Monday, 25 March 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr SMITH —I ask the Special Minister of State: When did the Government first learn that the New South Wales Police interceptions had in fact continued from 1981 until 1984? How many interceptions took place in this period? What action has been taken to ascertain the identity of those involved, the instructions given to set up the interceptions, and the use made of those interceptions? Mr YOUNG —I think the honourable member may be a bit confused as to how and when the information-- Mr Smith —I am not confused. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member has plenty of time. I think he may be a bit confused as to how and when the information may have come to the Government. A check will be made. I can give the House this assurance as a result of an assurance that has been given to me by the Australian Federal Police Commissioner: There has been no involvement by the Federal Police in any of these matters since he has been the Federal Police Commissioner, not since this Government came to power. If there is any other information I can get for the honourable member I will get it to him as soon as possible. Mr O'KEEFE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. What are the current application and approval rates, and waiting times, for the first home owners scheme? Has the scheme been successful in providing first home ownership and in stimulating the building industry? Mr WEST —The first thing to say is that the first home ownership scheme has been a spectacular success over the last two years. Mr McVeigh —Introduced by us. Mr WEST —No, it was not. The scheme has assisted first home buyers into home ownership and it has been instrumental in stimulating the building industry. In the last Budget we expected to approve about 80,000 successful grants at a cost of $265m. We now expect to approve some 87,000 successful grants at a cost of $290m. By the end of June this year, we will have helped 142,000 households into home ownership at a cost of $430m. As for the application and approval rates-there has been some Press conjecture about this matter since Christmas-over the last five weeks the average rate of applications per week has been 1,550 and we have been approving an average of 1,800 a week. Over the intermediate term we expect that this will shake out at approximately 1,500 applications a week and 1,650 approvals, on average. I want to make it perfectly clear that my instructions to the Department are to pay approvals on settlement if requested. If people make this request they will be paid within two to six weeks. Others will be paid in order of receipt. There is a current waiting list for the others of between six and 16 weeks. Honourable members should compare this expeditious approach to clearly eligible applications with the frustrating nine-month delay under the former Government's home savings grant scheme. That nine-month delay virtually rendered the scheme useless as a means of delivering finance to people when they really need it, that is, upon settlement with the vendor. This has been a great stimulus to the industry. I remind the House that just on three years ago, under the former Government, there were only 100,000-odd housing commencements in this country. That was a twenty year low, but due to measures such as the home ownership scheme and the public housing grants, which I was talking about the other day, we have been able to kick up the number of starts over three years from 100,000 to 145,00. Those figures were explained in the report of the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry that I received last December. This week I will receive the latest report from the Council. I hope I have more good news on Thursday to relay to the House as to the way we have been able to stimulate the housing industry in direct contrast to what honourable members opposite did over a long period. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. What has the Government done to ascertain the contents of the post-1981 tapes? Has the Attorney had discussions with the New South Wales Government with respect to these tapes? In particular, are any prosecutions envisaged? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. The information has come to the Government's knowledge through the Royal Commissioner, and at this stage he has not finished his report. It was an observation that was made. The honourable member will know that during the weekend there was, I think, a national telecast showing a person saying that in some respects the interceptions are continuing, which is of grave concern to me. Mr Peacock —You said: 'January 1984'. He said: 'At the end of last year'. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, and I said it because of other information. At this stage I think the matter is within the hands of Mr Justice Stewart. I would be anxious to get a further report from him as and when we can arrange for that to be done. Mr Peacock —Are you not prepared to discuss the matter with the New South Wales Government beforehand? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thought it would be better to discuss it with Mr Justice Stewart, from the point of view that that is the information that appeared to have come to him. I hope he might be able to give us some more information as to what should be done to prevent this illegal conduct. Mr Sinclair —But you are the Minister. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, but I make the point that he has a royal commission to deal with this matter and it is apparently in the course of that investigation that he is able to make some assessment of the situation. As the honourable member knows, he has not finished that inquiry. Mr CHYNOWETH —Can the Minister for Science outline what is Australia's program of research and observation on Halley's Comet which will be appearing for the first time since 1910? Mr BARRY JONES —There is an international interest in the observation of Halley's Comet which will be seen in 1986. But the bad news is that the 1985-86 visit of Halley's Comet is predicted to be the least spectacular since 163 BC, 2148 years ago. The sad thing is- Opposition members interjecting- Mr BARRY JONES —I doubt whether it would have been different under the Liberals. The comet will probably not be visible to the naked eye from built up areas with street lights. The use of binoculars or a small telescope may be necessary. The problem is that, when the comet reaches its closest point to the Earth, which will be in November this year, it will be on the wrong side of the sun. Mr Tuckey —Don't tell us any more. Mr BARRY JONES —I know that the honourable member is disappointed. In 1910, the last observation was unusually brilliant because the Earth actually passed through the tail of the comet. It was one of the most brilliant exhibitions ever seen. The best time to see Halley's Comet will be in the first week of April 1986. There is a fair amount of activity going on. We are part of the international scientific community and Professor Ron Brown from Monash University is co-ordinating the Australian effort. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's Division of Radiophysics plans three observing programs to examine the production of molecules and isotope abundances in Halley's Comet. Radiotelescopes at Parkes and Epping will be the main instruments used for this work, assisted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's radiotelescope at Tidbinbilla. CSIRO is also under contract to the European Space Agency to support its satellite mission, called Giotto, to study Halley's Comet. Many thousands of Japanese will visit Australia to view the comet so it will have a very significant tourist impact. Poor as the observation will be in the southern hemisphere, it will be much better than in the northern hemisphere. Mr N. A. BROWN —I refer the Attorney-General to his statement on Friday that anonymous evidence had been given to Mr Justice Stewart by a concerned police officer of the existence of a special squad in the New South Wales police force engaged in phone tapping and that that had continued until January 1984. In selectively referring to that material on Friday, why did he not inform the Parliament that it also identifies a Federal member of parliament and a senior New South Wales Labor figure? As Mr Wran, the New South Wales Premier, maintains that he knows the identity of those two people, will the Attorney now complete the picture by naming those two people and describing what it was on the tapes that was of such concern to them? Will he now also table the letter from which he selectively quoted on Friday? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I will not table the letter because it is a letter that went somewhere else. I am amazed. The honourable member for Menzies is getting a reputation as being known as 'verbal Brown'. There was never any suggestion that the information about January 1984 was contained in that letter. There was never any suggestion that the tapes that I have referred to have been made available to anybody. There has never been any suggestion that the people named in it committed any offence. Of course, a copy of the letter was given to Mr Greiner, the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales. I do not know what he has done with it. I think it ought to be a matter of concern that a letter such as that might have been written. But that is a matter for Mr Justice Stewart to pursue further and I have no doubt that he will do so. The issue, of course, is that inquiries were made of the New South Wales Police-honourable members will recall that there was a joint task force-as to whether there had been any intercept. The New South Wales Police gave evidence that there had been no interceptions by any of the police concerned. That is where the matter is at present. So, it is a little surprising now to find that, for example, there are requests that indemnities be granted. That is another matter. But the original evidence-- Mr Peacock —Have you spoken to the individuals named in the letter? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I would not take any notice of an anonymous letter. Mr Peacock —You mentioned it in here. You are the one who raised it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I said I would not take any notice of it. That is a matter for Mr Justice Stewart. Knowing the activity of the New South Wales Parliament, I think Mr Greiner must have felt that there was not much in it either, because the letter would obviously have been in his possession since January. So I do not think we ought to be trying people by innuendo or by anonymous letters; but certainly, if there can be an investigation as to who the author is and what other evidence he may be able to give Mr Justice Stewart, I would be anxious that Mr Justice Stewart pursue that matter. Mr CAMPBELL —I ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment whether he can advise the House of the negotiations involving the purchase of Australia II by the Government of Australia for the