be relieved until they actually receive their cheques. This has created tensions, confusion and worry for all those pensioners. The most recent estimate of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) placed the annual savings at almost $100m, which is almost two and a half times the original half a Kit Kat benefit to continuing pensioners. It is now a Kit Kat and a half and a bit. There is certainty in the fact that for those 50,000 or more pensioners who will be relieved of their pension, there will no transfer of benefit this year of that Kit Kat and a bit. There is some doubt that that transfer will take place in the future irrespective of the manner in which the Labor Party has indicated it will proceed. It is a particularly iniquitous assets test because of its influence and its compounding effect on a minority of Australians who have been placed before the total population as the tall poppies, the wealthy and those without a need. In the implementation of this assets test we will find what might be described as an economic or social program to redistribute wealth, but in no area has the human quality been considered by this Government. It is in respect of that human tragedy that I speak today. During the last 18 months when the proposed assets test has been discussed there has been consistency in only three areas; the Opposition's opposition to the proposal, the pensioners' opposition to the proposal and Labor's continuation of broken promises in this and every other regard. I believe that the redistribution of wealth in the form of this assets test was borne out of a factional interest within the socialist Left of the Labor Party. It has been implemented on that basis with little consultation and little consensus in spite of what the Minister said earlier during Question Time. We now have an assets test, with the Minister in charge more directed by his socialist left wing faction than he is concerned about the needs of his Department and the pensioners affected by the assets test. I think that point has to be clearly understood. His pronouncements over the last week or fortnight in connection with the assets test were initiated only because of comment by his own back bench or the Press. He has been more inclined to talk in keeping with the Left's philosophy on the capital gains tax, the wealth tax, death duties and so on. The Minister has also mentioned a national superannuation scheme. Perhaps that scheme would not be necessary if it were not for the assets test. The Government has a greater appetite for taxing more than it should than it has for seeing that the assets test, which is a very delicate and sensitive area, is properly implemented. There is evidence that, as a result of the implementation of the assets test and the taxing of superannuation payments, the living standards of Australians are being lowered instead of raised. The living standards of most Australians are being brought down to a common denominator instead of rising to a common denominator. I want to look at some of the promises that were made in connection with the assets test. Firstly, the Australian people, particularly the pensioners, were assured in March 1983 that there would be no change whatsoever to the pensioners income test. Secondly, at the same time it was promised that lump sum superannuation payments would not be taxed. Thirdly, it was promised that pensions would be increased to represent 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Two of the promises were completely broken and the other promise has not been fulfilled. Honourable members will remember that since the test was first mooted some 18 months ago many changes have been made to it. The first promise that was made on the way through was that only 2 per cent of Australia's pensioners would be affected. We now understand that the figure has moved by some 25 per cent. That is a fairly dramatic error when one considers a pensioner group such as this. Mr Hunt —I think they have still made a mistake. It will be more than that. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Let us look at the amount of savings it was estimated would be achieved. It was estimated that in the first year of operation of the assets test some $40m would be saved. It is now estimated that the saving will be $100m. Further estimates indicate that it could be even more than that. If these were departmental and government estimates at the start of a program, how in the name of goodness will the Minister get his facts straight, when he applies a national superannuation scheme to all Australians, to provide 30 per cent of average weekly earnings to all pensioners? There was a 25 per cent error in the number and a 2 1/2 times error in the result-not bad! The savings have not been transferred. It was indicated initially that the savings would be transferred to the needy from the wealthy. We will not see this happen before the end of this June. I suggest that, in keeping with the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the trilogy, the pensioners will not see it in 1985-86 or any year thereafter. I feel there will be some tensions between the Minister for Social Security, who is at the table, and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) when the Budget is prepared, in effecting that transfer to those who are described as the needy of Australia. Honourable members will also recall that during the implementation of the program, and particularly before the last Federal election, the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that there would be no inspections of property in order to determine the value of pensioners' assets. In fact, it went further than that at the time. Honourable members will recall that most of the social workers in the Department of Social Security were withdrawn from their normal outside activities because it was feared that they might stumble on a pensioner and be asked to advise him in that connection. The social workers were sent back to the office and they would only respond to those requests if they were made by telephone. All those social workers have been sitting on their hands unable to do the job they were intended to do because the Government did not want to see the 'knock-knock' situation coming into the election, although apparently there is now considerable doubt about whether no inspections will be made. Mr Tim Fischer —How about the Taxation Office valuers? Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is right. The example of the valuers in the Australian Taxation Office is a particularly good one. The effect of all these broken promises and changing positions is that the Government and the assets test, which comes into operation today, have lost all credibility. Nobody knows exactly where the Government stands. The many changes which have been implemented have confused the client target group; that is, the pensioners themselves. All of them have been concerned, worried and absolutely confused. Mr Blunt —A great gesture of Senior Citizens Week. Mr BRAITHWAITE —They are the people who- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The interjections from honourable members on my left are interrupting the speaker's train of thought. I do not think that they are helping him. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I will say something about the lost incentive to save. In Question Time the Minister for Social Security indicated that wealthy people and so on were planning their affairs, their assets and their income, so that they could obtain the benefits of both assets and income. I suggest that the result of this test will be that Australians will be encouraged to do that 10 to 20 years earlier, by transferring assets and income during their working lives so that they arrive at the age of retirement with an entitlement to the pension. The hole in that is that we are trying to gather all the elderly, all the pensioners, so that in the long term they will fall within the web of social security. With the taxation of superannuation payments and the assets test we have removed the last incentive for people to save for their own retirement. Let us take the superannuation tax. It was described as a move to stop double dipping. What it has ended up being is a move to double tax a superannuitant upon retiring and then the remainder of those assets is used, under the assets test, to deny him or her pension benefits. So we have gone from a double dipping situation to a double taxation situation. Mr Cadman —And a capital gains tax is the first. Mr BRAITHWAITE —A capital gains tax was the first measure which was introduced in that regard. No wonder the Minister is so keen on a capital gains tax. He saw the introduction of a superannuation tax. The assets test is another capital tax. The Minister acknowledges that he is very keen on making sure that the wealthy, who have escaped the web, are gathered up either now or in their working life time. All of these matters give rise to the latest suggestion, which is a follow on of a national pension scheme, whereby all Australians are drawn into the web and receive the equivalent of 30 per cent of average weekly earnings. But get this-an acknowledged tax rate will be specially set aside for it. The Minister does not acknowledge that Australia is one of the most highly taxed nations of the world. I disagree with him on that, but there is no limit to which he will go to make sure that we are highly taxed and that we will be more highly taxed in future through these measures. I now turn to the anomalies and inconsistencies that have arisen from the introduction of the test. Do I have to remind the House of the redeployment of 1,500 public servants while the Government changed step for a period of six to eight months? Mr Hunt —Fifteen hundred! Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is right. I cannot say that those people were successfully deployed. This has added to the cost of the implementation of the assets test. We have not seen a definition of 'wealth' by the Government when it talks of tall poppies. As far as anomalies are concerned, the greatest impact has been on the family farm and the family business. An identical valuation has been applied to the assets of an urban dweller and a rural dweller. Therefore, because a rural dweller's house is of a lower value than that of an urban dweller, he does not get the benefit of pension whereas an urban dweller, whose house has a higher value, is able to do so. Can anybody tell me how this can be equitable treatment when two people live almost side by side and one is denied a pension an the other is not? I have received many complaints in my office regarding the method of valuation. Roadside valuations have been given by people from the Taxation Office. Now these people are to be asked to be admitted into homes so they may undertake proper valuations. The local valuation is not sufficient. Often it is two or three times as high. A piece of land which a pensioner does not intend to subdivide or move from is being valued on a subdivisional basis. We read yesterday in a Melbourne newspaper of a person who has allowed two hectares of his 2.2 hectares property as curtilage. However, the valuation of the remaining 0.2 hectares was sufficient to disqualify that person from a pension under the assets test. There is no flexibility in the guidelines that have been laid down by the Government. The Government must accept the blame for that. It is the Government's proposition. The Government promoted it and we oppose it. The Government has been told about these problems. The Government has to face the consequences for what it has done. Members of the Government are running round the country saying: 'Yes, it is a nasty tax, but it is the way the guidelines are being interpreted by the Social Security Department'. I point out to the Minister that the Social Security Department has acted to the best of its ability in the face of conditions laid down by the Government. Members of the Government have to accept the blame for its existence. Mr Howard —It is their policy. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is their policy and it is their legislation. I know that the Minister has had submissions from and interviews with people who have no interest in getting the pension itself but who have put propositions in respect of the valuation of rural land and has said: 'I did not realise that the situation was so bad, but if the capital asset on a rural property is capable of earning only 3 per cent, get out, sell it off and go into town'. Those property owners, of course, would not get the pension; they would have to live off what they received for their land. The Government does not understand the meaning of a family farm or a family business. The latest proposition means that there are going to be knocks on the door and the valuers are going to be invited in. I suggest to pensioners that they do not laugh when they let the valuers in because if they do the gold in their teeth will probably be valued at the same time. Pets will also be valued. I want to know on what basis these valuations will be made if a pensioner does not give approval for a valuer to enter his home. We will have a situation in which the pensioner will suffer all along the way. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(3.53) —I am a bit surprised that, in a debate on an issue as complex as the assets test issue, there was so little substance in the remarks of the shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). I think it is a pity that the Opposition continues to go in for the scaremongering which has been characteristic of its approach from the beginning. The honourable member said that some 30,000 pensioners would not know where they were with respect to the assets test. That, frankly, is just wrong. No one has not been contacted or approached by the Department of Social Security. There may be some people who are subject to appeal or to final assessment, but this number is certainly nothing like 30,000. As I suggested earlier, the way in which these figures have been thrown around consistently not only by the Opposition but also by the media has caused considerable heartburn to the hundreds of thousands of pensioners who never were likely to be affected and never will be affected by the assets test. I want to refer very quickly to just two things that have come to my notice today. Firstly, I refer to articles which appeared in the Daily Mirror in Sydney and the News in Adelaide. One article was headed 'Asset Homes Checks' and the other 'Asset Snoops to Raid Homes'. I think that this kind of charge was just repeated by the honourable member for Dawson in his speech. Let me make it clear that the Government has always said that there will be no intrusion or entry into people's homes and there will be no inspection of people's homes. That has been the position, that is the position and that will continue to be the position for as long as I am the Minister. There is no intention and there has never been any intention to enter people's homes to make some kind of valuation of the contents. If we are talking about any question at all with respect to valuation, it is simply the question of rural properties and there will be no question whatever of entry into rural properties without the written permission of the property owners. There has never been a question of entry into people's homes. All the kind of scaremongering that has been associated with the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has done has traumatised hundreds of thousands of pensioners around this country. This kind of behaviour has created an environment in the community in which certain things happen. For instance, I have just received a report that regional offices of the Department of Social Security at Mount Druitt, St Marys and Penrith in the outer western suburbs of Sydney have received reports of persons impersonating departmental officers. In Mount Druitt on Tuesday, 19 March, a well dressed man called on a pensioner and said that he was from the Department. He informed the pensioner that as he had not returned his form his pension was to be cancelled. Then he was asked to hand over his pensioner card. Another case was reported at St Marys. It is in the interests of the Opposition to suggest-the shadow Minister has just done so-that many more people will be affected than will be the case. I suggest that there is no one who has not been contacted by the Department of Social Security and who does not know what his position is in relation to the Department. That does not mean that a final assessment has been made. There may be appeals and so on. But there are not tens of thousands of people who are going to be affected and who have not been contacted. I suggest that that kind of scaremongering is of no value. The shadow Minister referred to so-called tall poppies. Indeed, we are talking about tall poppies. We are talking about 2.5 per cent of a population of more than two million pensioners. We are talking about people with very substantial capital assets, and I referred to this matter during Question Time. It has been suggested that somehow we would treat city people differently from country people or that we should treat country people differently in economic terms from city people. Let me say that that is not news to me from the National Party. The National Party never believes that any subsidy or support that is provided to the rural area needs to be justified in budgetary terms. Members of the National Party are not interested in any other priority than a priority relating to people living in rural communities. We have to be fair in the way in which we administer this test. Mr Donald Cameron —I take a point of order. That man is not telling the truth. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a point of order. I will deal with any more frivolous points of order. Mr HOWE —It is important that we establish rules that apply equally to all Australians and that is what we have sought to do with the assets test. That does not mean that we are administering the test in an insensitive manner. This is why the hardship provisions were introduced. I commend to honourable members a reading of the booklet on hardship provisions. I think for the most part people are really addressing the situation without having looked at the efforts the Department has made. There are hardship provisions. Provision is also made for appeals so that proper assessments can be made. The history of social security appeals tribunals and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is one of showing considerable sympathy to people who are poor and in very necessitous circumstances. The appeals process has worked very well. But it seems to me that some people in this House are less than interested in fairness and in a just system. Let us take some of the cases that have been thrown up. Let us ask the people on the other side who are supposed to be being so objective: What about the widow receiving a full rate pension who disclosed that her late husband had lent $730,000 to a family company at no interest? What about a pensioner in Queensland-- Mr Lloyd —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would like to give an accurate example for the Minister's assessment of a poor farming family which cannot generate the income-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Murray will resume his seat. I caution the honourable member for Murray about taking specious points of order. Mr HOWE —Let us take the example, as I was suggesting, of the widow receiving a full rate pension who disclosed that her late husband had lent $730,000 to a family company at no interest. Mr Tuckey —Of course there will be examples like that. Mr HOWE —That is an example of someone with three quarters of a million dollars in assets who, under the incomes test alone, received a full pension. Is that the situation honourable members opposite want to countenance? It seems to me that it might suit a number of people in this House if we did not have a means test at all. Let us take a case from Queensland. A pensioner in Queensland who owns $800,000 worth of shares was receiving the maximum rate of pension because the interest from the shares went into a family trust. This pensioner also had applied to my Department for rent assistance of up to $15 a week, but without success. Let us take another Queensland case, as there is a lot of interest from members from Queensland. A Queensland pensioner was receiving a full rate of pension even though he owned several farm properties. It was argued-this is relevant to the National Party lobby-that this was justified because the farms were not being run at a profit. The application of income tests alone clearly induces wealthy pensioners to cheat the system by depriving themselves of income. It is also-I make the point very strongly because I think it indicates the underlying interest behind the Opposition's comments-an inducement to some unscrupulous people to exploit the elderly. I mentioned during Question Time the case which has come to light of an elderly woman in a nursing home who was shown to have $500,000 invested in a non-interest bearing account form with her accountant. Her form, which was filled in by the accountant, also revealed that she had $50,000 invested in the bank. If the $500,000 had been invested on the woman's behalf at a relatively modest interest rate of 12.5 per cent it would have provided her with an annual income of $62,500. Of course it suited accountants around the country, a number of funds and certain people to arrange affairs for some of the beneficiaries in this country in such a way that they would not be affected by the income test. People were prepared to accept that because they wanted the pension. But who do honourable members think was benefiting from that? Who benefits when we have in this country assets which are held in a way which is non-productive? People say: 'We just want to retain a hold on this property. We are not interested in whether it is productive'. Those people may not be interested but the country is interested in ensuring that the assets we have are being used in a productive way and not in such a way as to mean that the state has to provide such people with a pension. I would not have thought that there was any problem with that philosophically for the conservative parties. I would have thought that what they were on about philosophically, was people doing more for themselves, becoming more independent and creating a circumstance in which they would not be dependent upon the community for support by way of pensions and benefits. I would have thought that that was what their philosophy was all about, but it would seem not. When a handout is around members of the National Party have their snouts at the trough. That is what this issue is about. There is some money around which some people are not getting. It does not matter how damned wealthy those people are, if they are missing out, people in the National Party will go in to bat for them. The shadow Minister has had a lot of opportunity to raise substantial problems. Frankly, I do not think he succeeded very well. He said that we have no certainty that the money will be applied. There was a real increase of some $400m in the social security budget in this year in which the full implementation costs of the assets test will be felt. No doubt in this year's Budget there will be a significant direction of money towards the people who are most in need. But, again, that is rhetoric for the conservative parties. They love to talk about the people most in need but they have never had the guts to take the kind of measures which will mean that we get resources redirected in the way- Mr Tuckey —You are hurting a lot of little people. Mr HOWE —I have some respect for what I see as members of the dry section of the Liberal Party because at least they have a bit of guts and a bit of principle. At least they stand up to argue for things. The marshmallow centre people sitting on the front bench opposite are great at carping and criticising. They would destroy any measure for short run political advantage because that is all they are about. All they are about is office and power. They are not about really being concerned about people and being interested in the welfare of the pensioners and beneficiaries in this country. That is why they have been at work, waging this hysterical campaign over the last 12 months. Mr Donald Cameron —Why do you send your wife out to work? You have a $100,000 a year income. You are a dirty little hypocrite. Mr HOWE —That campaign has been immoral and it has been unjust. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for Moreton to withdraw that remark. Mr Donald Cameron —Withdraw? Are you talking about the remark about his wife earning $60,000 a year while he has a job? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair does not invite a repetition of the offence. The honourable member for Moreton will withdraw or I shall deal with him. Mr Donald Cameron —I withdraw. Mr HOWE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that essentially this debate is about privilege. I think that essentially the Opposition has been seeking to protect the privileges of people who really are, on the whole, very wealthy people and who have very substantial assets. If one is talking about the low income people in this country, one of the things that is characteristic of pensioners and beneficiaries is that they are asset poor. They live from week to week on an income that is supplied. If we look at the vast majority of pensioners across Australia we find that they have, apart form the family home, which is excluded, little or nothing by way of assets. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(4.08) —I make the point to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) that this debate has very little to do with privilege and a great deal to do with prudence. Members of the House on this side are in this place not to protect the privileged but to protect those prepared to be prudent and to see that there is an incentive for people to make provision for their future. I, along with the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), stand to defend the most vulnerable members of the community. While this debate has been raging I have been reminded of that fourteenth century legendary character called Robin Hood. Legend has it that Robin Hood occupied Sherwood Forest. Robin Hood chose to ambush without warning those who wandered through Sherwood Forest and who were perceived by Robin Hood to be rich. Robin Hood's philosophy was the catch cry of all do-gooders: 'Let's rob from the rich and give to the poor'. That is not a philosophy with which we on this side of the House have a great deal of difficulty. That is why we have tolerated for so long a system of progressive taxation. We have agreed with that system; we have tolerated progressive taxation when we have had an audited statement by way of a tax return which gave us some evidence of who was rich and who was poor. Robin Hood's dilemma was that, pursued by the Sheriff of Nottingham, he had no time to assess whether people were rich or poor. He sprang out of the forest, assessed a person's relative wealth by the size of his carriage, by the number of horses that pulled it, by the suit of clothes he was wearing and kapowie. There was no time for Robin Hood to ask: 'I am sorry, have you just been foreclosed by creditors? Have you just faced a drought? Has there been a bereavement in the family?'. There was not time for Robin Hood to make an assessment of whether someone was really rich or poor. If he perceived a person to be rich he robbed him. He simply said: 'I think you are rich. I will redistribute your wealth.' Mr Deputy Speaker, if you will pardon my saying so, Robin Hawke currently is making the same short-sighted assessment. The same condemnation as I have passed on the master of Sherwood Forest, we pass on the Government. What we have is highway robbery 1985-style, highway robbery of Australia's most prudent citizens. This is exactly the same point as the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) made in the adjournment debate on Tuesday when he gave an illustration of people in his electorate who were being adversely affected by this assets test. What did the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who is also at the table-I hesitate to take my Robin Hood analogy so far as to call him Little John-say in June last year when referring to the introduction of the assets test and the impact it would have on the very people he was elected to protect? In relation to the hardship provisions he said: . . . where a person is unable or cannot reasonably be expected to raise money on the farm or where selling it would cause hardship, then consideration will be given to exempting all or part of the value of the farm from the assets test. I am having great difficulty finding farmers in my rural electorate who have been able to make use of that sort of exemption. What does the Minister suggest I say, for example, to the Riverton farmer who came to me and who was farming 500 acres-good country to be sure? Having raised 10 children and given the majority of them a tertiary education he now finds that because the farm is still in his name he is denied a pension and the one son who is working on the farm will have to leave it because, as honourable members know, 500 acres cannot possibly support two families. What would the Minister have me say to that farmer's neighbour who farms 485 acres with 270 of them still in his name, so he is unable to receive the pension? Mr Howe —What is it worth an acre? Mr ANDREW —Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me, if you will, to answer that interjection. If this man sold up-I make no bones about it-he would probably be worth $400,000, but he has no interest in that amount and, quite frankly, he has no capacity on 400 acres or with $400,000 to make more than one income. His current situation is that, at 70 years of age, the only income he makes is for himself. What does he do for the man who has been running that farm? My office has been plagued with reports such as this, and I suggest that so have the offices of every other honourable member not only on this side of the House but also on the other side as well. What do I say to the Caltowie farmer who happens to have 1,000 acres, who is 64 years old, whose wife is 56 and who has half of the property in the name of his mother-in-law? He, his wife and his mother-in-law will all lose their pensions. How on earth is that farm to support any one of them? They could sell up, as the Minister advocates. They would be temporarily rich but the people who were employed on that farm would become unemployed. These people who were happily sustaining a lifestyle that suited them-it may not have suited the Minister-are to be denied that lifestyle by the action of this Government. Let us get away from those alleged rich capitalists who happen to have up to half a million dollars invested and who clearly will have no patience shown to them by those on the other side of the House. Let us look at the soldier settlers in irrigation areas with which the Minister for Primary Industry ought to be most familiar. Mr Hawker —Men who fought for their country. Mr ANDREW —As the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) said, they fought for their country. These men have farms worth somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000. I put it to the Minister that it is not possible to make a viable income on a primary production unit worth under $250,000 in this day and age. Mr Ian Robinson —Which includes the family home. Mr ANDREW —Which includes the family home. Every one of these people, living a lifestyle that, sir, quite frankly, would not suit you, is to be denied the pension. The people the Minister is trimming with this assets test are not the tall poppies in society, they are the little Aussie battlers, those who have been endeavouring to survive on limited areas, too small to allow them to invest in larger areas. They are the people who are being deliberately attacked by this Government. One person wrote to me and said: 'I don't think those who drew up the regulations have an understanding of rural affairs'. He was absolutely right. This legislation has a decided anti-rural bias, a bias that is not overcome by advocating, for example, the pay as you die scheme. What is that? It is really nothing more than death duties. The Government is saying to the same farmers: 'Let us mortgage your property. We will give you a pension and charge you 13.5 per cent, and when you ultimately die the estate will pay back the Government whatever it owes.' These properties are too small to discharge that debt and this Government has no right to exercise that sort of authoritarian state with my and my party's rural primary producers. The Minister in his speech and in Question Time today accused this side of the House of scaremongering and intimidation. The reality is that even the so-called 'knock knock' campaign, alluded to by the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) when she interjected, got off the ground only because the pensioners in our society had every reason to be concerned about what was happening. They had no idea which way this Government was going to turn next. They had one form of assets test and out it went, and in came another. Uncertainty was what fostered the scaremongering and the intimidation. Rumour-mongering cannot be levelled at the Opposition. It was the uncertainty of the way in which the assets test was implemented that caused the problem that added to pensioner alarm. The difficulty the Minister faces is that he has chosen to assess people's value by perception. The Government has chosen to determine whether the pensioners are rich or poor by perception. There is no equity in an assets test that so attacks rural Australians as against urban ones who can have the same asset in a home overlooking Sydney Harbour and still get the pension. Even Robin Hood would have shown more discretion than that. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(4.17) —I found the analogy of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) about Robin Hood and taxation extraordinary to say the least. I cannot imagine he was suggesting that all of us would be happy about the Ned Kelly behaviour of the very high income tax tax avoiders and minimisers whose activities have been at the root of the difficulty we have had in raising pensions for everybody. The Opposition ran one of the most heartless and disgraceful political terror campaigns about the assets test. To talk of the Government's lack of compassion, as the Opposition has in this matter of public importance, is absolutely outrageous hypocrisy. The Opposition set out to create anxiety, to raise fear and ultimately to terrorise all pensioners when it knew that only about 2 per cent of pensioners would be affected. It had a go at 98 per cent of them in order to do something that it felt it should do to protect the 2 per cent it was particularly interested in. In fact it waged the war against the assets test over the bodies of those people in whom it had no interest at all. The Opposition preyed on the natural anxieties of elderly people for puerile political purposes. It cared not one whit for the good of pensioners; it cared only for vote at any cost to anybody. Compassionate people would have tried to disseminate the facts. Compassionate people would not have tried to make it impossible for pensioners to be accurately informed of the value of some of their assessable assets. What kind of people promulgated misinformation of every kind-compassionate people? No, it was the Opposition. Did the compassionate members of the Opposition care about the great inequity between those pensioners whose savings were returned as income and those people who had access to very substantial capital arranged in non-income earning ways; the same people with the same savings but differently treated? Those differences added up to this situation: Two couples living side by side may have totally different standards of living, totally differing opportunities to make choices about their activities and totally different security from difficulty. Compassionate people would have admitted that this inequity should not exist. Instead, the disgraceful members opposite, without compassion, without integrity and without truth, not caring about over 90 per cent of pensioners, and trying to terrify 100 per cent of pensioners, tried to cause anxiety and insecurity to every single pensioner in this country. They did not care about the hundreds of thousands of pensioners for whom increases in benefits are a matter of daily bread. They did this for two reasons: First, to protect those people whose assets could provide them with adequate income if properly invested; and, secondly, much more disgracefully, to gain political advantage. All may be fair in war and politics, but to talk about compassion when they have that record leaves them utterly condemned as unprincipled political opportunists. There are some issues about the assets test which are still to be resolved. Certainly, those farmers-those soldier settlers-whose farms, because of their size, are not providing them with the kind of benefit that they certainly need to be looked at. But if we look at the reasons why that has not already been settled, we return to the disgraceful campaign waged by the members of the Opposition and their media feeding which prevented any proper investigation of that situation before it happened and which was a deliberate prevention because it allowed them to make so many wild and inaccurate statements about those people who would be affected. One of the nastiest and most despicable aspects of the Opposition's campaign against elderly people has been the abuse heaped on officers of the Department of Social Security. An Opposition which pretends to be an alternative government has now clearly given notice that should it ever return to the treasury bench, the Public Service will carry the blame for its incompetencies. Its campaign led to Social Security officers being denigrated in every way. It gave credence to the lie that DSS officers would behave like gestapo people. Opposition back benchers, led by the angry ant, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), ran the campaign implying that pensioners' homes would be searched. They are still talking about the gold in pensioners' teeth as if that were relevant to any situation except the creation of fear and confusion. They acceded to a campaign implying that pensioners' homes would be searched and they are still accusing workers in the Public Service of bureaucratic bungling and incompetence. That claim was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). Some compassion! Elderly Australians have every reason now to hold the Opposition responsible for the confusion which exists. They have every reason to blame those members of the Opposition and those who support the Opposition for the way in which they have been misled and frightened. Certain sections of the media must also ask themselves how responsibly they behaved. I instance the Herald headline which suggested that 672,000 pensioners would be affected by the test, when in fact the number is just over 270,000. That fact could have been ascertained by a simple phone call. Those 270,000 people whose pensions have been affected may include people to whom the hardship provisions may apply, or people who, because of the misleading nonsense promulgated by the Opposition, have not had adequate valuations of their property made. That should be sheeted home to the Opposition because, if it had not provided so much nonsense, so much misleading information and so much confusion, all of those things could have been done quite simply. This situation would not have happened had the Opposition and its lackeys displayed any compassion, any concern and anything but political opportunism. The Opposition, with absolute hypocrisy and heartlessness, puts up a facade of concern for the family, but shows absolutely no interest in the welfare of single parent families with children, who are very poor because the family is dependent on the pension. Where is its compassion for those children and their parents? If ever the hollow hypocrisy of an Opposition without policies, without principle and without propriety has been exposed, it is evidenced by the proposition that we are discussing. Members of the Opposition, with their bleeding hearts on their sleeves, pretend to be concerned for the well being of Australian pensioners. They could not care less about Australian pensioners. They care only about political profit. If they cannot win votes with their policies and performance, they try to create fear and anxiety and terrify people into voting for them. That is not compassionate; that is contemptible. This proposal is contemptible because it is yet another attempt to mislead people in this country about the nature of the assets test and what it is doing. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you and I know, the assets test was necessary in order to provide some equity in the pension system. It is providing some equity in the pension system. If there is any thread of a fair go for all Australians in the hearts of members of the Opposition, they will have the grace to admit it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Debate resumed. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.26) —Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch, I was about to talk about the publication produced by the metal trades unions entitled Australia on the Brink. This excellent publication deals with the decline of the manufacturing industry and proposes solutions to arrest that decline and provide jobs which, of course, are very important in relation to the commercial motor vehicle manufacturers for which this Bill will provide a bounty extension. The publication describes the complexities of tariffs and quota protection and the many non-tariff devices used by overseas countries to develop and assist their industries at the expense of Australia's manufacturing industries. As the publication points out, the prices and incomes accord between the Federal Government and the union movement is not confined to wages alone. Industry development policy is one of the central concerns of the accord. This concern is based on the fact that, if the Australian economy does not change course by 1990, in Victoria alone, where 21,297 jobs were lost in metals engineering from 1981 to 1984, another 8,600 jobs will be lost in fabrication shops, transport and other machinery industries. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) indicated in his second reading speech that the Industries Assistance Commission has presented its report on long term assistance for the heavy commercial vehicle parts and accessories industry. The Government has yet to announce its decision in relation to long term assistance for the industry. Therefore, the present bounty extension is only a holding operation. It is to be hoped that the Government will accept that the alarming decline in Australia's manufacturing industry is related to three factors: Firstly, too many foreign imports controlling our domestic market; secondly, insufficient exports of our manufactured products; and, thirdly, and even more importantly, the lack of industry modernisation. As the metal trades publication Australia on the Brink has stated, the key to successful industry plans is the negotiation of tripartite agreements between the Government, unions and employers, as was undertaken in the recently negotiated steel plan. Short term solutions such as bounty assistance are not really solutions. One particular problem which requires urgent attention by both government and the manufacturing industry is the problem of offsets by which, for example, foreign companies are granted export contracts in return for an undertaking that manufactured components worth a specified proportion of the contract price are purchased from Australian manufacturers. Many of the offset provisions in the foreign contracts are not being honoured because no enforcement mechanisms or penalty clauses have been inserted in the original contract. Bounty assistance would not help in such cases because an initial contract would not have even been placed by the foreign company. One has to ask why it is that when the Australian Government is involved in such contracts, penalty clauses are not inserted which the Government could then enforce if offsets are not negotiated by the foreign company. The metal trades unions publication has estimated that Australia is presently owed $800m worth of offsets and another $160m is long overdue. Of course, one of the problems for Australia is the high degree of foreign control of our manufacturing industry involving intra-corporate trade within the organisational structure of many of the multinational corporations involved. Examples are given in the metal trades publication of millions of dollars worth of engineering work and manufacture being undertaken by foreign controlled multinational corporations and their overseas subsidiaries at the expense of Australian manufacturing companies. As I mentioned previously, the findings of the Australian Science and Technology Council report on computer related technologies in the metal trades industry have ramifications for the whole of the manufacturing industry. Bounty assistance does not overcome problems revealed by the ASTEC report, such as the inexperience of managers unwilling to devote resources to the manufacture of new technology and who are also unwilling to undertake consultation with the workers before such technology is introduced. Often the workers on the job know as much, if not more, about the engineering processes than do the managers themselves. Therefore, it is not surprising that workers are often unco-operative when new technological tools are introduced which are either unsuitable or for which their skills are not attuned. As the ASTEC report indicates, substantial industry restructuring will need to occur if the Australian metal trades industry is to take advantage of the introduction of many new computer related technologies. The Government intends to provide long term assistance arrangements for the heavy commercial motor vehicle industry. I trust that before the arrangements are announced the Government will take into account the views of Mr Joe Caesar, the National President of the Metal Trades Federation of Unions. I quote from the excellent document Australia on the Brink, in which Mr Caesar said: Immediate action is needed if a viable metal manufacturing industry is to be maintained. The development of a clear industry policy is essential. Such a policy must be directed to increasing the export of manufactured goods. It must take into account such factors as 'trade-offs', 'off-sets', 'bartering arrangements' and the need for 'direct negotiations with transnational corporations'. The metal unions had adopted a program which allows for such an industry policy. It is a program which calls for planned restructuring, modernisation and reduced fragmentation of our industry. I recommend the publication Australia On The Brink to all members of Parliament and to those people who may be listening to this debate today. It is a publication which should be in the hands of every worker on the shop floor. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(4.33) —I appreciate that the Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Amendment Bill is only an interim measure to tide over the Government and, of course, the heavy commercial motor vehicle industry until the Government has decided how to respond to the Industries Assistance Commission report on heavy commercial motor vehicles. For that reason, I believe that it is important that the House supports the Bill. However, I note that the IAC report was completed on 29 February 1984 and that the Government has still not decided how to respond to that report. While major decisions which could determine the survival of an industry and the jobs of several thousand people should not be taken lightly, to let 13 months of inactivity elapse and to seek, in effect, an extension beyond those 13 months, suggests that the Government is suffering from serious inertia and indecision. Indeed, it would seem that the Government either has completely forgotten about the heavy commercial vehicle industry or has decided that any decision is just far too hard. The result is that the local heavy commercial vehicle industry, already in a state of considerable difficulty, is in no position to take decisions for the future while the nature of industry assistance and even the survival of that assistance is still in question. The industry is in no position now to initiate future development plans, it is in no position to anticipate future market trends and it is in no position to take fundamental investment decisions so central to its capacity to survive and, hopefully, to grow and also, of course, to create jobs. Consequently, while I support this Bill as, in the circumstances, an essential interim measure, I urge the Government to indicate as soon as possible when its decisions on the industry's future will be announced so that industry can then start to plan for the future. There is no doubt that the heavy commercial vehicle industry and the related component industries have endured considerable difficulty over recent years in spite of the assistance afforded by not only the bounty for certain components but also the 22.5 per cent tariff on completely built up heavy commercial vehicle imports. Since 1978, when the existing package of assistance measures was introduced, the level of local assembly has declined markedly. While the overall market for heavy commercial vehicles has grown slightly since 1978, the share of that market taken by imports increased from 45 per cent in 1978 to 68 per cent in 1983. Registrations of locally assembled vehicles have declined from around 24,000 vehicles in 1978 to just 15,000 vehicles in 1983. There has been little or no improvement in the market situation since then. The impact on employment of this decline in the local industry of course has been correspondingly severe. In five years, jobs in the heavy vehicle assembly industry have been reduced to less than half. This disturbing downward trend has taken place despite the relatively high levels of protection which one could say the industry has enjoyed. While the industry has shown a capacity to compete, helped of course by the assistance package at the heavy vehicle end of the market, there is no doubt that imports, particularly imports from Japan, of completely built up vehicles have had enormous success in penetrating the light end of the commercial vehicle market. I note the concern expressed by the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers that the Japanese industry may well concentrate in future on the heavy end of the commercial vehicle market, thereby wiping out the Australian industry altogether. Whatever the truth of that prediction-it may well of course be an extremely pessimistic one-it is worth noting that while industries, such as the Japanese, the American and the Swedish, continue to seek export markets effectively and are continually investing and upgrading, our own industry is unable to take any steps to invest, develop and meet this competition, partly because of government inertia. It is fortuitous for the local industry that the Australian dollar has plunged in recent months, thereby inflating the price of imports and making local products relatively more competitive. However, any benefits from the devaluation ultimately will be very limited for the industry because by linking wage levels, and indeed a range of taxes, to the consumer price index the Government has guaranteed that any costs associated with the devaluation will flow back throughout the economy inter alia harming the heavy vehicle industry. The devaluation in total is likely to add something in the region of $1 billion in additional costs to Australian businesses and Australian industry because of the link between wages and certain taxes and charges and the consumer price index. Consequently, the sooner the Government moves to take a decision on the future of this industry-a decision which it has delayed already for 13 months-the better it will be for the industry. While I do not wish at this stage to pass extensive judgment on the recommendations of the IAC inquiry, I make one or two points about it. In the first place the IAC has drawn attention to the limited nature of the bounty. That bounty applies to the local production of only, I think I am right in saying, six components, yet other locally produced components do not attract any bounty payments whatsoever. While the extension of the bounty to all locally produced components would impose additional budgetary costs on the Government, such an extension of the bounty would, in the interests of neutrality of assistance, make much more sense. Clearly, to apply a bounty to some products and not to others within the same market creates a degree of market distortion. Secondly, I note the IAC's preference to abandon altogether the bounty and replace it over a period of six years with a tariff of 25 per cent. Such a solution would take pressure off the Commonwealth Budget and perhaps provide a more neutral and rational form of assistance. But it is noteworthy that the local industry has argued that such a change in the assistance measures would have the effect of severely reducing local activity and local employment and, instead, substitute local assembly with the importation of completely built up vehicles. Whichever of these options is chosen-it is generally believed that the Government favours a change to an across-the-board 25 per cent for both components and built up vehicles, that being consistent with the IAC's recommendations but inconsistent with the industry view-it is a matter of deep concern that the industry should feel a need for such substantial protection against the industries of our competitors. The need felt by the industry for this kind of assistance reflects the basic uncompetitive nature not only of this particular industry but of a large number of manufacturing industries throughout Australia. Honourable members will recall the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in Japan in 1983 announcing the Government's intention to make major structural adjustment to Australian industry in general. At that time I was the Director of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and I was happy to support publicly the sentiments of that statement. Subsequently, a change to the assistance arrangements for passenger motor vehicles was announced and that plan recognised the need to rationalise the Australian industry and encourage the survivors to become more export oriented and internationally competitive. I see no reason why the heavy commercial vehicle industry should not also be governed by the same criteria. I am disappointed that so far the Government has run away from taking the appropriate decision. I have in recent days had conversations with people in the industry not just to find out their views on the IAC's recommendations, but also to get a feeling from them as to the possible long term potential of the industry. Each of the people I have spoken to has agreed that the domestic market for heavy commercial vehicles in Australia is far too small for the local industry to be able to compete effectively. They all agree that if the industry is to become truly efficient and competitive in international terms, it has to seek out export markets and expand its production runs. I also note from the people to whom I have spoken their very great concern about the cost structure of the Australian industry and their view that, if I may quote them, they would have no hope whatever in export markets unless our cost structure reflects more sensibly the nature of international competition and the international market place. People in the industry refer persistently to the level of wages in Australia and to the nature of the wage fixing system, which takes no account of the weakness of this industry but, instead, fixes wages on the basis of the consumer price index and the notorious prices and incomes accord. They have also expressed a great deal of related concern about labour on-costs-penalty rates, holiday loadings and so on-which make up about 40 per cent of the total wage bill for people in this industry and in industries in other parts of the economy. Additional concern has also been expressed about the level of transport costs with a view to obtaining access to export markets. Naturally, Australia as an island must face the critical difficulty of getting the finished product shipped from Australia to the appropriate market place. The concern expressed by the industry about the cost of shipping the finished product and the costs associated with the various shipping conferences-the various monopolies that determine the price of shipping-is substantial, and the industry believes these costs inhibit any potential it has for future growth. Concern is also felt in the industry about the taxation structure. I do not want to say too much on that topic at the moment, except to point to the fear in the industry that the Government is moving to abolish the investment allowance after June of this year. I remind the House that during the last election campaign the Opposition committed itself to retaining that investment allowance, and indeed to increasing the allowance from 18 to 20 per cent. Because the industry cannot get to export markets, because our cost structure is uncompetitive, the industry itself is suffering from a failure to be able to obtain economies of scale. The fact that there are, in our small domestic market, 14 major local assemblers of heavy commercial vehicles is indicative of the lack of sensible organisation in the industry and of the failure of the industry to achieve the economies of scale which are such a feature of the heavy commercial vehicle manufacturers in Japan, the United States and a number of European countries. The 14 assemblers in Australia at present produce approximately 12,000 units per annum. To put that figure into global perspective, it should be pointed out that over one million heavy commercial vehicles were manufactured in the United States in 1981, 930,000 were produced in Japan, and 350,000 in the main European manufacturing countries-the Federal Republic of Germany, Britain, France, Sweden and Italy. British Leyland alone, which does not have a reputation for being a particularly profitable company, was as long ago as 1978 producing 16,000 units a year. I remind the House that our 14 firms produce just 12,000 units. In Sweden, a country which in some respects is comparable to Australia, there are only two heavy commercial vehicle manufacturers, yet the export performances and records of profitability of those firms are well known. The message of international experience is clear enough. A competitive and realistic domestic cost structure and a determination by management to penetrate markets beyond the bounds of the domestic market will ensure an industry which enhances, not drains, the resources of the community. I accept readily that international analogies should not be taken too literally, but the reality is that where others have succeeded Australia has failed. The Bill before the House, which I support as an interim measure, is symbolic of the delay in Australia of decisions to encourage our own industry to rationalise, to reduce costs to end users of heavy commercial vehicles rather than impose a direct penalty on end users, to restructure not only direct assistance measures but also our wage fixing system and our tangle of business and industry regulations, and to reduce our taxation burden. It is vitally important that, by being given a little more time to restructure the heavy commercial vehicle industry, the Government acts soon to dispense with the uncertainty and delays which are holding the industry back. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(4.48) —The Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Amendment Bill seeks to continue a bounty in relation to commercial motor vehicles, and the reasons have been made clear by previous speakers. They relate to the fact that time is required for a response by the Government to the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on this matter. This debate provides an opportunity for honourable members to consider some aspects of what is happening in the area of commercial motor vehicle manufacture and, more broadly, as to the overall industry policy to be adopted by the Government so that some direction may be indicated. Previous speakers have ranged over these matters and I also intend to touch upon some of those aspects. There is a clear need for something to be done in respect of commercial motor vehicles. One honourable member who has raised this matter in the Labor Caucus, and who will be speaking to this Bill some time later, is the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell). I know that he has studied this matter in greater detail than has any other member of this House. I am sure that he will be presenting a case for Australia seeking to preserve and in fact strengthen the commercial motor vehicle industry. The industry's record in the last few years has not been good. For example, total registrations of heavy commercial vehicles fell from roughly 52,000 in late 1980 to 48,000 in early 1983. More worrying still is that the importation of small trucks and prime movers has increased dramatically and is now completely overshadowing the production of locally assembled vehicles. Between 1978 and 1983 the share of local production fell by almost 50 per cent. How do we come to grips with these problems? Interestingly, and one might say unusually, in this case the IAC has recommended that the bounty be removed and be replaced by a tariff of 25 per cent. I note that the previous speaker for the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), believes that in this case we should not accept the IAC recommendations. That is interesting because the usual liberal procedure is to embrace IAC recommendations enthusiastically. He said that the industry itself has alternatives. Yet in his speech he went on to attack the industry in a variety of ways by saying that it had not been moving forward sufficiently in restructuring and rationalising itself. He was trying to blame the wages policy of this Government for the industry's problems. Listening to the honourable member for Mayo speak in those terms, one would think that he had totally forgotten the industry policy and the developments in this country over all the years of the Fraser period. I think it would be a fairer approach on the honourable member's part if he were to accept responsibility for what happened over that long period when there was hardly any action in that area, rather than simply try to contend that the higher level of wages is the cause of the industry's problems. I will come back to that subject later. Another thing that the honourable member for Mayo totally ignored in his comments was that in the two years that we have been in government we have totally changed the previous Government's approach to industry policy. We have a completely different approach which is planned and rational. I know that when the honourable gentleman was involved with the Chamber of Commerce he did not particularly like the planned approach. He believed that everything could be left to the so-called free market forces. That sort of nonsense, if I may say so, was Liberal philosophy masquerading behind the wall of the Chamber of Commerce, and this tends to happen a lot in this country. The Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia has a different view, and the Metal Trades Industry Association Inc. has a different view again from that of the Chamber of Commerce. The advice one is told to accept on industry policy depends on what group of businessmen one talks to. The honourable member for Mayo suggested that we should leave everything to the free market, laissez-faire approach. If we were to do that we would end up with the incoherent industry policy that existed under the previous Government. This policy basically tried to allow things to operate in terms of the so-called laissez-faire market, but as soon as something went wrong the industry was allowed to race off to the Government to ask for more assistance. So a series of ad hoc assistance measures was developed while at the same time there was no overall comprehensive planning relating to industry policies. The previous Government's attitude was simply to leave it to market forces but as soon as the market failed it gave a bit of assistance here and a bit of assistance there. The previous Government had no general comprehension as to what was needed in industry planning. The Australian Labor Party, in its important annual conference last July, adopted unanimously a platform for the restructuring and revitalisation of industry in this country which is based on an approach opposite to that which I have just outlined. It is based on an approach which involves planning, consultation and putting into place mechanisms whereby the industry, the unions and the Government come together to discuss what is important and what is needed in terms of industry development. We have put into place various mechanisms relating to a whole range of industries. These mechanisms relate not only to the Australian Manufacturing Council but also to the various industry councils. Each of these bodies has representatives from the companies and from the union sector as well as input from independent experts. This approach is working. It is providing a planned and rational concept of what we need to do, not only at the level of manufacturing industry as a whole, but at the level of the specific industries that we want to develop. It is in that context that we also have to look at the whole question of what constitutes the rational development of industries. Two criteria were established and stated quite clearly in the platform of the Labor Party at its annual conference. They are, firstly, that we shall support industries which have export potential. I refer to industries with the potential to use the skills that we have generated in this country to develop those industries and to export their products. Secondly, I refer to import replacement, not across the board but in those areas where we have an advantage and where we can show, first of all, that there is a sufficient internal demand for a product and, secondly, that we have the skills to develop those sorts of industries. I believe that the heavy commercial motor vehicle industry meets those criteria. I shall quote specifically from the ALP platform. It reads: . . . promoting the establishment and strengthening of those sections of industry for which substantial domestic demand exists or is projected to exist for which there are substantial employment prospects and which have the potential to develop to be relatively domestically and internationally competitive. On that point, I should say that the word 'competitive' is thrown about a lot in discussions on industry policy. But the ALP platform refers to relative international competitiveness. I think that is correct because when we have discussions on industry policy there are often absurd comparisons made in terms of what is and what is not competitive. For example, we have been told that in order to be competitive we ought to cut Australian wage levels to a level approaching those of the poorest of the South East Asian nations. That is what some people mean by being competitive. If that were to be the view of, for example, the United States of America or of the countries of western Europe and if those countries were to adopt such an approach in order to be competitive, we would have a massive reduction of the standards of living in most of the industrialised world. Countries such as the United States, Canada and those of western Europe have all rejected that concept. In fact, being competitive in the context to which I am referring means that we can compete in terms of the production systems that we put up. We need the most modern production systems and a skill base which is competitive with other nations. To be competitive in industry nobody is suggesting that one has to reduce wage levels to those of the poorer nations of South East Asia and elsewhere. That would be an absurdity. It would be politically unacceptable and in fact is something which the Opposition clearly has not thought out. What was advocated in the so-called Liberal document on industry policy? It advocated a return to the days when everything was supposedly achieved by the laissez-faire free market, and it blamed all the ills and problems of industry in this country on the accord and the wage indexation system. If it were not for the co-operation of the union movement under the accord, the substantial pick-up that has already occurred in industry development would not have occurred. The co-operation of the union movement has not been merely in the stabilisation of wages, but in several other areas such as stabilisation of costs and the introduction of modern processes of production. That co-operation has come as a consequence of the accord, not from throwing out all co-operation and consultation as the Opposition would do. In addition to going back to this outmoded philosophy, it was proposing to abolish the Australian Manufacturing Council and the industry councils. In other words, it was going to abolish all of the consultative mechanisms which bring together workers, employers and government specialists to work out the planned and rational approach to industry policy which I have outlined. To say all these things is not to suggest that more could not be done. Of course more could be done. In fact, there are still problems but there is no question that the situation has been turned around from the terrible recession which we were in and which affected the manufacturing industry in particular. One of the most important things to do is to encourage new fixed capital investment in manufacturing. There are two aspects to this matter. One of them the Opposition does not care to consider, and that is the question of how to move capital resources from the unproductive speculative area in which they are often placed nowadays into a productive area, especially manufacturing industry. Opposition members have been talking in the last few days in this House about taxation reform and how they are happy to have it, but there has been no reference at all as to how the taxation system might be reformed so as to discourage speculative investment and to encourage investment in manufacturing industry. I will not go into details at the moment, but we ought to be thinking, as we approach the taxation summit, in terms of not only what we will do for individual taxpayers but also what we will do to affect the industry structure of this country through the taxation system. The taxation system has important consequences for manufacturing. Unfortunately, except for the last few months, fixed capital investment has been falling, especially in the last two years of the Fraser Government. We have to turn that situation around. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which demonstrates the way in which new fixed capital investment has been falling both in the basic metal products area and in the fabricated metal products area, the two key areas of manufacturing. Leave granted. The table read as follows- BASIC METAL PRODUCTS Quarterly Annual M J S D 1981-82 1769.4 490.7 492.9 473.8 387.1 82 1982-83 1393.8 301.6 236.0 214.3 184.4 83 1983-84 705.1 169.0 139.4 84 FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS Quarterly Annual M J S D 1981-82 391.1 104.8 98.8 119.3 79.8 82 1982-83 406.1 125.1 91.8 92.8 66.1 83 1983-84 324.6 95.8 75.9 84 Dr THEOPHANOUS —I thank the House. It is important that we take up the question of manufacturing investment, especially in fixed capital expenditure. Unless we do so we face the prospect of reverting to the cycle of the early 1980s under the previous Government when manufacturing investment was falling. I appeal to the Government and to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) to put forward proposals on how we might, in looking at the restructuring of the taxation system, look at specific proposals which may help assess industry development. I believe that sections of business, especially the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia are very keen to incorporate in the taxation debate some discussion of specific assistance measures to industry through the taxation system. I ask the Government to look at the possibility of more specific assistance measures to industry. I suggest that we go back to the platform that I referred to earlier and try to identify those areas of industry where we have an advantage in export potential and where we have the skills and sufficient local demand to produce those goods here. If we identify those areas of industry, we may be able to encourage them by looking at industry specific measures. The honourable member for Mayo advocated bringing back the across-the-board investment allowance which was not directed towards manufacturing industry. The cost of that would be between $1,000 million and $2,000 million in the next two or three years. At the same time the Opposition is saying that we should cut the Budget deficit. This is part of the incoherent program it put up at the last election. We should be sensible about this. Let us see whether in fact we can encourage specific proposals which will assist the development of specific industry areas through the planning process instead bringing back some vague investment allowance whose dominant benefit was not in manufacturing but in other areas, including those where not enough production and employment was generated. If we want to do something about manufacturing, I urge the Government and the union movement, which is already looking at this matter, and the Metal Trades Industry Association, to put forward proposals. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(5.09) —I am glad to have the opportunity to speak for a few moments on the Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Amendment Bill. I am indebted to my colleague, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) for sharing his time. I will not take up too much of that time. The bounty was introduced in 1978 and this Bill is to extend that bounty, which expired at the end of last year, to at least the end of June this year. About 30 per cent of the market for heavy commercial motor vehicles is affected as these vehicles are locally assembled. The Industries Assistance Commission report states that about 15,000 of these units were locally assembled in 1983. My main interest is in vehicles in excess of 8 tonnes gross vehicle mass. In my electorate I have a very large assembler of heavy motor vehicles, Kenworth Trucks Pty Ltd, which is the market leader in that industry, particularly in the area of 10, 12, 14 tonnes and over. In the early 1980s there was a big cutback in the local industry, but I am pleased to say that Kenworth bounced back during the last financial year and now employs about 500 persons and assembled in excess of 600 heavy vehicles last year. Such is the company's confidence in the Government and in the future that it has an expansion program on the books. Only last week I went through that factory and was guided around by Ian Paton and Peter Kay. I was acquainted with an industry about which, until that time, I cannot profess to have known very much. I have one regret, and that is that my request to have a worker representative go around with us was not met. The managers have asked that I extend an invitation to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) to visit the factory. I do that now. However, I point out to Kenworth that the Minister and I, on what will be my second visit, would appreciate having another voice-that of the workers. As the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) said, very often if one talks to the workers one hears a different story from the managerial line and sees a different angle of the industry-its effect on the workers and so on. The protections which are afforded the heavy motor vehicle industry come in several ways. A duty is imposed on imported vehicles and imported components are allowed into duty free. The bounty itself, with which the Bill deals, is applied to some locally produced components in a limited way. The components are limited, for instance, to the drive train which includes the hub to hub axle assembly, the gear box, the propeller-shaft, the suspension and the wheels. This applies only if there is more than 65 per cent local content in those components. The level of the bounty is 20 per cent. I point out that the bounty is very important to Kenworth because it has a high local content in its assembly. The report of the Industries Assistance Commission does not recommend the continuation of the bounty in the long term because it says that it assists assembly. That does not worry me at all because, in my electorate, assembly means jobs. It means 500 or 600 jobs in this industry. That is important, not only to me, but also to the families of those 500 people. In my view, assembly should continue there. The other reason that the IAC considers the bounty should be phased out is that it is not extended to any other sector of vehicle manufacture. I cannot go along with that. I cannot agree with the IAC that the heavy motor vehicle industry should be considered and reviewed in the context of the total motor vehicle industry in this country. Let me tell honourable members why I am of that view. The heavy motor vehicle industry is a unique and specialised area. I am talking about the very large heavy trucks which weigh more than eight tonnes. I am not talking about the ones that are produced easily on the assembly line. I refer to those which are custom-built, which are put together by hand, like the ones at Kenworth. Mr Milton —The Rolls Royce of trucks. Mr LAMB —Indeed. Whatever one's requirements are on the road, one can put in a specialised order for a vehicle to cope with different routes, demands, loads and speeds. The custom-built order can be met by the hand assembly at Kenworth. If the bounty is not continued the problems which exist in the heavy motor vehicle industry will be exacerbated. Assemblers such as Kenworth will suffer losses. There is no doubt about that. A matter which has been ignored in the debate and which is totally absent from the IAC report, but which was mentioned by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), was the effect of fluctuations in exchange rates. If one studies the relevant movements of international currency over the last five or six years, particularly the krone and the Deutsche mark, against the Australian dollar one will see why the local assemblies cannot compete internationally without assistance. In a nutshell, the competition is very unfair. It has been suggested to me that Scania and Volvo of Sweden and Mercedes Benz of West Germany are enjoying the advantages of what might be termed by the economists a 'dirty float'-a not free floating exchange rate-whereas it is pointed out that the Australian dollar is probably the cleanest float internationally; in other words, it is not manipulated in any way by governments. Because of this semi-dirty float in other countries-this is what Kenworth put to me-it cannot be said that the price reflects the true cost of the import as it lands in this country. The company was wary of using the word 'dumped'. It said that it suspects that the product is supplied under its true cost. Therefore, the local assemblers, in trying to meet the competition, are having a tough time. The honourable member for Mayo had some difficulty, as the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) said, in rationalising the rhetoric of the dries on the other side of the House and the economic rationalists, along with promises to the heavy motor industry that protection should be continued at a level which will preserve local production and find export markets. I was intrigued by his last suggestion because the whole system that he outlined-that is, the whole assistance package to the heavy motor vehicle industry-would come unstuck in these fluctuating, managed world currency markets. If it were true competition he might have an argument. He certainly does not have an argument in the real world. I suggest that he continue to read his text books and leave his nose there. I think that a 'Kenny' is known among the truckies as the Rolls Royce of trucks. I was most impressed by the standard and the quality of the work that was put out by that factory. An average large vehicle which is produced and sold from Kenworth for $130,000 can be compared with a similar imported truck, not the same but similar, costing between $85,000 and 104,000. Only the truckies realise that the total cost of motoring does not lie in the initial purchase price, the up-front cost. The quality, dependability and reliability of that truck must be offset against the operating costs. Stories of Kenworth's trucks doing 2.5 million kilometres say to Kalgoorlie and back repeatedly during many weeks are legend. It is difficult to get that across to all buyers, so it is a limited market. The custom-made, hand-assembled truck is a unique section of the motor industry. It cannot be relegated to the generality of the motor industry. It must be seen for what it is; that is, unique and to be protected by way of this bounty until the Government comes out with its long term plans for the industry. Kenworth has fought back and is in the top spot in the market-place. We do not want to see that position jeopardised now. I do not want to see any of the 500 employees lose their jobs. I do not want the expansion plans to go down the plug hole. Another way in which the removal of the bounty will exacerbate matters is that one of the components which used to be made in Australia-that is, the hub to hub assembly made by the Rockwell company-is no longer made here. Therefore, the advantage of a bounty in that area has gone. It is more important that the bounty remain on the remaining locally sourced 65 per cent local content assembly components. Any industry, particularly this heavy motor vehicle industry, needs certain lead times to adjust to changes in the provision of assistance. There would be a lead time of something like nine months for output changes and about seven months for input changes. As the Minister has said, the reason this bounty is being continued is to avoid disruption, to have a smooth transfer to any long term plans and to remove uncertainty so that the changes that are necessary can be carried out. We want no sudden and unwanted changes. This Bill extends the payment of the bounty to June 1985, with a possible further extension by notification in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette to December 1985. It is more than a simple holding operation. It is a sign, a symbol, a trust of faith that the Government is anxious to keep this industry going and that there will be no sudden changes. I urge that the longer period be adopted in any case. I support the Bill. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.19) —It is not often that I have to say that I have been enticed to speak in debate by the advertising that has just taken place in that debate. I was interested in the way in which the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) made mention, at every opportunity, of a firm by the name of Kenworth Trucks Pty Ltd. He made some observations about the operations of the bounty in relation to heavy vehicles and the report of the Industries Assistance Commission. He said that he failed to understand the criticism of the bounty arrangements as advanced by the IAC in that they were particularly advantageous to assemblers. I wish to pick up that comment in particular because in my work as a member of parliament I have had brought to my attention problems relating to the way in which the bounty was paid which impacted quite unfairly upon other manufacturers in Australia. It is my understanding that the bounty was paid particularly for components which were sourced in this country, so that an assembler could go out and buy a series of components that were manufactured in Australia and the bounty would be paid and that bounty would comprise a portion of the cost of manufacturing the motor vehicle and would be a significant factor in the price at which the assembler sold. However, in the case of a person who manufactures in-house most of the parts that are used in the manufacturing of a vehicle, except perhaps for the engine, the transmission or whatever, the bounty was not paid. The manufacturer I have in mind is the RFW Truck Manufacturing Co. of Chester Hill which, I must say, is not in my electorate. I am in no way seeking to advance the quality of that company's vehicles, nor do I have any interest, pecuniary or otherwise, to declare other than that I have been aware over time of the issues that have been raised by a rather colourful gentleman by the name of Bob Whitehead. I think anybody in the truck manufacturing area would be very much aware of him. Anybody who wants to hear from time to time a damning criticism of work habits in the Australian workplace need only listen to what Bob Whitehead has to say. Indeed, we see Bob Whitehead on television commenting on these matters from time to time. He, in his rather small business, builds trucks from the chassis up and does most of his work in-house. He found that the components he brought in were subject to the bounty but the components which were made in-house and for which otherwise bounty might have been paid were not. The manufacturer, as distinct from the assembler, found this arrangement very much more difficult. It seems to be that the proposed arrangements, which envisage a duty across the board, may well overcome some of the problems that manufacturer has identified as being difficult for him vis-a-vis somebody who is purely assembling a vehicle made up of components manufactured by somebody else. I have to say, from reading the Industries Assistance Commission reports from time to time and the comments prepared by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and others, that the RFW Truck Manufacturing Co. has been identified as a unique firm, one which has found a niche in an Australian market in which few other manufacturers have been able to succeed. Many Australian businesses that have manufactured in this area have gone out of business over time. The RFW Truck Manufacturing Co., which has a small number of employees, is very much in business. It has been successful in moving from market to market as it has found from time to time that the bounty and protection arrangements have not allowed it to maintain its share of the market in other areas. I think the company deserves great commendation. I certainly hope that, with the more broadly based arrangements which are proposed, we will see a more secure future for this company than we have seen in the past. I think it would be a shame if one day someone of the character of Bob Whitehead and his team found that they did not have a niche in this area and that they had exhausted all of the possible opportunities. I have seen the sorts of buses and fire trucks that he has built. I have also seen the vehicles that he has built for organisations such as electricity authorities. More recently I have seen the vehicles he has built for the mining of coal and the like. This demonstrates the enormous versatility and great imagination of this company in finding the niches of which the IAC spoke. Bob Whitehead has told me from time to time-I must say that I have not spoken to him at all recently in relation to the report which we are addressing on this occasion-that he sees a great need for more broadly based protection than the more narrow arrangements that the previous bounty provided. I certainly commend to the Government an examination of the way in which these discrepancies in respect of the two types of operations can be addressed. While not commenting on the broad recommendations, I believe that it is important that the result be one that is fair and equitable to Australian manufacturers. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(5.26) —In rising to support the Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Amendment Bill 1985 I would simply observe that the lead time for the industry is probably of the order of 12 months and I think that the industry will need at least that much notice if it is to make rational decisions. I am concerned about the sterile nature in which the whole debate on this subject in Australia is conducted. The truth of the matter is that those who put forward the free trade arguments are as barren and sterile in their capacity as those who put forward the protectionist argument. There seems to be no middle ground. I would include the Industries Assistance Commission in this narrow field. I think a perusal of its reports will show that it does not realise that nothing happens in isolation, that everything that happens in our economy is interdependent. In the 10 minutes that I have to speak I would like to address myself to a few of the problems as I see them. If we are talking about fixed capital investment in the industry, and there is certainly a need for that, one of the first things we have to do is do away with, is the nonsense of State protection. I venture to say that there are many noble, brave and honourable members here who will quail in their seats at the thought of taking on that thorny issue. Unless we do away with individual State protection there will be no upturn in fixed capital investment for the simple reason that for a market our size no company could possibly afford it. That, I might add, is the reason we have seven local motor vehicle manufacturers in this country whereas the United States of America, which is the world's biggest market, has three. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) waxed lyrical about the rationalisation of industry. He said that he did not see why we could not apply what had been done in the motor car industry to the truck industry. I think this demonstrates a lack of understanding. We are per capita the world's greatest users of heavy trucks. Our conditions favour the use of heavy vehicles. Our road conditions have led to the development of a certain type of truck. These trucks, as the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) said, are very largely custom built. We therefore do not lack a competitive advantage. It is worth noting that the heavy trucks that are flooding into this country are not coming from Japan, although I am sure that will happen in the future. They are coming in from Europe, principally from Germany and Sweden. Many of these trucks are manufactured by Scania, Volvo and Mercedes-Benz. These companies are certainly taking advantage of a dirty float to some extent. Probably more importantly, they are prepared to land their trucks here at marginal cost. These companies have geared themselves up to tackle the very substantial United Kingdom market and they are doing so very successfully. If one goes to the United Kingdom one sees the roads full of these vehicles. As these companies have geared themselves up to make right hand drive vehicles, it is obvious that they will unload their spare capacity on the Australian market. I suggest that there is a very large element of marginal costing in the pricing of these vehicles. It is also worth noting that these vehicles are brought in as completely knocked down units. Australian components are not used, not because they are not efficient or price competitive but simply because Australian manufacturers are not even allowed to tender. I might add that the reason Rockwell is no longer producing components in Australia is not that it could not make the right product or it was not price competitive but simply that in many cases it was not allowed to tender. That ridiculous situation could have been addressed. We needed some device to make sure that transfer pricing did not take place and some device to make sure that open tendering was occurring. There are ways in which I think we could improve our industry. I am sure that there are things that need to be addressed. Companies such as International Trucks and Kenworth Trucks Pty Ltd make fine products which all have a 55 per cent plus Australian component. One must remember that no diesel engines are made in this country, so it is very hard to get much over that content in money terms. These companies have suffered from many aspects of government policy. Let me just dwell for a few minutes on what happened in the case of International. Some time ago the previous Government had to make a decision on Army purchasing. The Army wanted the all-singing, all-dancing Mercedes-Benz truck. That truck was bought in preference to a local product. I know the argument that International originally did not tender and that in the interim International went broke. The new managers came forward and said: 'We must tender for this vehicle'. International put forward a tender but it was not considered. If the Mercedes-Benz truck was better it was only marginally better and the International truck had been proven in Australian conditions. It had the other interesting asset of being 40 per cent cheaper, but that was not considered. It was actually cheaper than the imported vehicle. What happened with that decision? We spelt the demise of truck design capacity at International. We struck it a very heavy blow. That is a sad thing. It just goes to show how these things are interrelated. We are now faced with the same decision once more when the Army is looking at one and two tonne truck replacements. We find that the Army has basically two trucks on its short list. I do not think Willys will be seriously considered. We have the Gelandewagen of the Mercedes-Benz group and the Land-Rover. Land-Rover is putting forward a six-wheel vehicle of two tonnes capacity which is Australian designed. It is a unique vehicle. If it is accepted by the Army it will go into production in Australia. It has a ready market throughout this area and, I suggest, throughout our neighbourhood, particularly in the comfortable off-road passenger transport market-a booming market. If the Army is allowed to buy the Mercedes-Benz for whatever reason, that truck will not be produced in Australia. Leyland, which is the principal in the United Kingdom, has guaranteed that if that truck is bought by the Army all orders will be fulfilled from Australia. That has to be considered in the interests of Australia and not necessarily in the interest of the Army. I say at this stage that I am feeling a little bitter as I learn more and more about the submarine tendering process we have just undergone. The Industries Assistance Commission report will seek to reduce the duty on the completely knocked down vehicle to the same as that of the completely built-up unit. Let me spell out a couple of the ramifications of this. In Western Australia, where we have a very dynamic Minister for Transport and a good technical capacity in our Metropolitan Passenger Transport Trust, we have developed what is probably a world leading capacity for the conversion of diesel engines to natural gas. We have been forced into this situation because of the irrational and outrageous decisions of Sir Charles Court, who was at one time Premier of the State. He locked the State into a take or pay contract for which it simply could not find the capacity. With Western Australia's ability there is a very good chance that we can build buses in Western Australia to supply Asia, where there is a horrendous pollution problem caused by diesel fumes in the cities. People who have been to those cities will be able to vouch for that. Natural gas burns very cleanly and would, no doubt, make a very big contribution to reducing that pollution. If we apply the same duty to chassis imports, we will increase the cost of a bus chassis by in excess of $10,000. That will make us very uncompetitive. Coupled with that, the IAC in its wisdom appears to me to be abolishing the 2 per cent preference where products are not made in Australia. Again, Western Australia has identified an eight-inch section aluminium extrusion that is not made in Australia and which it wants to buy. Incidentally, 98 per cent of it is made from bauxite from Western Australia. This will simply price us out of the market. What will happen-I prophesy this-is that we will transfer this manufacturing sector to New Zealand. New Zealand has taken the step of reducing its tariff from 45 per cent to 10 per cent. In the case of the British preference, which New Zealand still has, it has reduced the tariff to zero. There is already some evidence that the New Zealanders are gearing up to build bodies in New Zealand and ship them whole to Australia. We must remember that New Zealand goods have no tariff to overcome in entering Australia. I accept that this is how it should be. I do not want to disturb that relationship, but I do not think it is wise to put these contingent millstones around the neck of our own industry. In this situation in which we make these ad hoc decisions and do not take a national overview of the results of our decisions we find ourselves simply flopping from crisis to crisis. One of the solutions advocated by the honourable member for Mayo was the introduction of across the board investment allowances. I can cite the ridiculous situation in which investment allowances were paid on heavy tractors that were made overseas. The manufacture of heavy tractors, for instance, is an area in which we could be very efficient in Australia. In Western Australia now two heavy tractors are made which are very good. We as a government should be setting out to make sure that there is not a proliferation of heavy tractor manufacturers but that there are perhaps one or two to satisfy our own requirements. It would not be necessary to pay the 20 per cent investment allowance for those imported machines. I certainly would oppose very strongly any attempt to reintroduce that. That gives just one example of the narrow thinking of some people who I guess one would say come from the two bob each way section of the Liberal Party-the section which wants free trade, the protection of its own interests and, of course, lower deficits, which they apparently think we can engender by giving handouts to their friends. If we in Australia were to pick out those things we do well and support those things we could have viable export industries in Australia. We can cast our minds back to 1948 when a decision was made to produce an American car. The then General Manager of General Motors-Holden's Limited had left the company and was strongly advocating that we produce an Australian car. If we had done that at that stage we would have produced a car ideal for the conditions we have in Australia. I suggest that it would have had a higher than normal ground clearance, it would have had a very big radiator and it would probably have been in the forefront of air-conditioned cars. We would have had a ready market for this car in countries such as Saudi Arabia, South Africa, India and perhaps even some of our closer neighbours. But we missed that opportunity. We never gave ourselves the opportunity to produce anything more than America's second best. I believe that that was one tragedy for this country. What worries me is that we do not seem to learn. I put in this category not only the Liberal Party and the National Party, whose performance has been pathetic, but I must say with some concern that I am worried that my Party is going to go down the same road. I say very strongly that we must pick out areas of excellence in Australia. We must pick out the things we do well and concentrate on them. If we do not we will not succeed; we will always be a bit part manufacture and we will always be an expensive manufacturer. That is not the way to engender the jobs we are going to need. My background has been in the primary sector and I know that the primary sector cannot provide the jobs Australia will need in the future. We have to have a viable secondary industry. We have to make sure that that is a secondary industry we can afford and one that pays its way. I am sure that that can be done. There are many areas in which we have expertise. I give just one example: We are today the world's best producers of diamond drills; we make the best diamond drill equipment in the world. This is not surprising because we probably have the greatest need for that equipment. Yet we find ourselves competing in overseas markets against companies-mainly the Americans-putting forward a product that is 80 years old. Such products are completely written off and that Americans can afford to under cut us. We need a government with vision to extend to a company marketing such a product enough margin in the way of assistance to get its products on to the market. Once we are on the market and established, the productivity of those machines will sell them, but it is very hard to sell productivity to a foreign buyer until we can demonstrate it. I also make a point for which I expect I will not be thanked. I believe that Australia's future and its survival as a sovereign country rely very much on our ability to look after ourselves. We must have self-sufficiency. I do not believe, like the Halfpennys and some other people in this world would have us believe, that we should make everything. That is a nonsense situation but we must be able to make the key stuff. It is only when we have that independence that we can shuffle off the shackles that are currently binding us to the United States of America and other countries. I say in passing that I believe we are becoming more a colony of the United States and Japan than we ever were of the United Kingdom. We must develop a self-sufficiency of our own. That means that we must have quality products. We must still have access to overseas technologies and be very keen to take them to our bosom and develop them further. When we have done that we will be a sovereign country that can stand up and support our allies but not be a sycophant; a country that can make a contribution to world peace by saying, as a sovereign self-sufficient friend to our allies: 'We think you are making a mistake'. Let us make no mistake about it; in our present condition we are supplicants and at a great disadvantage. I quiver every time I hear us making the same grovelling noises to our ally, as Margaret Thatcher has recently been making on the part of the United Kingdom. The future is there. It can be done in this country but it will not be done if we do not take an overview and work in a concerted way towards overcoming these problems. If we do not have a manufacturing sector we will not survive as a nation. We will go on existing as we are, as half a dozen grovelling little States. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.43) —in reply-If a debate extending temporary protection to commercial motor vehicles for another 14 weeks attracts five speakers in the House of Representatives, I imagine that the substantive debate, when the real legislation is brought down, will go on for days and days. Anyway, I thank honourable members for their contributions. I stress again that the Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Amendment Bill 1985 does not affect the current assistance arrangements which apply to the industry. It will merely ensure that one aspect of the present arrangements, the bounty, does not lapse before the Government considers the report of the Industries Assistance Commission and decides on a long term assistance regime. It is therefore neither practical nor appropriate for me to comment on the IAC recommendations or to debate possible industry policy issues now. I just assure honourable members that the concerns regarding Australia's commitment to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade are fully appreciated by the Government and will be borne in mind in the development of a long term assistance package for the industry. The Bill proposes an extension to 31 December 1985 in the event that it is not possible for the Government to reach a decision before 30 June. As I have mentioned, the Government is concerned to encourage full industry discussion of the report. So it is not just a matter of our making a decision in isolation. There has to be that full and sometimes lengthy consultation process. To facilitate this process, we have sought the views of the Automotive Industry Advisory Council. We expect to have its comments shortly but we do not have them now. For some sound reasons the Swedish example is often cited as one Australia should emulate, whether it is in the area of industry policy, social welfare or whatever. It is true that the two countries have similar living standards and labour costs, although Sweden's are higher in both cases and, of course, it has only 55 per cent of our population. But at least in the heavy commercial vehicle area there are some major differences in our circumstances. These reflect partly Sweden's proximity to the large European market, although it has to be recognised that one or two heavy motor vehicles are made in Europe as well, and the dominance within Sweden of one major locally owned heavy truck manufacturer, Volvo. But it also reflects a long term tradition of locally owned industries with an international reputation for excellence compared, I am sorry to say, to our tradition in Australia of foreign ownership, truncated development-- Mr Jacobi —Almost 100 per cent. Mr BARRY JONES —Yes, it is. In the motor vehicle industry, it is 99.8 per cent, with all its implications for cultural colonialism. It is less, of course, in the components sector. Australia has a small domestic market, little access to overseas markets and no major locally owned manufacturer with a volume base on which to build exports. A further consideration is that transport distances in Australia are significantly greater than those in Europe. I have no doubt that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) was correct in saying that we are the highest per capita users of heavy commercial vehicles. The country which is most like Australia in respect of the demands it places on heavy commercial vehicles is the United States of America. It is therefore no accident that the heavy end of the commercial vehicle market should be dominated by United States makes such as Kenworth, Ford and International Harvester. In addition to Australia's long haul transport requirements, it also has an urban transport task, vehicles for which are increasingly being sourced from Japan. That country, by virtue of its large domestic market, is able to realise scale economies which are not available to an Australian assembler. These scale economies enable Japan to be very competitive in the international market for trucks suited to urban transport needs and Japan sourced vehicles now dominate this sector of the Australian market. In the circumstances I have to say that I am sceptical of whether a comparison with the Swedish experience provides the ultimate answer to the issues confronting the heavy commercial vehicle industry in Australia. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) sought some answers to specific questions. I regret that he is no longer gracing us with his presence, but I will still provide the answer. Mr N. A. Brown —I will pass it on. Mr BARRY JONES —The honourable member for Menzies will pass it on. Because of the nature of the IAC recommendations there is a need for extensive industry consultation. The national road freight industry inquiry report and the IAC report will need consideration together. The national road freight industry inquiry report was presented to the Government in September 1984, but, as the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) well remembers we were doing lots of other things around that time. The election period intervened before it was possible to deal with it. The report is now with the Automotive Industry Advisory Council for comment and, as I mentioned earlier, it is expected shortly. A submission will then be made to the Government and, without promising anything, we are hopeful that an announcement will be made before the end of June. We will not call that a final solution, but we certainly want to see what we can do. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Debate resumed from 19 March, 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. Mr ADERMANN(Fairfax)(5.49) —Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the first time that I respond to the call from the Chair as the member for the newly-created electorate of Fairfax, a beautiful electorate based on the famous and incomparable Sunshine Coast. That electorate was named to honour a very famous and gracious lady, Ruth Fairfax, one of the founders of a wonderful organisation, the Country Women's Association. To Mr Speaker and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I extend my congratulations on your re-election to those offices. Both of you have shown not only competence, but also an understanding of and respect for the great institution of the Parliament. To those new members on both sides of the House who have undergone the very awesome and unforgettable experience of delivering their maiden speeches, I offer my congratulations. May their enthusiasm, dedication and idealism remain evergreen and not diminish with their years of hard service in this House. I extend my congratulations to all new members, but most particularly to the newly-elected honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper). Since the electorate was established in 1948 I have been very closely associated with it, as its first member was my late father and its second, myself. Nostalgically, I note that in the 35 years of its existence until the last election my family had the honour to represent the people of Fisher. I must say that I shall ever remember the support and friendship of many people and organisations and their loyalty and graciousness. In now entrusting Fisher to its new incumbent I know that it will continue in reliable and responsible hands and that its present member will also enjoy a long incumbency. The people of Fisher and also the people of Fairfax are wise, discerning and quite magnificent folk. Although the Australian electorate has returned the Hawke Labor Government, that Government would be foolish indeed if it failed to recognise some very clear messages signalled at the recent election. The very evident reverses suffered by the Government proclaim that a leader's charisma is a fragile commodity and will be no substitute for responsibility in government. Very certainly the iniquitous assets test, the Medicare muddle, punitive taxation, a lack of any indication of policy direction, and the calamitous state of small business and primary industry, have deeply concerned Australians. The blown out deficit, the vacillation against union militancy, the national debt, the collapse of the Australian dollar and the recent public opinion polls clearly indicate that the Government could not now, or, I believe, in the future, survive another election. Very clearly, the call is for the Government to shape up or ship out, and no bravado or bluster will disguise that fact. In addressing aspects of the Governor-General's Speech, I note with considerable interest the intention to call together the tax summit in July. Unfortunately, this has all the appearance of a propaganda-laced confidence trick or a whitewash, rather than a conscientious endeavour to tackle the anomalous and punitive taxation system. As Mr Eric Risstrom has indicated, the die will be cast, and the decisions made, well before the summit. If the massive kite flying exercises now in progress are any indication, it will be a disastrous hotchpotch indeed. Nevertheless, hope springs eternal, and so I am emboldened to offer some counsel and advice, which the Government would be wise to heed. Firstly, the summit must be clothed with honesty and not be a cosmetic exercise. The tragedy of the National Economic Summit Conference was that there were seats for the big unions and big business, but no seats for small business, pensioners, or the people of Australia. Predictably, small business was saddled with impossible cost and indexation penalties which it is unable to bear. Australia's largest employers of labour were ignored and penalised, so that small businesses failed, jobs were lost and their voice and cry for recognition has been ignored. The pensioners were also unrepresented, and they have been flogged with an ill-conceived and anomalous assets test. The people of Australia struggle under heavier taxation while the Government speciously claims that tax has been reduced. The economy is out of control and we are in worse straits than some nations which are styled banana republics. Look at our national debt. If this tax summit is a conclave to rubber stamp the mindless and disastrous left wing shibboleths of capital gains, death and wealth taxes and resources rental taxes, it will be a charade and we would be better off without it. I well remember that during the Fraser-Anthony Government the then Treasurer was wrongly accused of contriving to impose a value added tax. From the Australian Labor Party benches a campaign was orchestrated throughout the nation. Petitions were circulated. A howl went up. Now, before the summit is even convened, we see that the hot favourite is a value added tax of horrific proportions. Mention has been made of a surcharge of up to 10 per cent on every sale of goods and every service in the nation. That is what is coming from reportedly reliable Government spokesmen. Mr Cowan —The Left is not happy with that. Mr ADERMANN —No. If that is not a value added tax to cap all value added taxes, it could have fooled me. That is not restructuring the taxation system; that is just adding another brand new milking cow to the herd. Small business will become the unpaid, over-burdened bookkeepers for government. Not only will this massively increase already crippling costs, but a vastly expanded army of bureaucrats will be created to harass them, to churn out forms and papers, and to demand their completion at times and seasons suitable to the bureaucracy but certainly not to businessmen. Until this Government reins in its prodigal spending, until the massive deficit-we cannot even yet foresee the level to which it will blow out-is brought under control, until the Government determines to come to grips with an alarmingly increased national debt interest bill, we will hope in vain for taxation justice and sanity. Governments seem to be interested only in wringing out the maximum amount of revenue from the Australian taxpayer, and even that at present is not enough. Heedless of the consequences for the future, the Government goes on borrowing to meet the increasing shortfall. Already we see that the direction is not restructure; it is the contemplation of new, regressive, additional taxation. Unfortunately, governments seem to have a philosophy that taxation is a means of gathering revenue. The more grandiose the spending habits of government, the heavier is the incidence of taxation. An interesting comment by an American economist is: 'If you want more of something, you subsidise it; if you want less of something, you tax it'. So, year after year, government after government taxes the very commodity we need most-enterprise and initiative. Enterprise, entrepreneurship and success are very heavily taxed. But they are the ingredients of productivity gain, the means of providing jobs, the elements of improving the standards of living of all of our citizens. The greater the success of a business, the heavier the tax bill. Business is not encouraged; it is inhibited. In any honest examination of taxation it surely must be self-evident that there must be incentive and encouragement to strive and succeed, not a heavy penalty for success. As enterprise is encouraged it will expand, not contract as is the present norm, and will generate jobs, profit and increased revenue. We will see productivity increase and investment opportunities created. Surely that should be the common aim of all members of this House, as representatives of the people of Australia. Nor, for all of the Labor Party's homilies about redistribution of wealth, is taxation the way to achieve that. Indeed, I can think of no more inefficient and no more ineffective way to achieve that goal than through the tax system. How can the deprived and disadvantaged be assisted by the ruination of those who work, invest and take the risk to create wealth? One does not lift anyone's standard of living that way. One merely drags down the standard of living of every person by using that method. Mr Ian Robinson —That is the ALP philosophy, isn't it? Mr ADERMANN —That is the ALP philosophy. Few governments-certainly not the present Government-seem to begin to comprehend that. If all the wealth of this nation were called in, and every citizen were given exactly the same amount, I suspect that before very long it would return to much the same hands as it is in at present. The work ethic, the spirit of enterprise, the will to strive and risk to succeed, will, if it is not stifled by heavy government, reap the rewards. The demands that government provide, benevolently distribute the largesse taken from others and so render redundant things such as civic pride and community service will increase in direct proportion to the growth of the bureaucracy, government and taxation. Unless the tax summit recognises some of those inescapable truths and becomes something other than a vehicle to raise more revenue and to introduce new taxes, and unless it encourages Australians to work, produce and prosper, the national cake will grow smaller and smaller. Perhaps it is overdramatic to predict that we could become the poor white trash of Asia. But let us not forget that some nations that we call underdeveloped by work and endeavour are taking from us markets out of which we have costed ourselves by demanding more and more for less and less and by industrial delinquency which makes us among the world's most unreliable suppliers. Surely we have but little time to put things right. We cannot afford to fritter that time away. Turning to particular and grievous problems confronting my electorate, I point out that that great Australian, Queensland and Fairfax industry, sugar, is in desperate straits. We have spoken on that in the House in recent days. The tragedy is not the making of the Australian sugar industry, for that industry has been highly disciplined, totally responsible and has not been a mendicant to government for handouts. It has subsidised the Australian consumer for decades. With the demise of the international sugar agreement, to which Australian growers had adhered, and with the heavily subsidised overproduction by the European Economic Community contributing to oversupply, the price has collapsed. Of course there is little joy in appealing to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We have tried that before. Even the agreement of GATT that the EEC is in violation of the agreement has no force or sanction, for such a decision can be simply ignored. We found that out, to our cost, in the past. I do not want to be partisan political, but I must point out that the sugar growers are disappointed in the Government and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). Most certainly in 1983 they were under the clear impression that the Government had committed itself to underwriting. The Minister disclaims that, but whatever the truth of the matter I certainly know that this was the expectation of the industry. If the Government can prop up the Broken Hill Proprietry Co. Ltd it certainly must not let this great sugar industry go to the wall. We have called on the Government to guarantee a minimum average price for cane based on the price of $240 a tonne of sugar for the 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 seasons. That is little enough. We have asked the Government, as a longer term solution, to provide greater funding for industry research into alternative uses for sugar, not just to tell the sugar growers to go and grow vegetables. Those aid measures have to be associated with reconstruction assistance to growers and mills much beyond the maximum of $16.5m that the Labor Government has allocated to date. Already 1,000 cane growers have left the industry, an industry which is a great employer. I do not need to remind the House of the figures mentioned in a previous debate in this House. The Fairfax electorate too encompasses fruit growing, horticulture, the important ginger industry, dairying and fishing. There is certainly not opportunity in one speech comprehensively to analyse the situation of each, but certainly at another time I will speak about them. However I do want to touch on the tourist industry, so vital to my electorate. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) should be very well aware that the tourist industry in the main is a large conglomerate of diverse small businesses-in the areas of travel, accommodation and all sorts of services. Thus the health of small business is of great importance to the health and expansion of the tourist industry and, as I have already indicated, small business is in desperate trouble. I do not criticise the promotion campaigns to bring tourists to our land, but it is not sufficient just to so advertise. It is important for small business to be able to attend to tourists' amusement, enjoyment and services when they arrive. If they do not those tourists will not come back and others will not come. I have heard from both sides of the House opinions that tourism is Australia's potential great growth industry. I agree with that. However, I stress that we must very carefully and diligently prepare to handle it. The support, incentive and encouragement to small business-which has been neglected-cannot continue to be neglected if our expectations are to be realised. In the Governor-General's Speech the Government talks of maintaining the momentum it has created. I hope not. Unfortunately for Australia, the increasing momentum is all downhill. It talks about a sense of national purpose having returned to Australia. These are mere words and rhetoric and are certainly removed from reality. Whistling bravely in the dark, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) still talks of interest rates falling, when we have seen them increasing. He still talks of inflation continuing on its downward course, when all the barometers, the pressures, call his analyses into question. Nor has he any longer the legacy he inherited-a very successful wages freeze set in place by the Fraser-Anthony Government. Nor can he benefit again from the breaking of a prolonged and severe drought. Nor has he an assured basis of the loyalty of unions to the accord-or has he not seen the log of claims being circulated to employers by such bodies as the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia? That is a shocker. The boast of industrial peace and responsibility is also baseless. It is a sad thing indeed that we have gained the reputation of an unreliable supplier, when ships and nations bypass our ports and seek other supliers. If the recent visit by the Japanese Prime Minister did not impress that situation upon the Government, I am afraid nothing ever will. While nations which we patronisingly call undeveloped can take markets because our ports are paralysed by strikes, we are in a parlous situation indeed. When wheat growers cannot export to the markets they have won, when livestock cannot be exported, when coal will not be mined or transported so that orders are jeopardised or lost, talk of stability, momentum and national purpose means nothing. Nor can we have confidence in the economic management of our country when we see our currency devalued, not just against the American dollar but against just about every other currency unit. Mr Slipper —Monopoly money. Mr ADERMANN —Yes, Monopoly money. Very clearly, too, our foreign relationships have deteriorated. In this House, in the media, in forums all over the world, the reliability of Australia as an ally, as a signatory to international agreements, has been emphasised. How can our allies fail to be uneasy when they had to get us off the hook on the MX test and when left wing members of the Government are still resolved to close down bases and impede their ships? There is no certainty about where we are going. It seem to depend on who has the numbers when the Prime Minister dials 000 for reports from the numbers men. Of course, the only happy beneficiary of those policies is the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. The Australian nation is deeply concerned about these things and a few words in the Governor-General's speech about commitment to ANZUS, words contradicted by actions, will not ease that disquiet. As the Governor-General's speech is the indicator of the course the Government proposes for days ahead, I hope that it contains a resolve to remedy another most grevious deficiency. I am pleased the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is in the House. I hope the Government resolves to pay its bills, because it has earned the reputation of being a most dilatory, unreliable and unsatisfactory debtor. Pharmacists and doctors have to wait for six months-make it seven months-make countless phone calls and write many letters to plead for payment of accounts from the Department of Health and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This is a shocking situation and would result in any other debtor being summonsed. It is unfair and in many cases it is causing liquidity problems. Only this week I had to approach the Department of Veterans' Affairs on behalf of two doctors whose accounts, totalling $10,366, have remained unpaid by the Department for seven months. This is not an isolated case. It is another of a long list of complaints I have made on behalf of pharmacists and doctors in my electorate. True, when I have pursued the matter, most bills have been paid, but surely the Government should get its house in order. It should pay its accounts on time. The squeaky door ought not to be the only one that gets the oil. Very sadly, in the Governor-General's Speech I see little to give confidence for the future. The time for rhetoric is past. The realities of the immense problems of today are with us. Let us see whether the pronouncements by the Government that it will take the hard decisions necessary are reality or words. It can make a start by presenting to this House a Budget reflecting that purpose and not moulded, shaped and dictated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That will be the ultimate test of the credibility and honesty of the Hawke Government in this Thirty-fourth Parliament. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(6.10) —Before I commence my address, I would like to join other members of the House in congratulating you, Madam Deputy Speaker, formally on your re-election to the post of Chairman of Committees. I wish you a successful and satisfying time in that position in this Parliament. I hope that you will pass to Mr Speaker my congratulations in similar vein. It was notable that at the outset of the Labor Government's first term of office it directed its attention to two areas of critical concern. First, it was necessary to reduce the heat generated in the area of industrial relations during the term of office of the Liberal-National Party coalition from 1975 until 1983. Secondly, it was necessary to establish an effective agreement between Government and unions to ensure that the country's economy had a chance to be restored to a state of growth. It is only too easy to forget the appalling legacy that was left to the Labor Government at that time. Unemployment was rising uncontrollably, and in fact was higher than at any period since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Inflation was also double that of our partners in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-namely, in excess of 11 per cent. The climate of industrial relations had plummeted to a new low, with the number of man days lost reaching catastrophic proportions. The taxation record of that Government had resulted not only in the scandalous proliferation of taxation rip-offs about which we all know, but a failure even to address the inequities in the tax scales at that time, with low and middle income earners being forced to pay an increasingly larger proportion of the tax burden, while proportionately those in the top bracket had their contributions significantly reduced. The medical insurance mess, which had left 2 million Australians without cover, was a scandal. The much-vaunted minerals boom never occurred and was never likely to occur. It was nothing but a confidence trick. The motor vehicle industry was slowing down appallingly. Thus, the manufacturing base in this country had been allowed to shrink and no clear view was available for the future from that Government. Perhaps worst of all was the failure of that Government to give any clear leadership to the nation. It was hellbent on pursuing a policy of government by cliche. It moved from one crisis to the next, one ad hoc decision to the next. The nation must be reminded of these facts. The insecurity of former Prime Minister Fraser's personality-and I am sorry for that-saw him develop a deliberate policy of divide and rule to provide a basis for his personal political survival. Labor inherited a situation in which the nation was sorely divided, with its economy weakened and in peril. Therefore, on assuming office the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, accepted the charge of restoring unity in this society so that the economy itself might be restored. This then was his purpose when he called the economic summit and also negotiated with the unions the prices and income accord. As much as those on the other side of the House might wish on occasion to bluster and protest, it shall be recorded in the history books of this nation that these two initiatives were the most significant in saving this country from social and economic devastation. It is therefore significant that the Governor-General in his Speech stressed the Government's determination to maintain its commitment to the policies of the accord, and in particular to the maintenance of a centralised wage fixing system. Labor is frequently being attacked by those who would destroy this system, and I believe that such people have little appreciation of their own history. There are few Australians, if any, who over time have not gained benefits from the centralised wage fixing system. Without it there would be no protection for the less affluent and the less powerful in our society and no hope of achieving industrial harmony. Our opponents, and such intellectual lightweights as the Leader of the Victorian Opposition, believe there are benefits to be gained by some form of free market in wages. In his case I suggest that he half believes his own proposition, but I also believe that what he lacks in intellect he more than makes up for in cunning. I am sure he is aware that a free market in wages would simply result in a reduced standard of living for most Australians. He and the advocates of this viewpoint are not courageous enough to spell out their real motives. While I am commenting on this matter, I should refer to the acts of political vandalism perpetrated by the authoritarian regime of Joh Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland. I suggest that the task of convincing the various suspicious forces in the country to work together has been made that much harder by the mischievous and malicious actions of the Queensland Government. For the sake of short term gains in this conflict, the Queensland Government has ensured that there will be a long period of industrial disputation that will set back social and economic development in that State for many years. How on earth can Australian workers be expected to forfeit the gains they have achieved through the unrelenting struggle of their forebears for over a century? There is little reason to believe that members of the Opposition understand how deeply held is the determination of Australian workers to maintain the centralised wage fixing system. This is, as the Governor-General has said, central to the Government's strategy-and why should it not be? Any solutions to Australia's economic problems must be premised on this base. Industrial conflict will reach unprecedented proportions if recognition of the place of unions in the Australian economy is not given due regard. Only by establishing a relationship of trust with the unions and business will the Government be able to proceed, as the Governor-General said, to develop a strong and competitive manufacturing industry. It is pleasing to note that the Government proposes to continue to develop closer links between industry and research. Without this, there is little likelihood that we will ever know where opportunities for industrial developments lie. We must create jobs, but these jobs must be in areas that have a future. This is of particular concern to my own electorate of Ballarat where the industrial base has reduced seriously over the past two decades. At the moment there is serious unemployment in Ballarat. According to the December quarter figures, we have 5,731 people unemployed-between 14 and 15 per cent of the work force. There are 3,807 males and 1,924 females who are unemployed. In the age group 15 to 19 there are 1,537 unemployed persons; between the ages of 20 and 24, 1,498; between the ages of 25 and 44, 1,985; and from age 45 upwards the number of unemployed is 711. In Ararat, another community in my electorate, 436 people were unemployed, amounting to 8.35 per cent; 56 per cent of those people were males and 44 per cent females. A total of 37 per cent of the unemployed persons in the area were between 15 and 19, 27 per cent between 20 and 24, 30 per cent between 25 and 44, with the rest in the age group 45 and above. Those figures from those areas indicate how serious is the situation for the unemployed, particularly the young. There is a tendency to look at the task of creating jobs as sufficient in itself. I suggest that a job must also be satisfying to the worker. I am sure no one would dispute this, but some jobs in themselves are not intrinsically satisfying. I would like to see the Government directing more attention to the development of co-operatively owned industries where those who work within them are owners of equity, and preferably equal equity in order that they are also the decision-makers. I believe the stage is probably being reached where many process jobs undertaken by people in the past have now been taken over by machinery. Many of the jobs that are left in the lower skill ranges are not particularly interesting. I refer the Government to the co-operative industries begun in Mandragon in the Basque region of Spain where a system of worker ownership is well established. If any honourable members want a copy of an article on Mandragon, I shall be happy to assist them if they contact me. It is most enlightening. The principles underpinning this system are based upon the dignity of work and the values of co-operative decision making. These values are the antithesis of those which we witness so much in our society because they are also based on real ownership by those who co-operate in this system. I am aware that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is interested in this area; so I hope to see developments taking place over the next three years. I wish to refer to a couple of developments that have taken place as a result of the previous Government's initiatives, and it is to be hoped that they will be continued in the term of office of this Government. These initiatives demonstrate what can happen when governments are prepared to identify the appropriate place to inject funds. I will refer firstly to the community employment program. In my region, over $6m-$6,011,713, in fact- was injected into that program. That allocation represented a total of 473 jobs. Of these jobs, 136 were community sponsored; 64 were sponsored under the jobs on local roads scheme; local government contributed 99 jobs; State Government departments contributed 117 and the country town water supply provided 57. I pay tribute to those bodies which took the initiative to help young people and others at least to get them out of the malaise of unemployment. I refer also to the first home owners scheme. By late last year more than $3m had been committed to the electorate of Ballarat, and 637 applicants had already benefited under that scheme. This has had a significant effect on the resurgence of activity in the building industry in particular and, via the multiplier effect, it has extended into other parts of the economy as well. The Labor Party alone is concerned to ensure that all Australians share in the bounty of this country. We are concerned to develop co-operation between all sectors, regardless of conflicts in our system. We must recognise that those conflicts are probably inherent in the system. The Opposition feeds those conflicts and lives by them. There is no way that the necessary co-operation can be gained for all sectors under a Liberal-National Party philosophy. The people of Australia made this quite clear in the recent election, and I believe that they will continue to support the Labor Government because that is the only direction in which they can go. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(6.23) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I begin by congratulating you on your re-election to your office. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Thank you. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I also congratulate the large number of maiden speakers whom we have heard on the high quality of their speeches. I mention in particular the speech last Tuesday of my colleague the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster). He suggested that many of us who actively profess the Christian faith have equivocated too long in the face of the secular humanism which seems to so dominate our modern society, with the effect that the totally relativistic, humanist value system has supplanted the Judaeo-Christian ethos based on God's absolutes. The honourable member has thrown down a challenge which we cannot-I certainly cannot-ignore. It is now a month since the Governor-General's Speech was delivered, and the compulsion one felt at that time to say a few things by way of putting the record straight has only somewhat moderated. The Speech sounded then and reads now-of course it was written by the Government-rather more like an election policy speech than a serious attempt to address the real issues confronting Australia today. Following the usual opening rhetoric about national reconciliation, construction and co-operation-if the Government were really serious it could probably begin with the factionalised Australian Labor Party itself-we were told of the strong economic growth and of the Government's great achievements in reducing inflation and unemployment. Those statements need to be put into perspective. Of course there was strong economic growth with the bounce back from recession that followed the breaking of the drought, the strong performance of the American economy and the Fraser Government's wages pause. Since then the growth performance has been pretty muted. It looked as though it had petered out altogether in the September quarter when the national income statistics showed that total economic activity as measured by gross national product actually fell. There was not just slow growth but no growth; there was an actual reduction. Since September some modest growth in real demand has occurred. But just because of the uncompetitiveness of the economy, which I want to stress in my speech, the growth of production has been pretty sluggish. The figure came out the other day that in the December quarter the index of manufacturing production was actually down by some 2.7 per cent. So with all this talk we hear of Australia's world record economic growth and of prizes for the best Treasurer and of some hundreds of thousands of additional jobs being created, we need to get such statements into perspective. The bounce back from the recession coincided precisely with the Hawke Government's initial year plus of office. The fact is that for this January, the latest employment figures available, show total employment standing at 6,428,000 persons. That is an increase of just 72,300 on the January 1982 figures, three years ago. I do not belittle an increase of 72,300 jobs. That is very important but it is barely a one per cent increase over those three years. That figure can be compared with the United States figure over precisely the same period. In that dynamic economy something like eight million new jobs have been generated, which is large even in the context of that economy, the order of an 8 per cent increase. So, with the increase of just over 72,000 jobs in that three year period which I have referred to, the Government is barely back on trend. I turn now to unemployment. As was stated in this House the other day, the latest seasonally adjusted figures show that 8.3 per cent of the work force is unemployed, about 22 per cent of the youth workforce and in all over 600,000 persons are unemployed. The figure of 8.3 per cent is two points lower than it was at the bottom of the recession, and we all give thanks for that. But, as I will argue in a moment, it is hard to see the situation getting much better under the policies of this Government. That is a very socially destructive prospect. Again, I point out, by way of getting things into perspective, that even the figure of 8.3 per cent is notably higher than the figure of about 5.5 per cent recorded throughout much of 1981. With respect to inflation, the recorded reduction in the consumer price index is indeed to be welcomed, but that figure needs to be looked at closely. The Business Council of Australia, in its latest bulletin, has stated: Our inflation performance is still poor and is dangerous when it is considered that the rate is running well above that of our major trading partners and competitors. The truth is that the annual rate, when we exclude Medicare related gymnastics, was some 5.2 per cent-well above the official consumer price index figure. Whilst an inflation rate of 5.2 per cent is in line with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development general average, the inflation rate in those OECD countries important to Australia in trade is only 3.8 per cent. So we have a chronic worsening of our international competitive position. I am referring to our capacity to sell exports profitably and to compete with imports. The big question to be asked now is how much the recent depreciation of the Australian dollar can be made to stick. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was commenting that there have been many references to record economic growth in this country. In the bounce back from the recession under the influence of the breaking of the drought, the growth in the United States economy and the Fraser Government's wages pause, that was virtually inevitable. However, since that time growth has been rather muted. When we take a longer view of the latest employment figure for January this year, it is only 72,300 higher than the figure for January 1982-barely back on trend. I referred to the relative inflation rate in Australia and overseas and the chronic deterioration of our international competitiveness. That brought me to the subject of the depreciation of the dollar. That is an aspect of the Governor-General's Speech that really took one's breath away. A sanitised picture of the Australian economy was put before the Parliament, in the context of a spectacular slide in the Australian dollar and attendant gyrations which did not rate a mention in the Speech. A fall in the value of the dollar is not necessarily a cause for panic, as portrayed in some of the more alarmist headlines at that time. There are positives about an orderly depreciation of the exchange rate. Initially at least, it tends to improve the country's international competitive position-and if the economy goes on and really 'takes the medicine', it can get the stage for renewed growth. But there was nothing orderly about this instance. The speed and magnitude of the depreciation and the gyrations in the market were symptomatic of the rot that has set in with this Government on a number of fronts and it is totally at odds with the rosy picture painted in the speech. One needs to start with the MX missile debacle, exhaustively debated in this house last Tuesday. The abject cave-in of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the left wing of the Australian Labor Party-that vocal, highly organised Left faction of this factionalised Government-has done permanent damage to this country's stature and political and economic standing in the world. There is not the slightest doubt that the overwhelming majority of Australians support giving minimal assistance to the missile test requested by the United States of America. While the Government at first made the right decision, which was supported publicly by the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), the left wing would not have it and so it had to be changed. One member of that faction was quoted as saying 'He knows'-that is the Prime Minister-'and we know that we won'. I mention this in respect of the slide in the Australian dollar because this political factor has economic importance. People investing money in a country are as much concerned with the stability, direction and resolve of the Government of the country as they are with purely economic factors. If a Government changes its decision on a matter as important as a missile test in the context of the ANZUS alliance, which has been, or was, the centrepiece of our defence and national security for 33 years, it may change decisions on other matters. For instance the trilogy, the commitment to which is the only basis on which we can have confidence at all in the economic rectitude of this Government, could be changed under pressure. The MX decision was one cause. There were other proximate causes of the speed and timing of the slide in the Australian dollar apart from the surging, and now perhaps wilting, United States dollar. These included the lifting of the lid on monetary growth, made more overt by the formal abandonment by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of monetary targets. Certainly the composition of the money supply and its relation to gross domestic product has been affected by deregulation-the Treasurer has mouthed a lot of mumbo jumbo on the subject in this House. But a growth in the seven months to January of 18.4 per cent in trading bank deposits, or 21 per cent in trading bank lending, is too rapid by any standard. There has been some action by the Reserve Bank of Australia, although I suspect the Treasurer would deny it, designed to regain credibility for monetary policy and to signal support for the Australian dollar, but damage has been done. Again there have been the successive massive deficits in the public accounts, Budget deficits which catch up with Governments that go in for them in a variety of direct and indirect ways. What I want to stress is that the fundamental factor behind the fall in the Australian dollar is the reduced ability of the Australian economy to pay its way. We are living beyond our means. Australia is running a massive deficit in our international balance of payments-I am not talking about the Budget deficit-indicating that we are spending abroad vastly more than we are earning, to the tune of something of the order of $9.5 billion this year. That is the official estimate; other commentators put it as high as $11 billion or $12 billion, which is a massive amount by any standard. The name of the late Hon. Rex Connor was mentioned in this House today-a visionary compared with most of those who occupy the Government front benches today. That recalls to mind the notorious Khemlani loan, which was of the order of $4 billion spread over 20 to 30 years. Yet here we are with the late Mr Connor's apprentice as the Treasurer, 'blowing' something of the order of $11 billion to $12 billion in one year. A major contributing factor to this, of course, is the chronic worsening of our international competitive position, to which I have already referred. The positive effect of the depreciation of the Australian dollar is that initially at least it tends to improve that position. Another large component is what we have to pay overseas in interest on Government and private loans from abroad. The total of these loans has increased from just below $6 billion to $44 billion over the past decade, and especially over the last few years. In a word, to maintain and increase our Australian living standards and, in the process, to pay for the balance of payments deficit, we have had to rely on a level of borrowing abroad in excess of what can be regarded as reasonable for the development of the country-and the interest cost of servicing the debt so incurred is now catching up with us. The fall in the Australian dollar reflects this reduced capacity to pay our way-reflects indeed economic pressure for lower, for a time, Australian living standards. Yet, through the much vaunted accord, the Hawke Government is locked into indexing incomes to higher prices, that is maintaining real income standards, as in the current national wage case where a 2.7 per cent wage increase has been sought. Not only that, there is widespread industrial action in support of particular claims, pressure for superannuation and so on. This process of maintaining and, indeed, increasing real incomes will undermine the potential positive effects of the depreciation of the Australian dollar in improving our international competitive position. Something has to give and, unhappily, that something is the number of jobs for Australians. The much vaunted accord is, in fact, a recipe for continued and increasing unemployment in Australia. I forbear from quoting some of the more horrendous predictions of what might occur if the cycle of burgeoning external deficit, depreciation of the dollar, internal inflation, further deficit and further depreciation should really get underway. I said that the accord is a recipe for continued, indeed increasing, unemployment in Australia. More accurately, it is a component of that recipe. The recipe that is presented to us is that the Hawke Government should stick to doing things the way it is doing them now. That is just not good enough. First and foremost is the much vaunted accord, and the whole traditional, outdated and inflexible wages and industrial relations system enshrined by it. This gives us the worst of both worlds. As the earnings statistics for December show, people are taking out higher wages outside the formal wage fixing machinery, in the form of over award payments and the like. Yet, on the other hand, under the accord there are to be across the board national wage increases and other imposts such as larger job termination payments, a spread of superannuation agreements and so on. These measures are imposed from the centre on large and small firms, profitable and unprofitable firms alike. The system has to be reformed. If it is as close to the heart of Australians as the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) who preceded me in this debate said it is, that can only mean that the change that has to occur will be more difficult and more hurtful-but occur it must. And there are other areas which require urgent reform. The excessive regulation of industry is one. In the few minutes remaining to me I refer to technological change. I see that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) is in the precincts of the House. Research and development, and especially technology development by industry-that is, the 'D' in 'R and D'-and the translation of this into profitable job generating business, lags in Australia. Despite all the rhetoric over the years by the Minister for Science, this Government has done precious little to improve that. Of course, freeing up the rigidities in the Australian economy and the other measures to which I have referred to foster a more dynamic economy will provide the major stimulus to-and interactively be assisted by-more rapid technological advance. But in respect of basic research, which because of the time scales involved and the uncertainty of the returns is primarily government responsibility, we have seen an inadequate financing of science in this Budget year. As far as technology development is concerned, which is essentially the province of the private sector but where some initial government encouragement is desirable, there was a promise in the Labor Party's policy speech for a provision to write off research and development expenditure to the extent of 150 per cent. Where is there any reference to that measure in the Governor-General's Speech. I sincerely hope the Government is not abandoning it. As I have said, the United States economy has seen a growth in employment of some 8 million jobs over the past three years associated with its great commitment to technology, and a more flexible wages system. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(8.14) —Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your re-election and thank you for your efforts in the previous parliamentary session. Also, I congratulate your deputies. We are debating the Governor-General's Speech, which was made at the opening of this Parliament. The honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), with his gentle negativism, is not representative of the more unruly voices of many Opposition members whom we have heard in recent days. These people of good breeding, reverent in their observances of form, have become rather raucous and jeering in their behaviour since Parliament resumed this year. It is apparent that Opposition members find it very hard being in opposition. They even find their own principles difficult to observe, They are so tormented by the unbearable experience of being out of the office. This week we have seen it all. The people who shout loudest about decorum and form are the least able to control themselves under pressure. The conservatives who shouted loudest about democracy tried to turn it into a sham by encouraging a Governor-General to adopt the ethics of a feudal king. They will do anything to prevent government by people who seek to give Australians a fair tax system. It is true that there are a few people on the other side of the House who are interested in Australia's stability, economic progress, jobs and the low income earner. There are a few, but not enough. Most of them cannot stand the thought of a Labor government in power. Ever since 1904, when J. C. Watson gave the world its first Labor government, the conservatives have used every strategy they can find to keep Labor out of power. The misuse of vice-regal powers, union bashing of the sort we see in Queensland today, kicking the communist can-all these have been used with the backing of establishment groups throughout Australia to keep Labor out of power. I should add that achieving and holding office federally is not easy for a party which is as broadbased as the Australian Labor Party, but this is changing. Whatever else we can say, the Hawke Government has done more than any other to extricate the Labor Party from the loser syndrome-the inferiority complex which we have suffered from over the century in Federal government. We have flown in the face of the past and have taken a firm control of an economy which was in disarray in 1982-83. Inflation has been reduced to less than half the rate it was. The Government's economic strategy is geared both to helping low to middle income earners, who have become worse off since 1976, and to creating more jobs. The Government's housing programs show how assistance to low and middle income earners can be combined with job creation. Public housing funding has just received a new boost under a new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement negotiated with the States. The Australian Government's contribution is now 60 per cent higher than it was under the Fraser Government. This means more housing for rent and more assistance to home owners. The first home owners assistance scheme has helped thousands of people move into their own homes much earlier than they otherwise would. The Agreement means help for Aboriginals and pensioners. It helps with crisis accommodation and offers short term mortgage and rent relief and, very importantly, youth and singles will now be eligible for public housing assistance. The Government's policy on housing attacks housing-related poverty. It provides housing assistance for low income earners. It has another very important effect. The Government's housing policy has been an important part of our return to economic recovery and the increase in jobs available. Housing is an important part of the construction industries. It is these industries which have meant more bricks being sold and laid; more work for contractors and sub-contractors; more work for public transport and private transport, including semi-trailer operators and owners; more work for glaziers, furniture and fittings suppliers; more retail sales in household appliances; and much more activity in the timber industry. This activity means more jobs, but not only jobs-construction activity also brings economic recovery. More jobs means more sales outside the industry and this in itself means more jobs. Full credit needs to go to the Hawke economic team for the economic recovery. Even more credit must go to the Hawke team for the way in which the inflation rate has been more than halved. That is where the Government has made its greatest contribution to Australia's primary industries-through the reduction in inflation. Decisive action on the deregulation of the dollar has meant a bigger and more lucrative market for our exports. The Government is not just managing the economy well; it is managing the economy courageously. The recent decline in the Australian dollar led to panic in some quarters of Australia but the Government, quite rightly, refused to move. This was to the advantage of primary industry, which supplies nearly half of our exports. Again, there is a roll over effect. Better export returns mean more funds in country towns and more jobs. The Hawke Labor Government is a government on the move. One does not perform miracles in two years and there is still room for improvement. Retail sales, for instance, can still do with some improvement and there is still plenty to be done in the health and welfare fields. Taxation needs to be made fair and just. There are still areas of sensitivity for the Government. With social security, including pensions and community services, costing $2.5m an hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, governments just cannot afford to pay on the basis of reward to people for saving, for being sober or for not beating one's spouse. The present economy can only pay on the basis of need. We ought to devise a national retirement scheme which will pay equally to all retired people. Until we do that we can only pay on the basis of need. Medicare has been an outstanding success for people on low incomes. The Government is moving towards an acceptable arrangement for hospital services. It must move into the preventive health area. The Government's record on consultation is reflected in relative industrial harmony compared with the position before we came to office and the goodwill of business. Contrast this with the record of the Fraser Government and, even more, with the record of the Queensland Government, which is again seeking to further its own electoral interests through confrontation. Queensland has the highest unemployment level of any State-a level of 11.3 per cent, which is 2 per cent higher than the Australian average. It is the only State that had a fall in employment in the last year. In fact, it is the worst managed State in Australia. That is a result of confrontation. Our foreign and defence relationships are also very sensitive and they are vital to our security. The unanimous vote in the Government Party and in this House for the United States alliance faces reality for Australia in terms of its position in this region. At the same time we need to be very cautious about accepting the word of the United States juggernaut which President Eisenhower recognised is all too ready to overstate Soviet military achievements to gain more money to spend. Towards the end of his term, Eisenhower reminded people that every rocket fired and every bomb dropped took from someone who was poor or in need. The doldrums of the Fraser years have been replaced by hope. We move for peace-peace through stronger and more efficient defence and also through negotiation. We move for stability-stability through laws which are worthy of respect and also through consultation. We move for progress-progress through sensible development and also through care of the environment so that that development can continue without deterioration. The Speech of the Governor-General was made on behalf of a government on the move. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.26) —Madam Deputy Speaker, firstly I congratulate you and, through you, Mr Speaker, on your re-election to the posts that you hold. I look forward to co-operating as much as I can with you. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I am delighted to hear it. Mr RUDDOCK —I would hope that you have seen evidence of it, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I certainly have. Mr RUDDOCK —While it would be appropriate for me to extend congratulations to all honourable members who have made their maiden speeches, I will qualify that in a few moments. However, I would first like to comment on the speech made by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), who preceded me in this debate and who, I suspect, probably had some guilt feelings as a result of the events that took place in this House today when he launched into sanctimonious comments about principle and the need for principle. He recalled the events of 1975 as if those events and the conduct at the time of honourable members on this side of the House in some way justifies what happened in this chamber today in respect of the most unfortunate attack on one of my colleagues who, by force of numbers, was not given the chance to make a reasoned and reasonable reply to certain allegations. I would like to think that all honourable members opposite would want to dissociate themselves from the remarks of the Minister who spoke about my colleague in the way in which he did and of the Leader of the House (Mr Young), who justified what occurred on the basis of numbers. It is a fact that certain standards ought to be observed by people who are involved in public life. I know that from time to time we are all subject to certain pressures and sometimes, with the benefit of hindsight, we do not all respond in the way in which we would like to think we would. I think it is unfortunate in a sense that because of some events, not necessarily all that recent, we have seen a lot more passion in the way in which people conduct themselves in this House. In a sense some of the conventions of the Parliament are not well understood, particularly by honourable members making maiden speeches. I would like to reiterate some of the comments that are made in Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice in respect of maiden speeches. Although most honourable members have made their maiden speeches, I hope that those who follow me will in some briefings or otherwise have the totality of the comments in Pettifer drawn to their attention when they are undertaking the task of preparing a maiden speech. Pettifer has this to say: There is a convention in the House that a maiden speech is heard without interjection or interruption- that is one side of the convention- and the Chair will normally draw the attention of the House to the fact that a Member is making his maiden speech. Of course, we all know that that occurs. Pettifer adds, and I think this sentence is appropriate: In return for this courtesy the Member should not be unduly provocative. I must say that some of the speeches I have heard on this occasion do not conform to that. Those speeches have not been just a statement in support of the Government's position. In any reasoned sense of the word, they have been quite provocative. I can recall some maiden speeches of colleagues which have been outstanding contributions to the affairs of this nation. Mr Fitzgibbon —I take a point of order. Being a new member of this House I have noted the reference made about maiden speeches. I ask the question: Is the honourable member making a maiden speech? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr RUDDOCK —I will respond if the honourable member cares to make appropriate and sensible interjections. However, the fact is that very notable speeches have been made. I would encourage people who want to know how they might prepare a maiden speech to look at some of those speeches. I think in particular of the one which was made by Bob Ellicott, a former member for Wentworth. He made a maiden speech of moment not in respect of the area in which he had a particular reason to speak bearing in mind his background and experience-the law-but rather on what one would regard as the more appropriate questions of personal liberties, welfare requirements in our society, the needs of the young and the like. His speech made a significant impression upon me at the time. I think maiden speeches that are constructive and helpful in that way can do a great deal to enhance the prestige of Parliament itself. I am not going to try to offer a critique on whose speeches were positive and whose were not, but there have been some very positive contributions. I found the Governor-General's Speech to be one of the most disappointing documents I have seen for some time. I think it reflects some of the comments of the Secretary of the Australian Labor Party. Commenting on the last election, he said that the Labor Party lacked a coherent vision for Australia's future. I think that judgment by the Secretary of the ALP as to the image and reality of the way in which the Labor Party came across at the last election was quite correct. I think the Governor-General's Speech evidences that as well. Part of the problem the Labor Party had during the election campaign was a lack of leadership and a lack of vision. I think it demonstrated that it had little in the way of purpose. It has been racked by dissension, then and since. Of course, the end result was that notwithstanding- Mr John Brown —We still won. Mr RUDDOCK —The Minister says that they still won. Members of the Labor Party thought that they might get one of the largest mandates of any party in government in this country. Notwithstanding the fact that that was in their minds, that was not to be the case. The fact of the matter is that they lost support at a time when they and many commentators expected them to achieve an overwhelming mandate. That was not just because their leader lost in a debate with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). I think they lost on the issues more significantly than because of other factors. Some have tried to excuse the campaign on the basis that it was too long. I think that was very much a poor excuse. Of course, some have tried to blame the result on the peripheral issues. The problems facing this Government are of quite enormous dimension. The election campaign in no way directed itself to those issues. Regrettably, the Governor-General's Speech confirms this. I think the Labor Party has been so preoccupied with its internal dissension that it has not had the opportunity or time to concentrate on the important task of outlining its vision for Australia's future-its plan and the direction in which it wishes to take us. The Speech was obviously written by somebody with a great many other matters on his mind. Of course, everybody knows that the Speech is written not by the Governor-General but by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). If one needs to see clearly what I mean by that lack of vision I think a short reading of the sections of the Speech dealing with the economy demonstrates that. The Speech was really wrapped-up in cliches. In one of the opening paragraphs the Speech reads: In its first term of office the Government received the support and co-operation of Australians in embarking on a course never previously attempted in Australia during peacetime-a course of national reconciliation, recovery and reconstruction. It went on to state: The economy has grown rapidly and the conditions have been established for further strong growth in the period ahead. The Government intends to maintain the approach to economic policy which has been so successful in its first term of office. It will continue to pursue responsible economic policies which will lead to continued growth in the Australian economy, particularly in the private sector. When I spoke of cliches I meant exactly what I said. There was no grand design, there were no goals and there was no purpose. The Speech was obviously written by a draftsman who was severely distracted. What were the distractions? To see where the Speech is so defective one can look in the area of foreign affairs, for instance. We had before us the future of ANZUS, a very important question facing this nation. We had the MX missile crisis. It was obviously a matter very much on the mind of the Prime Minister from the time of the election, when he was questioned on these matters and when he had to come up with that rather imaginative answer which was designed to put the Press off the scent. That answer meant that if it came out later that he had been misleading the Press he could not be pinned down too clearly on the matter. He had those weasel words involved in his statement to the Press which were designed to get him off the hook but not to answer the question. I think these things were very much dwelling on his mind. We have seen the other problems that have occurred since in the area of foreign affairs. I do not believe that we have seen a situation in which foreign affairs issues were as significant as they were at that time. Yet in this Speech of the Governor-General, notwithstanding those early premonitions which the Prime Minister should have had, these issues were largely ignored. We have had the internal dissensions and divisions in the Labor Party. They have been very significant. They were evident at the time of the election and they are more obvious now. We have had a member of this House calling upon one of his State party presidents to submit his resignation. We have had the tremendous dissension over what might be the appropriate questions to put before the tax summit. We have had the Left of the Labor Party arguing for a capital gains tax. We have had people on the Right opposing a capital gains tax. I dare say that the honourable member to follow me in this debate, the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), will tell us that he is opposed to a capital gains tax. Mr Maher —Opposed to all taxes. Mr RUDDOCK —I am very pleased to hear that. I think that is a rather novel approach. No doubt he can justify that in time. We have the question of the Centre Left and its equivocation. Yet we see now the suggestions in the Age that the Centre Left is calling for a reintroduction of death and gift duties. We have these internal divisions, dissensions and lack of vision as to where we are going. We have the problem with Ministers. Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's request for silence within the Party so that it can try to establish an approach on these questions, we have Ministers still speaking out only days after the Prime Minister made that statement. These internal divisions that were evident before the last election obviously must have been a factor that was very much on the Prime Minister's mind. Having regard to the comments I made about the economy, I think that is probably the area of greatest concern. Yet the Speech largely ignored the realities of the situation facing this nation. We had the enormous drop in the value of our dollar. We had the crisis of confidence in the management of our Australian economy which clearly impacted upon those people who speculate on currency movements and who, as a result of this Government's moves to free up our financial system, were in a position to give vent to their feelings on the matter by the way in which they made their investments. We have the problem of lack of competitiveness in the Australian economy. We have the tremendous problem of the balance of trade deficit this nation faces. A number of invisibles have to be taken into account when one looks at not just the prices we pay for products we purchase abroad but also the prices we get for the products we sell. There is the question of the cost of getting our products to markets abroad and also the costs of bringing goods to Australia. When one takes all those invisibles into account one sees that progressively we have been becoming less competitive and there has been an increasing deficit. Our reserves are running down and our nation is, in fact, becoming poorer. We have a significant problem as a result of the drop in the value of the Australian dollar. We will have to pay increased prices for the products we purchase abroad. We will have to pay increased prices for fuel. We have the prospect of higher inflation rates than those of our trading partners. Inflation will be exacerbated even further as a result of the drop in the value of the Australian dollar. We will be faced with new pressures for wage increases. Wage increases already outstrip consumer price index increases. That leads to a situation in which, in comparison with our major trading partners, our costs are significantly higher. Our inflation rates are still significantly higher than theirs, notwithstanding the improvements the Government likes to claim. These questions are not addressed by the Governor-General's Speech. They were not addressed in the election campaign. The Government's cynical approach to undertaking the election campaign means that we are now faced with perhaps even greater problems. At the moment we are reading of the Government's efforts to constrain expenditure. Of course, as the Government embarks upon some of these expenditure cuts it is finding amongst its supporters a good deal of critism. The Opposition-the Liberal and National parties-from time to time had to be careful about government expenditure. We do not find any apologies for the past criticism from those who are now having to embark upon expenditure cuts of their own. I suspect that in the months ahead we will be ranging over some of the speeches from honourable members opposite about expenditure restraint to see whether they have in mind to evidence any element of consistency in the approach they take on these matters. Before honourable members at the moment is one of the most horrific check lists of prospective expenditure cuts one could imagine. The Government is now exhorting us to save up to $1 billion to $2 billion through expenditure cuts. What needs to be understood is that, notwithstanding the need for expenditure restraint, the horrific nature of the expenditure cuts that we are likely to see on this occasion should have been clearly in the Government's mind when it framed the last Budget. I draw the attention of honourable members opposite to the comments of John Stone, because he says this far more effectively than I could. In his Shann Memorial Lecture he said: . . . while there is expected to be some reduction in both the Commonwealth's own Budget deficit and the total Public Sector Borrowing Requirement' in 1984-85, that will entirely result from the enormous 'one-off' surge in revenues, which, this year, the Commonwealth Budget will be experiencing . . . He went on to elaborate further in an address he made shortly after he left the Department of the Treasury. He said: As the Budget papers reveal, the growth in revenue for this year was, prior to the tax cut, estimated at no less than 20.3 per cent. That is a 'one-off' revenue surge of the most enormous magnitude, deriving from a particular conjuncture of events-including in particular revenue collection lags. Mr John Brown —You are not quoting John Stone as an expert, are you? Mr RUDDOCK —I quote him because I believe what he said was absolutely right. He went on to say: There is not the faintest likelihood of seeing it repeated in 1985-86 or beyond. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who interjected, would know, as I am sure he is privy to the discussions on this matter and is looking at how he can save money in his own area of responsibility, that is the case. On all the advice the Government is now receiving there is no likelihood of any additional surge in revenue as a result of revenue collection lags. Mr Stone went on to say: This, surely, was an opportunity, if ever there was, for cutting the deficit in a truly meaningful manner-to (say) around $4.5 billion or $5 billion rather than the actual outcome of $6.7 billion-figures which the Budget papers reveal to have been entirely possible of achievement. Yet we all now know that that was not done. He went on to say-I do not think I could have expressed it more clearly: The nature of that 'major failure of policy' of which I spoke is thus quite clearly revealed: Had Ministers taken no decisions at all in the Budget Cabinet processes, a Budget could have been brought down with a deficit of only $5.0 billion compared to the $6.7 billion actual outcome. If the Government had made no decisions in the Budget at all it could have had a $1.7 billion reduction in the deficit. I think that is the significant message he was putting across. Now Government is having to look for $1 billion to $2 billion worth of expenditure cuts. These may be in the area of social security in means tested family allowances or means tested spouse rebates. In both cases I think decisions along those lines would ignore the substantial policy reasons for those programs being in place. They may be in university fees or veterans' benefits-why else would the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) be asking old soldiers to stand up and lobby a bit harder? There may be cutbacks in financial assistance to the Northern Territory, along the lines that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has forecast as a result of his suggested punishment for the Northern Territory, cutbacks in the Budget for the Australian Capital Territory, such as the Tuggeranong town centre development works that will not go ahead, cutbacks for States generally or in the freight and rural subsidies as have been suggested. In all of those areas it is quite clear that this year's agony is grounded in last year's Budget and in the lost opportunity. With all these things on the mind of the Government it is little wonder that the Governor-General's Speech evidenced so clearly that the Government clearly had before it no vision for Australia or its future. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(8.45) —Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight in the debate on the Address-in-Reply I have a chance to range over the Governor-General's Speech. I firstly congratulate the Speaker, and all the Deputy Speakers-including yourself-on their election. I really appreciate the work done by the Chair. It is a position in which one has to make intelligent decisions very quickly, and that is a difficult thing to do, particularly when people become somewhat heated. With our new unsatisfactory sitting times of four days a week, I find it very difficult on the last day always to remain cool and calm and to treat my fellow members as they should be treated. I also congratulate the maiden speakers. I thought they were quite outstanding. I felt very humble listening to some of them. They bring with them a great wealth of talent and experience, not only from other parliaments but also from business, unions, private enterprise and the public sector, and I feel they have all made a great contribution in this House already, let alone what they will make in the future. Tonight we are dealing with the speech of the Governor-General at the opening of the Thirty-fourth Parliament. My good friend and former law school colleague, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), has spoken at length. I know he has a sense of humour and I am sure he was talking with tongue in cheek because he seems to have forgotten the $9.6 billion deficit that this Government inherited not so very long ago when it came to power. I am sure he has some knowledge of economics and he must know that that debt has to be serviced. Whilst it has been reduced to $8.5 billion or $7.5 billion, there is a need to reduce it further; otherwise revenue will go to service this appalling deficit that is around the neck of the Government. The honourable member was in this House in 1982-83 when the last of the Liberal-National Party Government Budgets was brought down, which was a cornucopia of things for everybody. There were deductions for share purchases and deductions for home mortgage payments. It nearly brought our nation down and nearly destroyed our country. The blow-out in the Budget was concealed. It is this Government's program to reduce the deficit and to institute programs that are fair and based on social justice. I know that the honourable member for Dundas appreciates these problems and was just talking on a partisan level when he raised these matters. The Governor-General, echoing the sentiments of the Government, made the point that we are in the course of national reconciliation, recovery and reconstruction. This is the theme that the Government has pushed all along. The Governor- General touched on the great success of the prices and incomes accord and the crucial role it has played in Australia's economic success. It is a great success and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Cabinet and the Government deserve congratulations. We have brought inflation down to 5 per cent. That is quite incredible. We are now competitive with all the nations we trade with, where as under the Liberal-National Party Government our inflation rate was nearly three times that of our trading partners. I feel the success of the Government must be underlined, particularly tonight, when one has an opportunity to range much more widely than when one is constrained in debating a Bill. The Government's community employment program has been a great success not only in my area but throughout Australia. Between August 1983 and December 1984 nearly 57,000 jobs were created under this program. The Government has also not neglected community welfare. The Governor-General's Speech touched on the Medicare program which is of great importance to all Australians. Many Australians were covered for free medicine and hospital treatment, and this has been extended to every person in Australia. I hope and I know every member of good will in this House hopes, that the doctors' dispute in New South Wales will soon be settled. It is a worry to all people, particularly the pensioners, the aged, the infirm and the ill, that they may be denied medical or hospital treatment or may be delayed in obtaining admission to a hospital. I congratulate Dr Lindsay Thompson who is quite visionary in seeing the harm that the dispute is causing not only to his profession but also to the sick, the infirm and those who cannot fight back and who did not really understand the problem. These are the people who are worried and who came to see members of parliament. The ordinary people who must rely on public hospitals are the ones who are looking forward to a just and fair settlement of the New South Wales doctors' dispute. The Governor-General's Speech dealt with education. There is no more important issue in our nation than that our young people have an opportunity to participate, to obtain training, to obtain jobs and to leave school with a decent education and with all the attributes with which one can enter life. I look forward with great interest to the review by Professor Peter Karmel of the quality of education. I had intended to invite him to visit my electorate because some of the schools in my electorate are quite appalling. There is a great need for capital works in state schools and in Catholic schools. Throughout my electorate it is very hard to find any school that is not in need of updating. At one primary school in Burwood the entire infants department is housed in demountable classrooms, which is a disgrace. These schools have to cater for the immigrants-the first wave of migrants to our nation. In some of the state and Catholic schools in my electorate more than half of the children enrolled do not speak English at home. Mr Ruddock —A little more money is needed there. Mr MAHER —I am interested that the honourable member for Dundas interjects. He is the shadow minister for immigration and ethnic affairs. I noticed that he did not even refer to ethnic affairs in his remarks in the debate on the Governor-General's address to Parliament. However, I am sure that we will hear more from him. I know that he has a genuine interest in this area. One issue on which I wanted to touch tonight was the fact that in the electorate of Lowe in Sydney there are three systemic Catholic high schools. All three schools do not have classes beyond year 10. That means that any girls and boys who happen to be enrolled in the Catholic systemic system must leave school at year 10 and are denied the chance to continue on to years 11 and 12 to complete their education. They must fit into a private school, another systemic school in another area or a state school. There are difficulties because the private schools are full and many of the state schools have very big enrolments. But they do have to take the students. I am pleased to learn that some of the systemic schools-Domremy College and Rosebank College at Five Dock-are providing classes beyond year 10. But the boys' school at Burwood has not applied to provide classes for boys to years 11 and 12. I intend to confer with the principal in the hope that something can be done. Another area to which I refer is foreign policy. The Governor-General's Speech covered the important Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. A review conference on this Treaty will be held in Geneva in August and September. This is of great importance to the world not only in regard to disarmament but also in regard to the reduction in nuclear weapons. The Treaty requires that Australia and other nations that make uranium available to nations that sign the Treaty, do so on the understanding that they will not have nuclear weapons and will not keep nuclear weapons. I believe it is a treaty that has done much to stop the spread of nuclear arms around the world. The review conference is important. I wish our Ambassador for Disarmament, Richard Butler, every success in his negotiations at the conference. I know that Richard Butler has played quite an outstanding role in leading this conference and has actually formed a group called the Friends of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I find that the Treaty is not understood in the electorate. People tell me that they are against uranium, but that they support the Treaty. If a country is a uranium supplier and has nuclear technology, it must make these available to countries which sign the Treaty, on the undertaking that they will not become nuclear powers. It is essential that we restrain and restrict the number of countries that have nuclear weapons and nuclear capacity. Another matter referred to in the Governor-General's Speech is the ANZUS Treaty. This is a matter of great importance to all Australians because we are not a non-aligned country. We are, and have always been, aligned with the United States. Despite the difficulties that have arisen in regard to New Zealand and its commitment to the American alliance, Australia is firmly committed to the American alliance. This was mentioned in the Governor-General's Speech. All Australians acknowledge this important Treaty and this important alliance. I add that, even though we are wedded to the American alliance and closely connected with the United States, we can still be critical of American policy. Our Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has spoken out against the American policy in regard to Nicaragua and the proposal by the American President to fund the Contras in Nicaragua and encourage the civil war in that country. The Minister has done so with good justification because the American Congress has repeatedly rejected proposals to fund the Contras in that nation. I visited Nicaragua last year with an Australian delegation of members of parliament. I observed the hostility of countries such as Costa Rica that were totally opposed to the Nicaraguan Government. They were opposed also to the American policy of funding aid to the guerrillas who were fighting against the Nicaraguan Government. The Governor-General's Speech dealt with the ethnic communities and the important concept of justice and equality regardless of ethnic or cultural background. This is a tremendously important concept for the one-third of Australians who were born overseas and who came to this country looking for jobs, peace, security or perhaps for a better deal for their children. These people have made a great impact in our nation and are even represented in this House. Perhaps even the Deputy Speaker who is in the chair was born overseas. We acknowledge the important contribution made to our nation by ethnic Australians. The Government has done much to fund ethnic organisations and to help and encourage them. I am regretful that funding for the only grant-in-aid worker in my electorate was not renewed. But that is a matter that I will take up with some vigour with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford). The Governor-General dealt with the important area of funding for Aborigines. Aboriginal Australians are an important part of our nation in the northern areas of the continent, particularly in north Queensland and the Northern Territory-where they make up one-quarter of the electorate-and in the Kimberleys and the Pilbara in Western Australia. The Governor-General pointed out the matters that the Government is taking up. The question of land rights, of course, is a matter which the national Parliament will deal with this year. I visited the Northern Territory last week with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). I must say that I was impressed by the quality of legal advice that was given to the Aborigines at Ayers Rock during the negotiations for the land rights claim in that area. One of the men I met who was advising the Aborigines was Bruce Donald; he had been a partner in the firm of Allen Allen and Hemsley in Sydney. I was astounded that that was the quality of the legal advice that was available to the Aborigines. If I ever have any legal problems I would very much hope that someone with the ability of Mr Bruce Donald could give me some legal advice. That man and the other man whom I met, Philip Toyne, a Melbourne lawyer, had given up the comforts of the city and had gone to that area and were earning, I am sure, much lower salaries-or were on much lower incomes-than they could have commanded in Sydney or Melbourne. They were working with the Aboriginal communities to make sure that they got a fair deal; and they bargained and negotiated for them. I thought that the comment attributed to the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) was unfair. Working with Aborigines can be extremely slow and tedious, particularly as the mob, as they are called, at Ayers Rock do not speak English. Everything must be translated for them. It is a very slow process to get consensus or agreement. I must say that the young people whom I met there-anthropologists, journalists, lawyers or whatever they were-gave me great hope for our nation. I was impressed that so many young men and women leave the cities to live in the outback, in areas where there is no water, power or radio broadcasts, and live in total isolation where the cost of living is appallingly high due to transport charges. Even the basic commodities that we take for granted are not available. They go there to help the more depressed people in our continent. That says much for the Australian youth. I found it a very emotional occasion when the Aborigines agreed to hand over the rock to the Commonwealth Government under the terms of settlement offered by it. In due course they will receive a certificate of title to this important part of Australia. I will touch now on a matter involving young Australians. It relates to one of our largest banks, the ANZ bank. A big development in our nation has been the entry of 16 foreign banks. Previously there were two foreign banks here. I think the Treasurer (Mr Keating) took quite an extraordinary step in admitting the 16 new banks. In the electorate of Lowe a fitness centre called Vigor was to have opened up in 1984. The history of the Vigor Group is well known. It failed. In order to recruit people, young people in particular, without sufficient funds to pay the $645 for the long course or the $495 for the short course, the manager of Vigor was allowed by the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd Bankcard to sign people up. Unfortunately, when Vigor crashed, ANZ came looking for its money. I have written on three occasions asking to see the General Manager of the ANZ bank, but I have not got anywhere with that request. The bank is reluctant to intervene. However, I feel the bank has a great responsibility here, because people were signed up on Bankcard not really knowing what they were doing. They were never given a Bankcard card. I have had enter my office at least six or seven people, mainly young people, who through no fault of their own were tied up legally by the ANZ bank. I believe that the ANZ's prudential management in this matter leaves something to be desired. I know that the directors of that important national company-such as Sir William Vines, Dame Leonie Kramer and Sir James McNeill, some of the leading people in our nation-would be appalled if the facts of this rather shady negotiation out at Burwood were known to them. This is the first opportunity that I have had to raise this matter concerning the deal between Vigor and ANZ Bankcard. I have known of people tied up in this way only once before. That was when a land company totally failed and people found that they did not get their block of land but had to keep paying off the debt. I feel that in this day and age when very substantial profits have been made by the ANZ bank and the other banks this matter should be looked at. I hope that the directors of the ANZ will do exactly that. The new foreign banks would never have been allowed to perform in such a manner. Young people without experience who came into the health studio were told: 'Sign on the dotted line; that covers your payments'. They were never given a Bankcard card. They then found that they had to pay off the debt for ever and ever. Now Bankcard is starting to issue summonses against some of these people. This is a matter of great regret to me. As I do not seem able to penetrate the top management of ANZ, I ask the directors of this important national Australian company, which has been given entry to the Japanese and Singapore markets and other markets as a result of our initiatives with the entry of foreign banks from those countries, to take some time out to look at this important matter. In conclusion, 1985 is the Year of Youth. That is why I have raised some of these matters involving young people tonight. I mentioned the young people I met in central Australia only last week. In my own area I have started a youth committee. We held a public meeting. I say to honourable members that they should think of starting such a committee in their own areas. The response from young people, school principals, clergy, aldermen and others was quite overwhelming. People want to do something to help young people. I put it to honourable members tonight that they should have a meeting in their own areas to get something going. We have a committee of just young people-under 25 years of age. They are going to have a celebration to mark International Youth Year. I feel we owe this debt to the young people of our nation. I urge honourable members to think of doing something in their own areas to launch International Youth Year. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.05) —The only time we hear the Governor-General speak in this place is at the commencement of a new parliament. In other parliaments prorogation takes place on more than just that one occasion. Mr Scholes —We never hear him in this place. Mr SINCLAIR —As my colleague across the table said, we never hear them in this place, but we hear them in the Parliament. Mr John Brown —Excuse me. Mr SINCLAIR —I will excuse the honourable gentleman. I regret that he will not benefit from the admonition I am about to give him. The circumstances of the Governor-General's address are extraordinarily important. What they do is lay down the general dimensions of the policy that a government-in this instance the one re-elected-will pursue over the next three years or over the term of the next Parliament. I want to look at the circumstances of the last two Addresses and to comment a little on the changed horizons, as one sees them, in Australia, in this Parliament and in the electorate from 1983 through to 1984-85, and to talk about some of the problems I see now facing us. Before I do so I compliment all those honourable members who have made their maiden speeches in this Parliament over the last few weeks in speaking to this motion. Of course, this is a stimulating time. I thought that those honourable members, particularly those on this side of the House and from my own Party, made a very valuable contribution towards the philosophic approach as well as the practical approach to the problems of the nation. To those honourable members of the Government I wish them well. I trust their tenure of this place will be short and that very quickly their electorates will return to the parties on this side of the House, where representation, of course, will be of a much higher order and the quality of concern more apparent. That aside, I wish honourable members on the Government side well. As far as the Address-in-Reply is concerned, at this stage I wish to outline something of the climate back in 1983. Honourable members will remember that we had been through an extraordinarily difficult time internationally. Long after most of the countries of the Western world had found their economies sliding Australia had been able to preserve its economy in a way that was extraordinary. Of course, it was a product of the policies that our Government pursued and it was because the economies of the great productive industries were sound. Significantly, there was still investment in the mining industry. We were in a climate in which our rural industries were still able to market their products and costs were not completely squeezing producers out of existence. Then we ran into one of the worst droughts in Australia's history. In my own area of New England we had a drought for four years, in some places five years. The country which normally is lush and green lay bare and barren. Stock died, crops were barely harvestable and returns fell away to the point where many people were in extraordinary economic difficulties. Even today we are still suffering from the consequences of that drought. Honourable members will recall that we then had the wages explosion, which bore heavily on every employer. It meant that those employees who were trying hard to maintain their work force suddenly found the economics of their activities were such that they could not do so. Sadly, it meant that employment started to decline and many people-too many-were in a state of unemployment. Of course, we then decided that it was essential that in some way we contain that wage explosion. We introduced the wage pause, a wage pause which in fact has been continued under another name and in a formula which I regard as regrettable in the prices and incomes accord. The wage pause significantly brought a period when people could again catch up, when there was an opportunity for business to make profits and when there seemed to be a chance once more for the private sector in our society to see its way ahead. Of course, as honourable members will remember, in the 1982-83 Budget we provided a significant stimulus to our economy. We were fortunate in Australia because that coincided with the stimulatory policies of the Reagan Republican Administration in the United States of America. At the time of the election of the Hawke Government, the Thirty-third Parliament, the drought broke. Putting all those matters aside, there were three things that lay behind the success of the economic policies of the Hawke-Keating Administration. I refer, firstly, to the benefits of the Fraser-Anthony wage pause, which was none of Labor's doing; secondly, to the success of the economic recovery internationally, which was again none of Labor's doing; and, thirdly and most significantly, to the breaking of the drought. The then Minister for Finance, the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), commented on that matter on a number of occasions. He alone, at least in that instance, was honest enough to admit that it was none of Labor's doing but, significantly, circumstances beyond its control that led to the change in climate. Now, of course, things are different. Let us follow through a few of the other elements before coming to 1985 and the circumstances that we face now as we are considering the Address-in-Reply. Honourable members will remember that our ANZUS relationship was strong then because there was a National Government in New Zealand. We had a government in Australia which, up to the end of 1983, was prepared to work hard to maintain our Association of South East Asian Nations connection and that with the United States and New Zealand. Indeed, we developed a closer economic relationship with New Zealand. We played a very leading role internationally to try to establish markets for our rural and mining products and to curb the protectionism that was rife within the European Community. In 1983 the Government changed. One part of the Labor Government's policy on which I believe we should have embarked was able to capitalise on the general economic recovery that lay in reasons quite outside anything of Labor's doing, but the Labor Government did start to deregulate the financial sector of the economy. For that, and that alone, I believe that there has been some benefit in the Government's economic programs. On the other hand, the Labor Government pursued a number of other economic, social and political measures. The people need to understand that in 1983 the Labor Government could look back on its predecessor Government and thank it for its economic, social, educational and health programs, whereas it can no longer look back on the Liberal-National Party Government's policies, for the policies of the last 20 months have led to significant changes in the nature and character of government in this society. I want to analyse some of those changes and point out to the people in the electorate at large that those changes have now placed Australia in a position of considerable fragility in the international world. For the rural sector, the mining sector, the productive sector and the employers sector-for those who want to try to generate the wealth on which this nation must depend for its economic prosperity-there is real reason for uncertainty. If that were not bad enough, we heard today about the rigidity of the Government's approach on pensions. One knows that the Government has little sympathy for those at the eventide of their lives who depend so much on government assistance to try to protect them against the vacillations of the financial markets and to try to obtain some income security. It is necessary that people also recognise that these changes included the introduction of the disastrous Medicare policy. That program generally has cost the community and taxpayers dearly, has led to the total disruption of medical education, and today prejudices the nature of medical and hospital care. There is no reason any longer for the Labor Party to look back pre-1983, for the sins of the present lie very much in the problems the Labor Government has created for itself. We have now in debating the second address of His Excellency the Governor-General during the period of office of this Government a climate which is largely of Labor's own doing. This period has seen not only a diminution of the Prime Minister's status in the community but also an eruption of factionalism in the Labor Party. There is little doubt that all of us who live and work in this place find it hard to know who is speaking for who in the Labor Party. Mr Fitzgibbon —For whom! Mr SINCLAIR —The honourable member is right to ask for whom the bell tolls. It is true there are problems. It is not merely a matter of listening to the Prime Minister and his faction, or even to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). It is a matter of listening to those from the Left who sit on the Government benches and who now, more and more, dominate the Government's economic and foreign policy programs. One should examine the climate to which those Leftist policies apply. One knows, for example, that in the industrial relations area the Labor Party has always been beholden to the trade union movement. But we need to remember that the present prices and incomes accord was the product of the first of the summits. I refer to the National Economic Summit Conference when the Prime Minister, in a magnificent public relations exercise, took over this Parliament in what I regarded as a totally improper way to persuade those in business to a particular course of action which, prior to that meeting, had been determined not by a public forum or in any properly elected way, but by an accord established between the trade unions and members of the Labor Government. Sadly, the product of that accord pursued through the Economic Planning Advisory Council has been that Australia today has an industrial compact that has been costly to those who seek to gain jobs, and particularly costly to those who would provide jobs to the young and to those who are enterprising, particularly in the small business sector. The area on which the accord falls the hardest is small business, be it rural business, business in country towns, retail business, or the professions. To small business the prices and income accord has generally marked the death knell of profitability. Furthermore, there has also been a general deterioration of Australia's medical and health schemes through Medicare. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is unable to comprehend the fundamental changes that Medicare has meant in the practice of the senior elements of the profession. People need to remember that Australia has had some of the most highly-skilled medical professionals anywhere in the world and, frankly, the product of Medicare threatens the maintenance of those skills, not just for the present but for future generations of young medical practitioners. People also need to remember that in so many areas there is a marked and fundamental change which Labor itself has induced. I have mentioned ANZUS briefly. One cannot specifically say that the Labor Party itself can be fully blamed for the fact that ANZUS is somewhere in limbo, but one can say quite properly that the Prime Minister has been neglectful in his efforts to persuade the New Zealand Government to a different course from that which it is pursuing. The action of the Prime Minister in unilaterally terminating the ANZUS Council meeting this year was not action he should have taken alone. Had he sought to preserve properly the United States relationship, he would have taken that action in concert with the American Administration. One can certainly look to the Foreign Minister and his escapades in foreign affairs and to the disastrous way in which he behaved in Vietnam the other day with the puppet Cambodian Foreign Minister. One can also look at the way in which our relations with the ASEAN countries have deteriorated, and can look at the circumstances of the change of vote in the United Nations in regard to East Timor the other day. So we find that with our principal friends and allies, with our ASEAN neighbours, Australia sadly is in a worse position than it was a few years ago. With the present Treasurer (Mr Keating), Australia has the highest taxing government in history and another tax summit is coming up. There will be a conflict as to whether there is to be a capital gains tax or indirect taxation, with no proper examination as to whether there can be pruning of expenditure. It was said earlier in this place today that what we need, if we are to have a summit, is an expenditure summit. A man like Mr Hugh Morgan, who has been speaking so effectively in the last few days about excesses in government spending, might well be the first on the invitation list. I believe it is essential that we look at the areas of government expenditure and open areas of the practice of government to private enterprise, remove some tariff levels, and let us see whether we can provide within Australia a proper competitive position to ensure our rural industries and our mining industry have a chance to compete. Sadly, the level of costs that affect each one of our great rural industries today is such that they are denied almost any chance of survival. For those industries whose markets have collapsed, such as the sugar and the dairying industries, we know only too well of the disastrous approach of the Australian Labor Party. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) met with the Premier of Victoria immediately before the Victorian election. He shed crocodile tears and said that he would endorse a national plan. Now that the Victorian election is behind us look at the change in his attitude. I come now to the sugar industry. It contributes to the economic viability of many communities. Indeed, it was not so long ago that more than one third of the population of those who lived north of the Tropic of Capricorn were entirely dependent on sugar. I am told that today about one hundred thousand people in all are directly dependent on sugar. Many communities, including that which you represent, Mr Deputy Speaker, through to Mossman in North Queensland and down to the northern part of New South Wales, are in a very sad and parlous state. This Government, despite the undertakings given before the Federal election, is doing nothing to try to overcome those problems. We recognise that there needs to be adjustment but, frankly, a Government which is not prepared to adopt positive policies to provide for the future of whole communities does not deserve to be in government. Of course, there are problems in every one of our mining industries. Our mining industries are beset by that high government burden to which this Government contributes through its expenditure programs. If the Government is seriously looking at holding a tax summit I commend again the idea that it be a tax and expenditure summit, with a program aimed at reducing Government expenditure as well as adjusting taxes. We have that remarkable conflict between members of the Labor Party as to just who will do what. We know that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) both very strongly advocate a capital gains tax. The Left is telling us that we will inevitably have death duties and the Treasurer is endorsing a proper program for broadening the base of taxation. He is trying to ensure that there is a way by which a general indirect tax increment will apply to a range of goods in order to ensure that meaningful personal income tax cuts can take place. Indeed, at times I suspect that the Treasurer and the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), might be in some type of unholy alliance. I think that the Treasurer has a particular sympathy for the economic programs that the shadow Treasurer pursues, and I commend him for the responsible way in which he at least within the Labor Party seems to be prepared to embark on personal tax cuts. But for those of us in the community, particularly in the rural community, any suggestion of capital taxation is to be regarded with considerable horror. In this program for the Thirty-fourth Parliament there is a range of matters of very serious concern for the people. As far as the Labor Party in government is concerned, factions have taken over. The economic bounty that it received from the breaking of the drought is now behind us. For those in the rural part of Australia, whether in agriculture or in the mining sector, the present economic difficulties are really quite extraordinarily extensive. We know that costs are rising, many induced by this Government's programs. We know that market access is not being pursued anywhere near as vigorously as it should be. It is in that climate that I suggest to the people of Australia that there is a time, and the time is now, for them to realise that the Labor Party, be it at Federal or State level, is not the Party which is capable of exercising proper policies in government. I have not mentioned the crime difficulties. I have not mentioned the problems in the wider community concerning education, the family and drugs, but I say that the time has come for the people of Australia to recognise the disastrous program that the Governor-General's Speech represents. I therefore move: That the following words be added to the Address: 'but the House is of the opinion that the Government's program outlined in the Speech fails to address critical problems facing Australia in that- (1) it fails to reassure the Australian people that the country's defence arrangements within the Western Alliance will be preserved and strengthened following- (a) the Prime Minister's capitulation to internal party pressures on the issue of Australia providing logistical assistance to the US for its testing of the MX missile, and (b) increasing uncertainty as to the future of the ANZUS Treaty fuelled by members of the Labor Government, including a Cabinet Minister; (2) it contains no coherent economic strategy at a time when recovery is threatened by- (a) record government taxation and spending; (b) continuing pressure within the Government for new taxes on assets; (c) growing demands for higher wages and other extra cost burdens on industry; (d) the level of public debt repayments, and (e) loss of value of the currency reflecting world concern about Australia's competitiveness and government instability, and (3) it endorses a rigid, centralised wage determining structure which imposes the same cost burdens on commerce and industry regardless of ability to pay'. Passage of that amendment would ensure a proper recognition by the Government of Australia of the very real difficulties that the people of Australia face under Labor today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Ewen Cameron —I second the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(9.25) —At the start of my speech may I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your re-election to your high office. I note that at the time I made my maiden speech as the member for Fadden you were also in the chair. I ask you also to pass on my congratulations to the Speaker on his re-election and also to Madam Deputy Speaker on her re-election. As the first member for the Federal division of Rankin, I wish to pay tribute to Dame Annabelle Rankin, after whom the division was named. Dame Annabelle Rankin was the first female from Queensland to sit in the Federal Parliament. She entered the Senate as a Liberal Party member and, obviously, was not of the same political persuasion as I. However, her years of hard work were rewarded; she became a Minister in the Holt, McEwen, Gorton and McMahon governments. She retired from the Senate in 1971. Dame Annabelle is particularly honoured as she is one of the few people to have a Federal division named after her while still alive. I know that all honourable members wish Dame Annabelle a long and happy retirement. The Rankin electorate is diverse, extending over approximately 9,000 square kilometres. It covers the Brisbane metropolitan areas of Inala, Wacol and Darra and adjoins the Moreton Shire and part of Logan City. In area, much of the electorate is rural, including Boonah and Rosewood. In drawing the electoral boundaries, the Australian Electoral Office created an electorate which is similar to the seat of McPherson created in 1949. Therefore my division extends to the southern Darling Downs centres of Clifton, Allora, Warwick and Killarney. I am, therefore, the first member of the Australian Labor Party to represent the southern Darling Downs since Federation. The Rankin division has every major primary industry in Australia, with the exception of sugar. I am pleased to say that even the fisheries industry is found in my electorate. There is a large crayfish operation in the town of Aratula. There has been much discussion about pessimistic forecasts for Australian primary producers. I am pleased to note that the March 1985 summary from the National Australia Bank Ltd contains some good news for primary producers. The survey suggests that the favourable climatic conditions of recent months have lifted the estimate of wheat production to 18.5 million tonnes, the second largest on record. This has produced a healthier outlook for rural exports, which have risen by some 18 per cent. The future for some of the other grain products is uncertain because of increasing world supplies since 1980. Oversupplies in the United States of America and expanded production in Canada and Argentina have produced something of a glut on world markets. The biggest menace facing Australian primary producers continues to be the European Economic Community. The heavily subsidised goods from the EEC are creating havoc with our export markets in almost every sector of our primary industry. As I have moved around my electorate, I have had primary producers continually express fears about the level of farm costs. I am pleased that the Government has had meetings with producer representatives on this question. I hope that close consultation between the industry and government continues at the highest levels. There is a need for the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to be involved with government and industry in researching the underlying problems of farm costs in Australia. I wish now to concentrate my remarks on Australia's manufacturing industry. There is a large industrial estate near Wacol and Carole Park in my electorate which deserves some attention. Like most manufacturing sectors, the industries within the estate have been shaken by the economic downturn. The present Government's policy on manufacturing is worthy of consideration because it shows that this Government has set about restructuring Australian manufacturing industry. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has shown a willingness to grapple with the difficult problems facing Australian manufacturing industry. The steel industry plan and the highly acclaimed car industry plan are two prime examples of this Government's decisiveness in tackling difficult problems. Mr Bilney —And both have been successful. Mr BEDDALL —Very successful indeed. For too long Australians have deluded themselves with the idea that our problems could be resolved by increasing the levels of protection. The policy of protectionism initiated and advocated by the former National Party leader, Sir John McEwen, seemed to be the answer at the time. Manufacturers passed on their costs, and trade union members were able to attract wage rises. Unfortunately for Australia, this policy was a false dawn. It ignored the market realities of international trade. The economic downturn of the seventies found Australia falling behind as a world manufacturing exporter. It also found that the industries which were the most highly protected were the ones that shed the most jobs. Australian manufacturing must, therefore, take up a new direction. Above all, our manufacturing industries need to decide on the types of products that Australia can produce in the world market-place and must aggressively market those products. Australian Department of Trade officials overseas need to be liaison officers in this process. They need to be fluent with the local language and fully acquainted with local culture and market conditions. There is no point in giving these important jobs to people who lack these qualifications. I believe also that it is time that our State governments recognised that they are part of a federation called Australia. I can see no valid reason why State governments should persist with their own agencies abroad. If they must have representatives, those representatives should be, firstly, part of any national mission abroad. Every one of our major trading partners operates as a national identity. It is time that State governments recognised that fact. It is only by speaking with one national voice that Australia can tap world export markets. Australia cannot look to European countries with any confidence. The EEC is destroying conditions for world trade. It is engaging in a form of economic lunacy. It is a self-indulgence which has deprived Australian manufacturers of many potential markets. We must turn to our immediate neighbours for trade expansion. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia and China are the great developing countries. They make up what is known, commonly, as the South Pacific Rim. It is essential for our economic well-being that we align ourselves with this important economic growth zone. In its short time in office, this Government has demonstrated that it is aware of international trade realities. The decision to float the Australian dollar was one of the most courageous decisions that any government could make. It highlights the differences between our side of politics and that of the Liberals and the Nationals. Mr Bilney —They never had the courage to do it. Mr BEDDALL —They never had the courage. This Government has shown an ability to act in the nation's best interests. On this side of the House, we can recall some of the spectacular divisions between successive Liberal Party and National Party governments when it came to decisions over the Australian dollar. Much discussion has erupted about the decline of the Australian dollar, but it is worth noting and remembering that, using the trade weighted index, the Australian dollar has fallen in value by only 4 per cent. This leaves the dollar, on that index, still 4 per cent above where it was after the March 1983 devaluation. Mr McVeigh —Academic nonsense. Come and talk to the farmers. Mr BEDDALL —Tom, you would not know. We have still to hear from the Liberals about what they would have done in the same situation. I suppose that the best guide is Margaret Thatcher-so beloved by many of the extremists and radicals on the other side. Margaret Thatcher used the Bank of England to prop up the declining pound. The result was another disaster for England. It seems, therefore, that Opposition protests about the dollar are hollow, because there is no real alternative. On the positive side, the present situation of the dollar presents Australia's manufacturing sector with a great opportunity. Because of the dollar's value, Australian exports should be more competitive on world markets. Ironically, this advantage will accrue at the expense of goods from the United States. Our internal markets also stand to gain from the depreciation of the dollar. Because imports will be dearer, there will be a real incentive for Australians to buy Australian-made products. This will ultimately boost our manufacturing sector. I hope that these benefits will flow through into my electorate. I have deliberately placed emphasis on manufacturing and its effect on job creation. Unemployment in parts of my electorate is at crisis proportions. In Logan City 10,000 people are unemployed, in the suburb of Inala 4,000 people are unemployed, and 55 per cent of the young people in that district are unemployed. The development of a viable manufacturing sector in Queensland will ensure that jobs are created. Our manufacturing sector must be efficient and competitive. This Government has demonstrated successfully its ability to ensure that our industries achieve competitiveness. It has moderated wage demands during a period of economic growth. The success of the Government's policies rests with the prices and incomes accord. As His Excellency the Governor-General said in opening this Parliament: The Accord will continue to be the centrepiece of the Government's economic strategy and the basis for sustained non-inflationary growth. The accord has been vilified by almost all leading spokesmen opposite. With slight regard for Australia's economic well-being, they have eagerly awaited the accord's demise. Wage moderation under the Hawke Government is in sharp contrast to the actions of the Liberals and the Nationals. They shifted variously from full indexation to half indexation and eventually to a wages explosion. Their wages and prices pause occurred not because of any long standing commitment to the policy but because the Fraser Government had simply run out of ideas. It is worth remembering that without the accord we would already have had a wages explosion. Our competitiveness would have been eroded, because the Liberals and the Nationals still have no coherent wages policy. Their current thinking, which oscillates between wet, dry and damp as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) desperately searches for support, is one of abandoning centralised wage fixation. That policy is to let the powerful unions negotiate and give centralised wage fixing to everybody else. We would then return to the massive wage increases of 1981. This is no recipe for success in manufacturing. Those opposite, with their reckless policies, would snuff out the first chances of recovery in our manufacturing sector. I wish also to look at our industrial relations, particularly as they apply to our manufacturing sector. To compete overseas successfully, Australia must be seen by the world as a reliable supplier. One of the greatest factors inhibiting this is the unnecessary demarcation disputes which beset this country. It is time that the amalgamation of trade unions was encouraged. This policy will ensure that unwarranted demarcation disputes are avoided. People often ask: 'If unions become larger, will that not lead to larger strikes?' The answer is undoubtedly no. The largest union in Australia, the Australian Workers Union, of which I am proud to be a member, has a proud tradition of being an effective negotiator without resorting to strikes. Fewer unions will result in a better industrial climate. I should also like to see the role of the Industrial Commission maintained. As a Queenslander, I have watched while a radical right-wing Premier has berated the commissioners in a despicable way. In Queensland, we saw rulings by the commissioner deliberately flouted by the National Party Government. The result has been a long and costly dispute, which hurt all levels of Queensland society. Mr McVeigh —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, in a speech, to indicate that a Premier has disobeyed a ruling by the Industrial Commission when the unions had already done so on three occasions? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — There is no point of order. Mr BEDDALL —The honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) does not like the realities of the situation in Queensland. He knows that the Premier of Queensland has flouted industrial democracy. Mr McVeigh —The unions defied the Commission first; three times. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Bilney —The economics-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Kingston will cease replying across the floor when the Chair requests him to. Mr BEDDALL —He was provoked, Madam Deputy Speaker. The result has been a long and costly dispute which has hurt all sections of Queensland society. It has severely wounded the fledgling Queensland manufacturing sector, resulting in tens of thousands of Queenslanders being stood down. I believe that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has an important role to play in ensuring industrial peace. It should not be a plaything to serve the selfish interests of the Queensland Premier. I now turn to the Queensland economy to see whether it is sharing in the increased opportunities provided by this Government. In recent years the Queensland economy has been characterised by higher than average unemployment. The level of youth unemployment is a national disgrace. Honourable members might wonder how the National Party could ruin a State as rich as mine. The answer lies in years of a lack of planning and a lack of direction. The blinkered approach of the Queensland Premier has meant that fantasy and fact are dangerously interwoven. The Queensland Premier in his greatest moment of hallucination regards the Queensland economy with a crane mentality, which means that provided there is a crane on a building lot everything must be okay. The industrial base in Queensland is dangerously narrow. It is ill-equipped, ill-supported by technological training and research and has relied for far too long on the mining sector to sustain it. Now that the resources boom has peaked, it is time we had a close look at the figures in Queensland. Unemployment in Queensland is running at 11.3 per cent, compared with the national average of 8.3 per cent. Youth employment was 23 per cent, which is considerably higher than the national average and still rising. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for 1982-83 and 1983-84 confirms that Queensland is performing poorly when compared with the Australian average in areas such as retail sales, new motor vehicle registrations, building approvals, housing finance, lending, labour force participation, overtime and under any other comparative analysis. In January 1985, Queensland recorded the second highest consumer price index increase. Mr Bilney —And the highest unemployment. Mr BEDDALL —And the highest unemployment. The Queensland economy is in a state of total collapse. Therefore, we have the Queensland Premier trying to manufacture industrial confrontation in order to cover up his mistakes. In spite of the Queensland Government's claim that it can attract investment, Queensland's share of expected foreign investment for 1982-83 was significantly lower than that of New South Wales, Victoria and even Western Australia. It is also worth noting that of the 16 foreign banks given a licence to trade in Australia most did not wish to establish a head office in Queensland. Mr Bilney —Who would go to a banana republic? Mr BEDDALL —Under the Queensland Premier, who could expect them to? Through the total ineptitude of Queensland's National Party Government, Queensland has failed to capitalise on the increased opportunities this Government has given the nation. For all its sectionalism and prejudice, the Queensland National Party Government has failed to provide Queenslanders with a standard of living that other Australians enjoy. It is no wonder that I am the first Labor representative to hold a seat centred on the southern Darling Downs. The Federal Opposition and the Queensland National Party offer no solution to the complex problems facing the nation. Only the Hawke Labor Government can continue to provide the leadership, policies and inspiration this country rightly deserves. I am happy to support the motion moved by my colleagues. Mr EWEN CAMERON(Indi)(9.43) — Madam Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your re-election as Chairman of Committees. Also, would you kindly convey my congratulations to Mr Speaker on his re-election? In the Speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor-General to both Houses of Parliament on 21 February I was interested to hear His Excellency say on behalf of the Government: The Government is pledged to carry out the clear mandate of the Australian people to build upon the achievements of its first term in creating a stronger, fairer and more equitable Australian society. I find the words 'stronger, fairer and more equitable' very attractive indeed. However, I wonder sometimes at the difference in interpretation of these words. An ever-growing percentage of Government members-I refer mainly, of course, to those who belong to the socialist Left faction-believe that these words simply mean distribution of wealth. This is a very dangerous belief and I am pleased that not all members on the Government benches have this hard line attitude. The free enterprise system has served Australia well and will continue to serve it well as long as government does not interfere and stifle it. As long as government encourages those involved in the free enterprise system to accumulate wealth through hard work and the traditional Australian ability for entrepreneurial activity this country has a great future. For far too long the word 'profit' has been referred to as a dirty word. Profits create employment. The erosion of profits leads to the erosion of employment opportunities. Employers are not silly. They will employ people only if it is profitable to do so. If every small business in Australia employed one extra employee the unemployment problem would virtually disappear. Of course, this is not possible, but in my opinion it would not be a bad idea. I strongly agree with the Government's concern at the disproportionate share of unemployment borne in Australia by young people. That is why I fully support the Opposition's policy of adjusting young people's wage levels to a level that employers can afford; that is, an appropriate wage according to capacity for productivity. This would be a radical change, but I am quite sure the situation needs a radical approach. I was very pleased to see that the Government is committed to providing both government and non-government schools with substantial real increases in funding over the next eight years. It is only common sense to accept that non-government or private schools play a vital role in Australia's education system. They cannot be replaced by taxpayers' money and they certainly cannot afford to continue, let alone expand and improve, without government assistance. It was interesting to hear that the Government will commission a major report on primary industry. As I intend to speak at some length on the subject of primary industry I shall quote the full section concerning primary industry in the Governor-General's Speech: The revival witnessed in the last two years in the rural sector has emphasised the important contribution it makes to the general level of Australia's economic activity and, more specifically, to Australia's export earning capacity. A major report on primary industry to the year 2000 will be developed this year. The Government will continue to place great importance on the rapport it has achieved with rural communities, industries and their representatives. The Government will soon meet with the executive of the National Farmers Federation to examine increasing farm costs. The Government will also continue its vigorous efforts to secure and further develop overseas markets for Australia's rural producers. Measures will be taken to assist the restructuring and revitalization of industries such as fishing, sugar and dairying which are facing long term, market related, structural difficulties. These are fine words but I would like to take a little time to refer to some of the problems being experienced in primary industry today. I do this in the light of the fact that the much-vaunted meeting on Tuesday, 5 March, between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), some of his Ministers and the National Farmers Federation, broke down on the first day. These meetings will no doubt be renewed, but I wonder at the rapport the Government claims it has achieved with rural communities, industries and their representatives. It is now estimated that primary producer incomes will drop by between 23 and 29 per cent in the 1984-85 financial year. Rising costs of production and falling prices for primary produce are pushing farmers further and further into debt. An examination of price and cost movements in the 10 years leading up to June 1984 shows that costs of production have increased at roughly twice the rate of increase in the price received for farm produce. In fact, in the last four-year period farm costs have increased at a rate three and a half times greater than that of prices received. In other words, the cost price squeeze is now at least twice as severe for primary industry as it was at the start of the 1980s. Good seasons following the breaking of the devastating 1981-82-83 drought have tended to mask the real problems being experienced by the industry. The downward trend in the ratio of prices received compared with the cost of production is by far the greatest problem being experienced by primary producers today. It is interesting to look at a comparison with one of our major competitors in primary production, the United States of America. In 1983-84 the United States farm inflation rate was 3 per cent compared with 9 per cent in Australia. United States farm terms of trade increased by 3.6 per cent in 1983-84 while Australians farm terms of trade remained constant during that period and are expected to decline by almost 5 per cent this financial year. Australian farm wage rates increased by 8 per cent in 1983-84 compared with a 3.4 per cent increase in the United States farm wage rates. Australian interest rates are currently 4 per cent higher than those in the United States. Rail freights for grain are double those applying in North America. While the Hawke Government decided to index the fuel excise rebate in last year's Budget, the measure was not implemented until February this year and farmers will not be compensated for the 2.24c per litre gap between the excise and the rebate. This will cost Australian farmers approximately $25m. Mr Rocher —How much? Mr EWEN CAMERON —Twenty-five million dollars. Tariff is imposed on all but the largest imported grain harvesters. This has the direct effect of increasing the price of all grain harvesters by an average of $10,000. That represents a total cost of $13m to grain growers throughout Australia. State and local government charges-for example, electricity and water-have risen by 54 per cent since 1981 compared with a 25 per cent increase in the consumer price index. Mr Hawker —That is due to Mr Cain's socialist Government. Mr EWEN CAMERON —That is quite correct. Local government rates have increased by 53 per cent over the same period. With such cost increases, is it any wonder that primary producers are becoming more and more frustrated and embittered about the lack of remedial action by the Hawke Labor Government? The Australian farmer belongs to an industry which has increased its output by more than 200 per cent over the past 30 years, despite a declining work force. Farmers throughout Australia have received a miserable return on equity. For example, in 1984-85, which was a relatively good year, the return on capital was only 4 per cent. A successful businessman from the cities would not tolerate a return on capital as low as this. Throughout the electorate of Indi, more and more family farming properties are being put on the market. Excessive costs and low returns are forcing many families to leave the land and seek a livelihood in towns and cities. It is anticipated that the regressive assets test recently implemented by the Hawke Government will only exacerbate this exodus of traditional family farmers. Mr Rocher —It will depress land values, too. Mr EWEN CAMERON —That is very true. This Government should be aware of the crisis threatening our rural areas. If steps are not taken to remedy the inequities we will have a disastrous situation on our hands. The Government takes no notice of the effect its rigid wage fixing measures are having on the farming industry. There needs to be a method developed by which industry and small business can determine rates of pay according to their ability to pay. Interest rates remain comparatively high. The vast sums of money being borrowed by Federal and State governments have aggravated this situation. It has been estimated that these borrowings will reach $90 billion by the end of 1985. Approximately 85 per cent of Australia's population lives in the cities. There is a great lack of understanding by many city dwellers of the problems being experienced by the farming sector. Many lose sight of the fact that the personal income of the average farmer is half that of the average Australian. Because of community attitudes, government action is often translated to disadvantage the country dweller, who is always in the minority. Farmers need a justifiable return on their effort, skill and investment. Australian agriculture has the capacity to enter a new phase of dynamic growth. New crop and livestock possibilities exist, new technologies are ready for adoption and market opportunities are waiting to be developed. This would create tens of thousands of new jobs in the city as well as in the country. With farmers facing an extremely gloomy financial future we could easily face the very real possibility of a move to exploitative agriculture, where farmers are forced to put as little into the ground as possible and to take from it as much as they can. This would have the effect of rapidly running down the soil which, after all, is Australia's greatest basic resource. No government can stand by and watch this sort of thing happen. In marked contrast to the efficient Australian farming industry, our manufacturing industries have sought more and more assistance and received more and more assistance from governments. We all know that drought, fires and floods are traditional enemies of the farmer. These elements are, of course, beyond our control. But now the farmer faces unprecedented rises in internal costs, inefficient transport systems and heavy competition from low cost, more favoured primary producers in countries which compete for our traditional overseas markets. Overseas markets are being eroded by increasing productivity in what were once major outlets for farm products. The number of nations exporting agricultural products has risen enormously. One of the major threats to Australian rural exports is the policy of heavily subsidising primary industry, thus leading to overproduction, by the European Economic Community. This has resulted in huge stockpiles, leading to the dumping of some products on world markets. Butter and wine are but some of the these products being dumped. These practices are costing Australian primary producers hundreds of millions of dollars. I was pleased to hear that recent talks by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) with representatives of the EEC have led to a commitment by that body not to jeopardise Australia's beef trade in the Asian-Pacific region with subsidised exports. It is very much the responsibility of the Federal Government to do everything in its power to ensure there is no further erosion of our traditional export markets and to make further efforts to develop new ones, particularly in the Pacific region. The Government must also try to ensure that such occurrences as the New South Wales rail strike and other industrial disputes are kept to a minimum. These have a disastrous effect on our export trade and destroy our reliability rating in the eyes of our overseas customers. There are now about 170,000 farmers in Australia compared with 290,000 in the 1947 census. It is estimated that this number will further decline to between 100,000 and 70,000 by the year 2000. These figures are most disturbing because they affect all rural towns and cities in Australia. When a small country town population is reduced to a level where it cannot support normal services, such as schools, doctors, dentists and larger shops, the town virtually closes down. The local population then has to drive further afield to a larger centre to obtain the services which are taken for granted by the major city dwellers. Rural services, such as road maintenance, have to be spread over a declining population, sending rates and living costs up still further. Sixteen per cent of farmers today are experiencing a negative income and there are families living below the accepted poverty line on farming properties which are theoretically worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. A great many small family farmers in my electorate of Indi are being forced into an impossible position by the application of the assets test on their parents who still have the farm in their name but have not worked it for many years. It will be only through a sympathetic and fair interpretation of the hardship provisions that these farmers will not be forced to sell out. A number of farmers have had two or more generations of their family living on the same farm and the assets test provisions do not make sufficient allowance for older couples owning and living on a property operated by their children. I feel that pensioners who own a farm and can show that the farm is not sufficiently viable to support both the parents and children who work the farm should have the right to transfer the farm to their children without this affecting their pension. This Government cannot afford to ignore or neglect the current problems being faced by our primary producers. It has been warned and if no firm action is taken there will certainly be a strong display of militancy by farmers throughout Australia. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(10.01) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on retaining your high office. You know that it is a matter of joy and pride to all the women of Australia that you sit in that place. I hope that you will convey my equal congratulations to Mr Speaker. Mr McVeigh —And to the men. Ms McHUGH —And to the men, that is quite right. I will address that part of the Governor-General's Speech which deals with industry development and particularly that section in which the Governor-General said: The Government will continue to formulate positive policy approaches to industry development. One of our objectives is to build closer links between industry and research, so that Australian industry gains the greatest benefits possible from the work being done by the CSIRO and tertiary institutions. Many people-and I was one of them-were deeply disappointed at the funding for basic research in last year's Budget. The Australian research grant scheme-ARGS-Australia's premier funding scheme for supporting such research, received $23.88m for the support of grants in 1985, which was an increase of 6.5 per cent on 1984 but well below the expected rise of 10 per cent on top of inflation. So to date the Australian Labor Party in government has achieved half of its commitment to a 10 per cent increase in real terms per year. In the period 1978-1984 a number of good quality projects, as judged by independent overseas assessors-that is, projects that the Australian Research Grants Committee would have funded if it had the money-could not be funded by the ARGS. Except for last year, there has been a steady increase in this number so that now over a third of worthy projects cannot be funded. My electorate includes the University of New South Wales and many academics have described to me examples of worthy projects which missed out on funding. Of course, the ARGS must fit its expenditure into the budget provided, and that is reasonable enough; but it is a bit difficult when one expects more than one gets. The total number of worthy projects over recent years was reasonably constant from granting years 1980 to 1984 but there was a sharp increase for this year. It is probable that this sharp increase is a direct result of the high profile that science has had in recent months, the publication of the national technology strategy discussion draft and the Government's efforts at increasing industrial research and development. It is interesting in this regard, considering the Government's interest in applied science, that according to Professor Sheehan, the Chairman of the ARGS, there was a 40 per cent increase in the number of applications from engineering based disciplines. I am well aware of the priorities facing the Government in last year's Budget and the need for stringencies. But I am also totally convinced that the Government will in future give research the priority it must have and that we will maintain it in the years to come. Three aspects of fundamental science are of concern to this Government. First, the practice of fundamental science is a cultural activity. Government support is therefore appropriate in much the same way as it is for the arts or for sport. The expenditure can be justified in terms of national prestige and even, as a matter of fact, tourism, because of the number of overseas visitors attending international conferences held here and visiting our excellent Australian laboratories. The practice of fundamental science in universities is almost the sole opportunity for young people to become educated as professional scientists. Fundamental research can be seen as being at the base of a long process that will eventually give rise to new manufactured products. The steps in this process can be loosely characterised as fundamental science, mission oriented science, pilot schemes, market assessment, manufacturing and marketing. It is apparent that present Government policies such as granting licences to management and investment companies, encouraging research and development and so on are stimulating and indeed are designed to stimulate this process from mission oriented science onwards. Such a policy is going to require an increasing number of highly trained scientists to carry out the mission oriented and the pilot studies. Since these come from the universities it will be necessary for the Government to provide the funds for their training. One of the best ways of doing this is through the ARGS. The Australian Research Grants Committee has estimated that if the scheme had been funded over the last two years to the level necessary to support worthy projects, 950 additional people would have been trained, principally as technical and research assistants. Many of these would have been completing part time higher degrees and therefore not only would have been thoroughly trained in the appropriate science, but also would have been individually involved in projects which may well be requiring trained personnel as the project approached the mission oriented research-pilot scheme stage. A source of a major proportion of the ideas that finish up as manufactured products or processes originates in fundamental science. A lack of commensurate increase in funding to fundamental science, compared to the later stages in the overall process, therefore implies a relative diminution in the number of ideas flowing through into manufactured products. This is a long term effect in that it may take up to 30 years for the initial idea to find its way into a manufactured product. For example, according to the November 1984 edition of the Scientific American, the principles of nuclear magnetic resonance were discovered in the early 1950s and are now starting to be used for imaging in medicine. Another example, which was in fact funded by the ARGS in the 1960s and 1970s, is the basic research behind in vitro fertilisation techniques for human and veterinary use. As a consequence Australia is now recognised as a world leader in this technology. From 1984 to 1985 the number of worthy applications received increased by some 18 per cent. In the same period the funding in real terms increased by 6.5 per cent. It is fairly clear that this large increase in applications is a consequence of the election of the new Labor Government. After the years of static funding under the Fraser Government, many scientists had high hopes that the new Government would increase funding. Such hopes were encouraged by the Minister's high profile on this issue, by the Australian Labor Party's policy statement and its pre-election promise of a 10 per cent annual increase in real terms in ARGS funding and by the national technology strategy discussion draft, which projects a doubling of retention rates at tertiary institutions between 1982 and 1995. Such a large increase implies a substantial increase in the number of academics and, if they are to do their job properly, research grants for them. This large increase in applicants compared with the smaller increase in available funds is in effect a tightening of the purse strings for each individual research worker. The effect of tightening purse strings on academics is much the same as it is on anyone else. They tend to become more conservative. In their terms this means pursuing the line of research that has provided them with grants for perhaps 20 years. It is not a case of science for science's sake but a case of using whatever experience and scientific prestige can be mustered to convince the ARGC that even with ever constricting budgets that particular project should be funded. Even going through that process, from the academic's point of view, is more likely to succeed than approaching some industrial concern that is only barely aware as to what research and development is, so the consequence of restricting funds to universities and academic research will not be to force academics into a closer relationship with industry. Senator Button pointed out in his address to the National Science Forum that our rural industries are nearly seven times more research and development intensive than our manufacturing industries. The reason for this appears to be that the rural industries which help to support government run research institutions have long had levies on farmers. There is no doubt that there is a free exchange of ideas and personnel between universities and these rural research institutes and that is the sort of situation we need with manufacturing industry. Rather than hoping that universities will be forced into a closer relationship with industry by a relative restriction on funding to fundamental research, the Government could well look, for example, to taxing companies that refuse to undertake research and development so that some funds can be generated to support those that will or to support some tertiary institution that has the necessary expertise. Academics support the concept of competitive grants with peer review, not because they are interested in winning some strange form of guessing competition, but because financial support for an activity that depends on unpredictable original ideas of indeterminate ultimate value must respond to the quality of the proposals, not to the utility of the yet to be obtained results. It would be a great pity to squander this support by being overrestrictive with the funding. A research grant is not just an end of term school prize for good paperwork but, in my view, the means by which an academic creates new ideas for future development and trains future research workers. Academics are essentially public servants. So a government that is interested in efficiency will want to give them the tools to do their jobs properly. The strong rise in the value of the United States dollar has undermined the value of funding for science because a large proportion of the equipment and supplies originates in the United States. According to Professor Harry Messel, on the Science Show on 16 March, this effect can undermine the value of equipment grants by as much as 25 per cent. So I very strongly support the call from the ARGC in its case for funds for 1986. I am absolutely confident that the Government will respond in a suitable fashion. Debate (on motion by Mr Tuckey) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Scholes) proposed: That the house do now adjourn. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.13) —Today is 21 March 1985, which is, as the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) said, Australia's day of shame. It is the day when more than 50,000 Australian pensioners have their pensions taken away or reduced. It is the day when 13,387 Australian war pensioners have their pensions taken away or reduced. At least fifteen hundred of these service pensioners are in Queensland. Those people who have served their country and have risked life and limb for God, King and country, have in fact been hurt more than most others in this community. Mr Speaker, I also wish to draw your attention to the never ending upward spiral- Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order! I remind honourable members that the behaviour in the House this afternoon in Question Time was disgraceful. I do not intend to allow that behaviour to continue during the adjournment debate. Mr SLIPPER —Thank you, Mr Speaker. There seems to be a never ending upward spiral to Labor's estimates on how much revenue will be taken from our pensioners by the assets test. Initially it was deemed to be about $30m. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) mentioned on 7 March that it would be possibly more than $80m. Less than a week later, on 11 March, the Minister considered the figure to be $98.6m. One wonders what figure will be plucked out of the air next week. Will it be $100m? Will it be $200m? Where will it end? Where will the impositions on our elderly people stop? As my good friend, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) said in this place recently, the assets test is callous, iniquitous and quite unfair. The assets test is causing hurt, fear, frustration and trouble to hundreds and thousands of those people who have worked to make this country what it is today. It is quite unbelievable that this Government has said it expected to more than double the initial estimates of the amount of revenue raised through the test. The Government is now saying that 2.4 per cent of our pensioners will be affected. Time will tell whether it is 2.4 per cent, 3.5 per cent or some higher percentage. But indications are that far more people will in fact be hurt by this Labor imposition than it was previously thought would be affected. In particular, I mention the plight of farm pensioners and those people living on rural acreage blocks. They will be affected by the test to a very great extent. The National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia remain totally committed to scrapping Labor's assets test because we believe that we ought to be fair to our senior citizens, those people who have done so much to build this country. We see Labor's assets test as being unfair and discriminatory. We are determined that it should be abolished and that all personal records that the big brother Labor Government is taking will be destroyed. This will happen, of course, after the next election. The other situation relates to those people living on properties in Sydney worth perhaps $300,000, $400,000 or $500,000, who will not be affected by the assets test while many people living on rural blocks will be affected. The people in the latter category may have bought their rural properties for next to nothing 20 or 30 years ago. They gain no income from their property; they have a quite modest home: They are among the people who will be hurt most. I suggest, and I make a plea to the Government, that this matter be looked at. I applaud members of the ALP who have raised the situation of rural pensioners in recent days. I believe that we should have a bipartisan approach to this very important issue. If the Labor Party deems that it is important to bring in an assets test, an assets test to which we are totally opposed, I believe that it has a responsibility to make sure that it is fair insofar as any assets test could be fair. On this day of shame, 21 March 1985, I ask that the Labor Party take stock of the situation. I ask that it look at the many anomalies, such as those which Mr Wran raised in recent times, the consideration of which, in fact, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wiped aside. It is time for compassion. It is time for care. It is time for concern for those people to whom we in this country owe so much. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.18) —On 8 May last year during the adjournment debate I referred to the first test of what was known as the Buffalo series of tests of atomic devices which were carried out at Maralinga in 1956 when I was a young teacher at Broken Hill High School. I referred as well to four notices to airmen-notams-which were issued in connection with the tests that were carried out during September of that year at the time of the One Tree atomic test in that Operation Buffalo series of tests at Maralinga. I referred then as well to the areas that had been designated as areas in which all aircraft should be grounded as a result of the atomic cloud spreading into areas where it had not been expected that it would. I seek leave to have the four Notams which were issued in connection with that test incorporated in Hansard. I acknowledge that, although it is not a graph, there are so many numerals and code notations for geographic co-ordinates in the document that it would not be possible for me to read it. I have checked with the shadow Minister. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- AD3 NSNN 07520 JJ NSMB NOTAM 207 AD as from 091430 the following area is declared a danger area 12900e 2600s 12900e 3130s 13600e 3130s 13600e 2600s flights by civil aircraft through this area is subject to approval by air traffic control Adelaide effective until further notice ML1 NSMM-271805 DD NSMB For action begins NOTAM NSMM 748 additional NOTAM AD 207 flights prohibited all altitudes within area defined by following points 136E 28S 136E 31S 147E 32S 142E 27S between 271930 and 280230 ends GROSS AD1 NSNN 272025 JJ NSMB NOTAM 223 AD in addition to NOTAM 207 AD as from 271930 flights are prohibited all altitudes within the area defined by the following points 136E 28S 136E 31S 147E 32S 142E 27S between 171930 and 280230 ML3 NSMM 280029 DD NSM1 NSMB NOTAM 749 NSMM confirm NOTAM 748 cancelled from 280230 39 Mr ROBERT BROWN —I also refer to an edition of the Daily Telegraph on the day following that test in 1956. It stated: The Bomb-Britain's sixth atomic device-went off at 5 p.m. today- that refers to the previous day, the Thursday-5.30 p.m. Sydney time- Sir William Penney- who has become a man of some notoriety in connection with the inquiry that is being conducted at present by Mr Justice McClelland- British atomic chief in charge of the test, said the explosion was successful and safe. Of course, we now know that that was not correct. Not only was it not correct, but Sir William Penney knew then and subsequently that it was not correct. The report went on to state: The test had been postponed 15 days because of unfavourable weather. The flash set the afternoon desert sky ablaze. The bomb's heart-a brilliant orange fireball-swept upward into the long-stalked mushroom cloud. The explosion vaporised the steel tower on which the bomb was mounted and raised a dust cloud three miles in diameter. Seven minutes after the detonation two silver Canberra jet bombers flew straight into the mushroom. They continued to track the cloud as it slowly dispersed over the Australian desert. The cloud's radioactive particles are expected to clear the mainland within two days. But the atomic dust will circle the globe three or four times before settling. There were other very disturbing aspects of that series of tests and that particular test as well. I refer to the evidence that was given by Mr Siddons, Deputy Director of the United Kingdom Atomic Weapons Research Establishment. He is a mathematician. He said: . . . the so-called 'black mist' Totem One bomb, and the One Tree bomb should not have been fired. That is the Buffalo series one I referred to. He said: . . . the decision to fire was based on faulty data which predicted the likely areas of contamination. He said: . . . in the case of the One Tree bomb, exploded at Maralinga in September, 1956, a decision to fire was made despite predictions before the test showing that wind conditions could lead to higher than acceptable levels of contamination reaching the outback town of Coober Pedy. I think everyone who has followed this inquiry that is being undertaken by Mr Justice McClelland would become increasingly concerned about the cavalier and dangerous attitude which was adopted at that time by the British authorities in connection with those tests. We have heard of the black mist, for example, which covered areas where Aboriginals at that time were known to exist and for whom far too little concern was shown. I am appalled that those tests should have been allowed to be conducted under the conditions that they were. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.24) —As my colleague the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) has just pointed out, today is a day of shame for this Government. We are, of course, referring to the iniquitous pensions assets test. I was going to give a bit of a rundown on some of the effects but I thought rather than do that I might cite the cases of two people who have been affected by this to show honourable members how it has been biting. The first example is the case of an 86-year-old pensioner with weak eyesight. This pensioner had a small investment portfolio with a current market value of $11,800. Unfortunately, because of her weak eyesight she misread the figures and entered $118,000 on the assets test form nearly four months ago. On becoming aware of that error three and a half months ago she wrote to the Department of Social Security asking for a new form. To this date that letter has not been answered. A letter from the Department of Social Security arrived requesting that the pensioner return her ID card. On receiving this letter the pensioner rang an officer of the Department of Social Security, who admitted that her earlier letters had been received but were unanswered. The forms have now been sent back for reprocessing. This last letter asking for the return of the pensioner ID card was posted on 12 March but did not arrive until 19 March. I do not know who will be blamed for that. The point is that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) should explain why his Department delayed replying to a letter that was written three and a half months ago pointing out that this pensioner's assets in fact totalled only $11,800. The second example, which I think points out what I have been saying even more, is the case of a pensioner couple who filled in a form and owned a small farm to the value of $173,000. The pensioner wife wrote to the Department of Veterans' Affairs to see why their assets had been increased from $173,000 to $190,000. Her letter reads: Today we received a photo-stat copy of our Asset test papers as requested, but they have kindly blanked out all their figures so we still don't know what figures they have accepted or what they have valued higher, haven't we a right to see the final figures? The pensioner went on to say: When I see in last week's Sun 20,000 naturalised Australians living abroad cost $74.8 million, all that money paid to pensioners who have gone home that were assisted here in the first place- She went on to talk about the insults to ex-servicemen. It is no wonder she feels rather upset. I will continue with this letter to show honourable members the sort of effect that this iniquitous assets test is having. She went on: I have never seen my husband so depressed, sick and bewildered since this wretched assets test began. Maybe there are some that don't need it, but there are a lot collecting unemployment benefits that shouldn't either. Surely the income test was fairer, when I see what is paid out overseas its about time charity began at home. We paid tax for many years too. If ever there was a callous, iniquitous piece of legislation it is the one introducing the pensions assets test. It shows a total lack of compassion by this Government. We have warned the Minister time and again of what is going to happen. We have pointed out to him time and again that under the assets test people with a house overlooking, say, Sydney Harbour that could be worth $200,000, $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 can still get a pension but someone with a small farm with a house a long way from a town, which is worth very little, can find himself being chopped out when his assets are worth a little over $200,000. People whose incomes are generally below $5,000 and who are trying to set up a farm for their sons are now finding they can no longer do so. They will probably be forced to sell their farms, go to the city and collect a pension, because that way they will be able to put all their money into a decent house. Furthermore, their sons will probably be on the dole. I point out to the Minister that his so-called savings might prove to be illusory in many cases and the hardship he is going to cause these individuals who have worked all their lives to try to help their families is beyond belief. I call upon the Minister to reconsider this right now. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(10.28) —The community employment program has been one of the outstanding initiatives of this Government and has funded many thousands of schemes throughout the country. This year something like 65,000 unemployed people will be assisted. In my electorate of Perth as many as 800 places have been provided and more than 200 projects have been afforded assistance. Tonight I wish to speak about perhaps one of the most worthwhile of those, and I refer to a pilot scheme which was undertaken in my electorate, the dementia relief community respite scheme. I am not, of course, referring to a scheme that would make people turn off their radios if they happen to be listening to a National Party of Australia member of parliament. The major aim of this scheme is to provide some home relief for family members of people who are suffering from dementia. This is mainly the case where there is a single carer with full responsibility for the patient. Dementia is, of course, a very serious condition. It is not, as some members on this side of the House might think, a prerequisite for National Party selection. It is a condition that creates a great deal of difficulty for the families of those who suffer it. It is characterised by memory loss, mental deterioration and changes in personality. Indeed, the large number of people who are affected by this condition are the older members of our community. Also, a large number of younger people can be affected. In particular, Alzheimer's disease, which I am sure all honourable members have heard of, can afflict those people at a much earlier age. The particular difficulty with those people is that they tend to become disoriented. They wander and are prone to become lost. For that reason, institutionalised care and the respite assistance that is offered by nursing homes and various hospitals is quite inappropriate in these circumstances because it can create a great deal of agitation and disruption for those people. The program which was initiated in Western Australia provided assistance for single carers and particularly for those who cared for people with advanced dementia. The program initiated a medical and social assessment of these people and then a timetable was determined whereby once a week they would be offered the opportunity to go about their everyday lives and perhaps to have some relief from the onerous task of caring for their friends and relatives. Indeed, 11 women-none of whom had formal health qualifications-were chosen for this project, and after a small education program they undertook to do the task. The evaluation is presently under way. One gentleman in my electorate, Mr John Sangen, whose wife suffers from Alzheimer's disease, has been in contact with me on a number of occasions and is very enthusiastic about the effects of this project. At a time when the cost of caring for aged people is escalating-indeed, our population is aging-I think home care not only represents good economic sense but also has obvious social and community benefits. I know that the Western Australian Government has been impressed by the scheme and is considering developing it further. I know that in my electorate of Perth there is a great need for this type of assistance. I know that presently the Federal Government provides a domiciliary nursing care benefit which assists these people in a financial way. But the real core of the problem is that those who are caring for friends and relatives with dementia have a 24-hour-a-day task. This program goes to the core of the problem. It provides assistance where it is needed-in the home. I hope that honourable members on both sides of the House will take every opportunity to make the relevant Ministers aware that such programs can be undertaken and that the benefits are substantial. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.32) —Anyone who has been in business knows that government bodies are often notoriously slow in paying their bills. Cash flow is a concept entirely foreign to much of the public sector and bureaucratic procedures often make it almost impossible for an account to be settled within a couple of months, never mind 30 days. A continuing example of slow payment by government concerns the payment of pharmaceutical benefits to dispensing chemists. Mr Slipper —Physiotherapists, too. Mr ROCHER —Perhaps physiotherapists too; but I will confine my remarks this evening to chemists. At the beginning of this year the Pharmacy Guild of Australia estimated that delays in final payments ranged from 22 days in South Australia to 62 days in Victoria and my State of Western Australia. The system is that at the beginning of each month each pharmacy puts in claims to the Department of Health and the Department of Veterans' Affairs for benefits for national health scheme and repatriation prescriptions filled during the preceding month. The claims are then meant to be processed and paid within 30 days, so that the benefit money gets to the chemists before their wholesalers' bills fall due. When the system works-it has not worked very well to date-the benefit cheques arrive just in time, so long as the claims were correct and were lodged promptly and in the bureaucratic form. Unfortunately, the system is no longer working except perhaps-and I repeat 'perhaps'-in South Australia. In all other States benefit claims take longer than 30 days to be processed and paid. Dr Charlesworth —But they have a new scheme. Mr ROCHER —Pharmpay, and that is what I am talking about. There is a new scheme called Pharmpay which I will refer to in a moment. In all other States these benefit claims take longer than 30 days to be processed and paid, despite the assurances of this Government and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). Benefits for patients are paid to chemists. They are not benefits for the chemists; they are benefits for the patients which the chemist handles. Delayed payments mean that chemists have to pay their wholesalers' bills before receiving the benefit cheques. In one pharmacy in my electorate the monthly benefit payments for NHS and repatriation prescriptions amount to $11,000. Late payment means that wholesalers' bills-which take up nearly all of the $11,000-must be paid out of cash reserves or, more likely, overdraft until the cheques arrive. The effect, of course, is a compulsory interest-free loan to this Government. Mr Andrew —What support is that for small business? Mr ROCHER —That is the lot of small business under this Government. It makes running a pharmacy much more difficult and costly than it need be. This situation is not new. I intended to speak on the subject some six months ago, but it then seemed that remedial action was imminent. Well, I was much mistaken. The Government acknowledged the problem caused by slow payments and instituted 'temporary arrangements' to alleviate it. Under these new arrangements, about which the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) interjected earlier-he has now left the chamber-pharmacists are now sent two cheques in respect of each claim. The first one, which arrives reasonably promptly, I am told, is for 90 per cent of the average prescription value for the State in which the payment is made. But there is a second cheque-this was the bureaucratic answer-for the balance of the claim, and it arrives after an even greater delay than before. Dr Charlesworth —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I have not left the chamber. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr ROCHER —He is not usually in the chamber. This action was to make the cash flow situation of pharmacists a great deal easier, so I decided not to raise the subject in the House at that time. Months later, however, the temporary systems continue, with even longer delays in the final payments. It is long past the time for the Minister for Health and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to arrange for the Commonwealth to keep its word and pay its debts on time. As the Pharmacy Guild puts it, there is nothing in Labor policy or in the prices and incomes accord about paying people 90 per cent of the average now and the balance at some indefinite future date. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.37) —I wish to speak tonight on a matter which causes me great concern, and that is the lack of research funding which began with the Fraser Liberal-National Party Government in 1976 and went through to 1980 but which, I regret to say, continued through the first term of the Hawke Labor Government. I have already had the opportunity to record my concern about the specific problems in relation to the need for bushfire research when on 9 October 1984 I presented in this House the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on bushfires and the Australian environment. The lack of research funding ranges over the whole field of scientific research. The problem becomes particularly acute when the funding of the Australian research grants scheme is examined. The ARGS is the major funding mechanism for supporting basic research in Australia for all the academic disciplines. In 1966 the average grant, in 1984 prices, was $46,871. But 18 years later, in 1984, the average grant was $17,075-an erosion of 64 per cent. Of course, the scientific community well remembers that the Federal Australian Labor Party Government promised to expand funding for pure and applied research through the ARGS. I find it extremely embarrassing that we have failed to honour the promise. I am not forgetting the fact that the Liberal-National Party governments were mostly to blame for the most rapid erosion of research funds. But the trouble is that an ALP government not only has failed to redress the situation but also has allowed the erosion to continue, albeit at a slower pace. In an article in the Age early this month Professor Peter Sheehan, the Chairman of the Australian Research Grants Committee, commented as follows: The funding pattern for the scheme's best projects is steadily deteriorating. The $23.88 million the scheme received for 1985 research is well below the election commitment of 10 per cent on top of inflation in each of three successive years. ARGS was caught with having to fit requests totalling $65.8 million to an allocation that fell significantly below the level of funding it had been led to expect. Productive work has had to be stopped prematurely and many new and exciting developments in research have not been supported this year. As a result 146 renewable projects had to be terminated, which was most unfortunate as they represented many promising new areas of research, the loss of which represents a threat to long term investment prospects in the future. As Professor Sheehan pointed out, the funding support for basic research is operating at such a low level that the Government can no longer ensure that long term benefits are not being lost. If Australia is to maintain the quality of higher education it must ensure that basic research is funded adequately. I quote again from Professor Sheehan, who has so eloquently put the case that the Government is failing to recognise the relationship between pure research and the practical benefits for all Australians for the future: Universities have to educate their labor power not just for roles they now face but for roles that are not yet formulated. They must fight against the attitude among policy advisers, members of the community at large, and even some members of the academic community, that research which contributes to fundamental knowledge is trivial, irrelevant or meaningless. Presently Australian universities are finding it increasingly difficult to conduct the basic research necessary to serve the intellectual needs of Australia. The ARGC is the only body which bases its funding allocation solely on the criterion of quality. Regrettably there appears to be insufficient vision in the ranks of Government Ministers to understand that an upgrading of the quality of life in Australia cannot be met by needs based research alone. The ARGC has called for an allocation of $40.72m in 1986 so that all highly recommended research projects can be financed adequately. I support this request and trust that the Government will again look at its priorities and meet its responsibilities to Australian researchers. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.42) —I wish to bring to the attention of the House information about the way in which the assets test is affecting many residents of retirement villages. There is a great anomaly within the relevant legislation and I do not know whether the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is aware of it. The way the Minister behaved in the House today would lead one to think he was not aware of any of those problems. Many entrants to retirement villages make a donation to the organisation, whether charitable or religious, running the village. The level of the donation varies with the means of the person seeking entry. Some donations have been $2,000 and other donations have been as high as $50,000. Even an amount as low as $2 in this instance will categorise the person who has made the donation as a home owner under the assets test. Such people have no claim for permanency in the place in which they are living in retirement. They have no tenure of their occupancy and they have no claim over their place of residence. Those people have no capacity to say that they own or have any title to the place where they are living, yet the legislation classifies those people as home owners. In the same village, perhaps living next door, there are residents who, because of their means at the time of entry, made no donation whatsoever. I believe it is a proper thing for religious and charitable organisations to suggest to prospective residents what donation they ought to contribute to the future of that retirement village or to its maintenance. Therefore, the scale of donation varies with the means of the person seeking entry. The only thing is that those people who make a small donation are classified as home owners and those who make no donation are classified as non-home owners. Of course, the real problem arises when one comes to assess the level of assets that those people may hold. If one is a non-home owner one may have $50,000 more in assets than a person who is classified as a home owner. Many of the people I have met are widows whose whole assets comprise the proceeds of the sale of their home. The original home where they lived with their husband and raised a family has been sold and they moved into a retirement village. The only possessions they have are the proceeds of the sale of that family home. I believe it is not proper for the government to act in this way because great tensions are starting to arise within villages of this type between those residents who are classified as home owners and those who are classified as non-home owners. It is no fault of the charitable or religious organisation in regard to what donation was requested or suggested. The organisation running the retirement village leaves it very much to the individual seeking entry as to the size of his donation, but by mutual agreement it generally relates to the means of the person seeking entry. So even a very small donation, perhaps of $2,000, will classify a person as home-owner. Right alongside him, in the very next unit, there could be a person who is being classified as a non-home owner. Neither of them has any lien over or any permanency in that accommodation and no title to that accommodation. Yet we heard the Minister speak today of wealthy pensioners. He knows this is going on. He has known for a month or more that it is going on. He has done nothing about it. There are officers who can, in fact, deal with this immediately. He has chosen not to make a decision, and he ought to make a decision. I believe that the officers and the Minister are causing needless pain, hounding the residents of retirement villages and causing tensions that are unnecessary. It is a dreadful situation. One has only to refer to an article in today's Daily Mirror as a further example. The headline is 'Assets: Home Checks'. This article, whether it is true or not-the Minister can speak on this later-claims: Social Security Minister Brian Howe and Veterans' Affairs Minister Senator Arthur Gietzelt made the request for home visits-- there is the knock on the door- on the eve of the effective start of the test. The Minister can deny it if he wishes. He can tell me how he will rectify the situation. He said to pensioners: 'Do not value your possessions'. Many of them regret that they did not make an original valuation. It is a deplorable situation. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(10.48) —Tonight I want to congratulate publicly the Australian Capital Territory fire-fighters because bushfires have plagued Canberra and the nearby region since last year, building up to an inferno- Mr Connolly —You started them all in the Australian Capital Territory. Mrs KELLY —The honourable member for Bradfield did not help. These fires built up into an inferno in early March, when access to Canberra was cut off and Queanbeyan was evacuated. Mr Connolly —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member said that I did not help. I would like it to be recorded that I was out there fighting the fires. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. If the honourable member offends again I will name him without warning, and that goes for the rest of the session. Mrs KELLY —In this inferno, which was early this month, the life of one volunteer fire-fighter was lost. Some people lost their homes, and many farmers lost livestock. The fire-fighter who died in that blaze was the son of Fred Allen, the Principal of Torrens Primary School. Since that time I have heard nothing but praise for that man and his family. I extend my sympathy and the sympathy of the Canberra community to the family of this wonderful, brave fire-fighter. The miracle is that during these fires in early March more people did not lose their lives, their homes and their livestock. If honourable members have driven around Canberra and the region they will have seen the blackened hills around Campbell, Red Hill, Mount Ainslie, Tharwa and southern Queanbeyan. The fires were extensive; they extended right into the whole region, as the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has said previously. I admit that the honourable member for Bradfield may well have been fighting the fires in his area, but some of the comments that he made during these difficult times in Canberra did not help the morale of the fire-fighters in this region. I am speaking tonight because the morale was so low, because of comments made by people such as the honourable member for Bradfield. I was most embarrassed at the time because these people had been working as volunteers day and night away from their families, the bravest men in this country, yet the honourable member for Bradfield was on the radio criticising them. I thought that was despicable. Mr Connolly —That is absolute nonsense. Mrs KELLY —The honourable member for Bradfield says that is nonsense, but one of the leaders of those fire-fighters rang me and asked: 'Would you please make a statement to counter the comments made by the member for Bradfield, because it has done so much harm to the morale of our fire-fighters?' Loss of property was minimal in this region because of the efforts of these men. They are volunteers yet they are putting their lives at risk to protect people, property, and stock in this region. Many of the volunteers have undergone extensive training in their own time, while other volunteers responded to calls for help, especially from Queanbeyan. They received their basic training on the job. A couple of weeks ago when the fires broke out and one heard that people in Queanbeyan were being evacuated and that access to Canberra was limited, it was amazing to see how the Canberra and Queanbeyan communities responded. In fact, there were so many offers of help that not all the volunteers were able to be used. All volunteers are to be congratulated on the marvellous job they did. The Canberra Times, with the support of the Australian Capital Territory committee for the festival, acknowledged this magnificent work by naming the fire-fighter Canberran of the Year for 1985. In accepting the award the Chairman of the Australian Capital Territory Bushfire Council, Mr Val Jeffrey, said: After a season in which we have had so many kicks in the tail from the fires and the elements, it comes as a very pleasant surprise to be recognised in this way. The going has been pretty hard, and we can't say its all over yet until we get rain. That rain has now come, but these men have done a great job in the Territory. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.53) —Before I speak on the subject I seek to cover, I want to say that, despite the remarks made by the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), I also wish to be associated with the efforts of the volunteer fire brigades in both the Australian Capital Territory and the surrounding area. I shall take the opportunity tomorrow after Question Time to answer in detail the charges she has made against me. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will be seeking the indulgence of the Chair, but he will have to be very careful that it is a personal explanation. Mr CONNOLLY —Thank you, Mr Speaker. Our most prestigious performing company in Australia, the Australian Opera, is today facing the prospect of bankruptcy. In December 1984 the company had an accumulated deficit of over $800,000. By the end of this year there will be a deficit of $1.5m, and by the end of 1987 the accumulated deficit could reach $2.6m. Tomorrow the Opera Board will meet to face this critical situation. The Board and management of the Australian Opera are well aware of their obligations under the Companies Code and accept that liquidation of the company is a very real option. We faced a similar situation during the latter Fraser years when the Government then decided to provide a one-line appropriation for both the Australian Opera and the Ballet to help them solve some of their financial difficulties at that time. It should go on record that with the change in Government the immediate result was that the one line appropriation concept was dropped and funding of both the Australian Opera and Ballet was once again handed back to the Australia Council's Music Board. Contrary to the commitment for support for Australia's companies of excellence given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his 1984 policy speech, the Federal Government, through the Australia Council's Music Board, has effectively cut the budget of the Australian Opera by 15 per cent. This was achieved by holding its annual funding at $4m for the three years 1985 to 1987. The problem has been further aggravated by the fact that the New South Wales Government has refused to pay back $900,000-odd, mistakenly paid by the Australian Opera in payroll tax, while the Victorian Government has also entered into this imbroglio because last year it refused to pay its annual contribution of $397,000 to assist the Australian Opera in meeting its commitments when performing in Melbourne. Even if this money were to be paid to the Australian Opera, it could only serve to alleviate the current crisis. Surely it is a Federal responsibility to see that Australia's flagship companies of excellence are guaranteed sufficient funding to survive. The Australian Opera is by no means heavily subsidised in comparison to opera companies in other parts of the world. As a percentage of total income, the Australian Opera receives 34 per cent in subsidies, compared with the Paris Opera, which receives 77 per cent, the English National Opera, which receives 70 per cent and, the Royal Swedish Opera Company, which receives 91 per cent. On the other hand, opera companies in the United States of America have small government subsidies because their main support comes from individuals and private enterprise. The Australian Opera receives 13 per cent of its total income from commercial sponsors. I hope that this will increase, especially with the introduction of some 16 new foreign banks. It is to be hoped that they, too, will be willing to support one of Australia's true companies of excellence. The Australian Opera suffers a major disadvantage having to operate basically from Sydney where 60 per cent of its performances are held. The Sydney Opera House holds only 1,449 seats, making it uneconomic in comparison with the new Melbourne State Theatre, which holds 1,915 seats, and new theatres in both Adelaide and Brisbane, which each hold 2,000 seats. Although the Wran Government contributes approximately $1m to run the Opera House, this in no way compensates for the shortfall caused by the lack of seats, nor does it relate to the fact that the Australian Opera is a major tourist earner for the City of Sydney and for the State of New South Wales. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to suggest that the Wran Government should be seriously concerned about the likelihood of the Australian Opera either having to leave Sydney and become a part time opera company or else having to find some very serious answers to its current situation. The responsibility of the Federal Government is surely to negotiate with the New South Wales and Victorian governments at this time to ensure that an immediate answer can be found and, in the longer term, that a worthwhile independent investigation be carried out into the administration and cost structure of the Australian Opera to try to ensure that it has a sound financial footing for the future. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.57) —I would like to draw the House's attention to a most serious situation which exists within a number of electorates on the New South Wales south coast in respect of the scandalous activities of the Illawarra Retirement Trust. I believe it is most opportune to raise this matter this evening, particularly in view of the rhetoric we have heard from honourable members opposite regarding the assets test. It is interesting to have a look at the other side of the coin for once. As is the case in many areas of Australia, there is a desperate need throughout the Illawarra to provide adequate accommodation for the elderly. I am not here to debate whether this accommodation should be provided by private enterprise or by publicly-funded bodies. That matter can wait for another occasion, although my feelings are that publicly-funded bodies would probably run the system far better. Rather, my concern is in respect of the treatment presently being handed out to frail, confused occupants of the Woonona and Narooma villages run by the Illawarra Retirement Trust. The IRT was established several years ago to meet the need of elderly citizens in Wollongong on the basis that a certain contribution was made in the initial instance and that rental would be charged as a percentage of their pension. Over the years the Illawarra Retirement Trust has grown considerably, with many retirement villages and nursing homes being established between Wollongong and the Victorian border. Many tenants occupied the villages on an understanding that the original agreements made would be honoured with the passage of time. However, the Illawarra Retirement Trust has chosen to tighten up its entry requirements to the extent that written agreements were designed to enable the Trust to impose increases in rents in accordance with pension adjustments, and a fee could be charged for maintenance. What has happened is that the Trust has decided to try to introduce retrospectivity in its maintenance charges for the early tenants who maintain that no such provisions were ever part of the original agreements. The Trust set about a campaign of scare and bullying tactics in an effort to harangue those occupants of the villages who they deemed owned back rent. Little did it realise the resolve, however, of many of the tenants, who refused point-blank to pay. The tragedy of the situation is that the Trust has been successful in a number of cases. Unfortunately, those who have held fast have now been served with letters such as the one I have in front of me from the Trust's solicitors indicating that debt recovery proceedings will be instituted within seven days if the full amount is not forthcoming. This letter in fact demands the payment of over $1,100-a sum not easily found by pensioners. Of equal concern in the untenable situation is the practice of confiscating-I use that word carefully-from village residents the pensioner supplementary allowance as part of accommodation charges. The farce is that this charge is made to all residents, even if some do not receive the allowance. My colleague the honourable member for Eden Monaro (Mr Snow) informs me that the end result is that some pensioners in Illawarra retirement villages in his electorate- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Howe —I require that the debate be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(11.00) —I wish to refer very briefly to some of the comments made by various members in the adjournment debate tonight. I will deal with the newspaper that was waved by 'Knock, knock' Cadman. I make the point to the honourable member for Mitchell that that newspaper story, as has been the case with a number of other newspaper stories, was based on an absolute lack of fact and a disregard for the truth. The Government has never considered entering people's homes to inspect their assets or their homes. It does not intend to do so at the moment, and has no intention to do so in the future. That story is just one example of a number of scare stories that have traumatised a very large number of elderly people in this country. Such stories do nothing to advance the reputation of the Press within this country. In this case, I am referring to the Murdoch Press. One report, which suggested that someone had committed suicide because of the assets test but which gave no evidence, was so tragic that I have taken up the matter with the Australian Press Council. I think that in many ways the coverage of the assets test by the Press has been extraordinarily irresponsible. That is not a comment on working journalists, but, in my view, several of the papers in some of the major cities have handled the issue without any regard for the truth. A number of cases will come to the attention of honourable members in which they may feel that people ought to have been treated more sympathetically under the hardship provisions of the assets test. It is true that there are areas within the rural communities-one speaker this afternoon referred to the situation of those in soldiers settlements-where, clearly, there needs to be a full recognition of people's circumstances. I think it was recognised this afternoon by the shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), that throughout the implementation of the assets test, which has been a massive operation, the Department of Social Security has conducted itself at every level with considerable discretion and a great deal of efficiency in the circumstances and with great sensitivity to this point. Nevertheless, honourable members will become aware of certain situations. No member of the Opposition has sought an interview with me about any case to this point. Mr Cadman —Why don't you just answer your mail? Mr HOWE —I do not make that statement in the spirit of debate, I simply say that up to this point I have had correspondence from a number of members. We are at the point of implementing the assets test. Certain circumstances will arise. I assure members of the House that I am prepared to follow up representations that are made to me and to discuss with individual members particular circumstances that they believe I should be aware of. In my view, the assets test represents Government policy which is designed to assist people who are in the greatest need. It represents an extension of means testing from income testing to assets testing to pick up in some respects what for most of the time has been historically true of the means testing of pensions. I believe that the assets test, as it has been constructed is a fundamentally generous test. That is reflected by the fact that it covers a very small percentage of the pensioner population. Situations will arise that will need to be looked at carefully. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. If no other Minister rises, he may continue. Mr HOWE —To conclude, these situations will arise. Generally speaking, the appeals mechanisms will work effectively to deal with those cases in dispute. But if there are individual cases that honourable members wish to draw to my attention, I encourage them to do so. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.06 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Downer to move- That this House- (1) expresses its concern at the severe shortage of nursing home accommodation in the Adelaide Hills and the Fleurieu Peninsula; (2) rejects suggestions that elderly people should be forced out of these districts in order to obtain nursing home accommodation, and (3) calls on the Government to provide as a matter of priority nursing home accommodation in the towns of Stirling, Strathalbyn and Goolwa. Mr Porter to move- That this House- (1) expresses its concern that pharmacists are having to wait between 3 to 4 months to receive full payment from the Department of Health for claims for National Health Service prescriptions dispensed; (2) condemns the Government for this delay in meeting its commitment to pharmacists around Australia, and (3) urges the Government to make appropriate administrative arrangements to ensure that Pharmpay provides pharmacists with full payment of claims lodged within 30 days. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 21 March 1985: Public Service Act-Appointment-Department of Employment and Industrial Relations-Blucher, W. E. E.