preservation of this marvellous yacht? Mr COHEN —At the moment we have emanating from the Western Australian media and some politicians in that State what can only be quaintly described as a load of old rubbish about the purchase of Australia II. I know that news travels slowly to the west but this is ridiculous because in November of last year a statement was made when a joint Press conference was held, with, I think, Alan Bond, Alex Dix and the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Burke, which announced that the yacht would be purchased. I think we ought to get the events leading up to the purchase of this yacht in historical perspective. In October 1983 Alan Bond approached the Commonwealth Government for, firstly, assistance for the America's Cup challenge and, secondly, to purchase Australia II so it would not be sold overseas. This was made public. In May 1984 the Commonwealth Government responded to that request and said that it would be looked at. In October 1984 negotiations for the purchase of the boat were completed so it could be used for trials and kept in Australia at the Museum of Australia here in Canberra. Let me make it perfectly clear that the Australian Government came into this whole question very reluctantly to save Australia II, not to steal it for Canberra. Frankly, from a personal point of view, I could think of a lot better ways to spend $2m for the Museum of Australia. All I can say to Premier Burke and the Western Australian media is that I had discussions with Senator Walsh and that I agreed with Senator Walsh when he says that as soon as Western Australia sends us the cheque it can have the boat. Mr SPENDER —I refer the Attorney-General to the allegations made by retired police officer Williams on the National program of 22 March when, asked why immunity would not be given to the police officers we have been talking about recently, he said: There's too many high ranking and famous persons involved in these tapes. We're dealing with the judicial system of New South Wales, the parliamentary system in New South Wales, the organised crime system of New South Wales and Australia. It applies to all Australians. In view of that charge, I ask the Acting Prime Minister: Has he reconsidered the question of granting immunity to police officers so that these matters can be investigated? If he has not, why not? Has he been in contact with Mr Williams for the purpose of checking those allegations? If he has not, why not? What steps has he taken to identify the famous people referred to by Mr Williams and others he claims to be involved in preventing indemnities from being given? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman is a little confused in respect of the question of indemnities, because they relate to the authenticity of the Age tapes in the period 1976 to 1981. In other words, there is a whole special set of documents particularly related to the Clark- Asia syndicate. They were referred to. It is in-- Mr Spender —Which is what Williams has been talking about. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, it is not. If the honourable member looks at what Williams was talking about he will see that he was talking about current matters. The honourable member might notice that Williams said that he was talking about up to date matters. I would think it was elementary, as the honourable gentleman would know, that the request for indemnities has nothing to do with any matter other than the period of what is called the Age tapes, which is 1976 to 1981. So on that basis the problem with the Age tapes is what I have already said to the Leader of the Opposition. When an inquiry was made of the Federal and New South Wales authorities as to whether any police had been involved in the interception, they answered no. Every police officer concerned was sent a questionnaire and all answered no. It will be noticed that in the Temby report from the point of view of where there was evidence the tapes had been given to the Federal Police-that is a matter of record in this Parliament-they were saying that they were unaware as to whether the tapes related to any intercept. So the indemnity was a new matter that arose in respect of old material that has already been well used. The other point at issue-what happened with Mr Williams-is a matter for Mr Justice Stewart to consider in the light of his overall commission as head of the National Crime Authority. Mr GAYLER —Is the Minister for Communications aware of an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 25 March by political commentator Max Walsh? If so, does he agree with the view expressed that the remote commercial television service proposal for remote area television decided by the Government last year was in fact a mistake? Mr DUFFY —I have read the article referred to by the honourable member for Leichhardt. It was the third matter I referred to this morning in the Press. There was also an interesting article in the Melbourne Age on Saturday on the centenary football match where the leading football writer spent a long time explaining why Hawthorn would reverse last year's grand final result. I was most interested this morning to read what Ron Carter said about that. Having looked at the Australian all-State racing results, I then moved to Mr Walsh's article. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Will the Minister finally get to the answer to the question? Mr DUFFY —It is true that Mr Walsh in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald indicated that the remote commercial television service decision taken by the Government last year in relation to providing remote commercial television was a mistake and one which he said in the article would have to be publicly admitted by me as a mistake. The views expressed by Mr Walsh, although as usual extremely learned, are hardly original. They have been heard ad nauseum on behalf of networks over the last 12 months. I do not concede that the decision to provide remote area commercial television through a regional outlet was or is currently a mistake. The facts of the matter are that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal currently is hearing applications for the RCTS licences. Last Wednesday, as indicated by Mr Walsh, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, the legal representative of the Channel 9 television network, asked the Tribunal, as was said by Mr Walsh, effectively to abort its present hearings into the applications for television licences covering remote areas of Australia. He put the matter with rather more legal diplomacy but that was the basic thrust of what he said. Mr Walsh then referred to a letter that I had written to the networks 7, 9 and Ten which was made public at that hearing by counsel on behalf of Channel 9. In that letter I made it plain that the Government's decision to proceed with the inquiry into the provision of RCTS licences was taken only after an extensive inquiry by the ABT on satellite program services. During the inquiry the networks put forward a proposal for delivery of services to remote areas which was not regarded as an acceptable solution by the Tribunal. Obviously, this is an extremely difficult matter and proposals may come to the Government from the industry on the best way of providing those services to remote areas. As I have indicated publicly and in the letter that was forwarded to all of the networks, I do not at this stage agree that there should be an adjournment of the proceedings. The proceedings should go on as they are. If the industry has some proposals with which to come back to the Government, as has been clearly shown over the past two years, we will consider those proposals. No proposal on this matter has come forward since the decision taken last year by the Government, and until it does and subject to what the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal decides-of course, the question of adjournment is entirely a matter for the Tribunal-I have indicated that it is not acceptable to me that the matter be adjourned. But of course, this is a matter for the Tribunal. Mr PEACOCK —When did the Attorney-General first learn that the interceptions had continued from 1981 to 1984? How many interceptions was he advised took place in that period? What action has he taken to ascertain the identity of those involved, the instruction given to set up the interceptions, and the use made of those interceptions? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think it is almost a matter now within the knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition because I made a report available to him on a confidential basis. That was when I first learned of it. Mr Peacock —When you received those reports in December? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That was when I first learned of it. Mr Peacock —In December? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, it would have been in December. That matter is still before Mr Justice Stewart. I make the point that no evidence has been given that could be used to say that there have been any intercepts. I again emphasise that when the previous inquiries took place with Mr Temby, and certainly with the Australian Federal Police, both the Federal and State police task forces gave clear evidence that there had been no interceptions. The intriguing point is why there has now been a request for indemnity. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Is the Minister for Territories aware of any damage being done to the environment and fauna of Ashmore and Cartier islands by Indonesian fishermen who have been visiting periodically over the last ten years? Has the Government considered increasing the surveillance and Australian presence on these islands in order to oversee Australia's interests in the region? Mr SCHOLES —I am aware of activities by Indonesian fishermen on Ashmore and Cartier islands. Under the memorandum of understanding which exists between Indonesia and Australia, visits by traditional fishermen to those islands are allowed. In recent years, however, fishermen have consistently breached the memorandum of understanding. Their activities have included killing birds and turtles and these breaches have been raised with the Indonesian Government. In 1983, because of its conservation significance, a national nature reserve was declared over the Ashmore reef area under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. There have been regular visits to the islands by officers of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and by elements of the Defence Force and the coastal surveillance unit. We are seeking to obtain the co-operation of the Indonesian Government. We also have the question of surveillance requirements and the need for an Australian presence on the islands under active consideration. Mr GOODLUCK —Is the Treasurer of Australia aware of the average selling price of petrol in Australia today? Does the Treasurer recall his remarks during the 1981 Federal election campaign that a component of the price of petrol at that time was taxation by stealth at the petrol pump, or in his terms, a taxation rip-off at the bowser? Does he further recall the present Prime Minister telling the consumers of Australia that if a Labor government were elected the price of petrol would be reduced by 2c to 3c a litre and that the Australian price of crude would be frozen for 12 months? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should get to his question. Mr GOODLUCK —Will the Treasurer now advise the House why these assurances were never undertaken? What does he intend to do, as the Treasurer of Australia, to stop the spiralling price of petrol to the ordinary consumer when, for example, in Tasmania the price is 55c? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not go on with examples. Mr KEATING —The context of the present Government's policy when in opposition was not, and never for a moment did it suggest, that the price of oil in this country ought to remain at $2.03 a barrel, which is what it was in the middle of the 1970s, while the rest of the world was trading in oil at around $9 a barrel; but that if there were to be an adjustment it should be a slow and sympathetic one and one which was used to give relief to taxpayers. What the former Government did was raise $3 billion of new tax dollars and then simply spend it. It did not propose for one moment to raise that level of indirect taxation, which in the 1970s was huge-$3 billion-to relieve the burden of direct taxation. When we look at the former Government's record in respect of direct taxation we find that the promise of tax indexation was abandoned, that even the tax cuts of 1977 were left on for six months, than abandoned, and on top of this there was $3 billion in new taxes raisings in respect of crude oil, in the manner to which I have referred the honourable gentleman. Our point was then, and this point has remained valid, that the jump was too rapid, it was too debilitating and it was not there to be offset for relief to taxpayers in respect of direct taxation. The import parity price is set in United States dollars terms. The changed relationship between the Australian dollar and the United States dollar in recent days has raised the price in Australian dollars. While the price of Saudi market crude has fallen in recent times it has fallen in terms of United States dollars, but because of the changed parity between the Australian dollar and the United States dollar, the price in Australian dollar terms has risen. One can make a judgment about which is the appropriate price to fix upon in respect of an import parity pricing policy. In respect of the market price there has been abuse which has not been reflective of spot prices around the world. What has happened in recent times is that the Saudi Arabian authorities have marked the market crude price down to something akin to the spot market. I do not think that the objections to the market crude price which have been in evidence in the last few months are justified now, given that the price has come back into line with spot prices. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Aviation. What progress has been made towards a final decision on the site for Sydney's second airport? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question and his continuing interest in this issue. The honourable member will be aware that this matter has been under serious consideration by successive governments for the past 19 years, I think I know that it is a matter on which the House does not want to reach an impromptu decision or a hasty decision. Mr Lionel Bowen —Or the wrong decision. Mr PETER MORRIS —Or the wrong decision, as the Acting Prime Minister points out. I have no intention of allowing that to happen. The program at this stage is that the draft environmental impact statement is at the printers. We hope to have that completed and ready for distribution at the end of this month. If that is not possible because of the pressure of work with the printers, it will probably be ready, at the latest, in the middle of April. We have arranged for the exhibition period to be extended from eight to 10 weeks. Mr Carlton —Where are you holding that-Galston? Mr PETER MORRIS —Is the honourable member offering a site? At the end of that period the final environmental impact statement will be prepared. As the honourable member is aware, the two sites have been narrowed to Wilton and Badgerys Creek. I should mention that, given the major economic impetus that will go to the region that is the choice as the second site, there is considerable competition in some quarters for selection as the site for the second Sydney airport. I think that is something that has been long overdue in this debate about airports. We need to remember that there are 14,000 people-14,000 jobs-on the site of Mascot airport and environs in the associated activities. That does not take into account the multiplier effect of associated activities around the airport. So whichever site is selected for the second Sydney airport, it will receive a major economic boost in terms of the thousands of jobs that will come to fruition in later years. It is my intention to take a recommendation to the Government on the final choice from those two sites, hopefully in August, but if not August, certainly September. I should be able to tell the honourable member by September which of the two sites has been selected. Mr Peacock —September this year? Mr PETER MORRIS —September this year, yes. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Acting Prime Minister to the anonymous letter addressed to Mr Justice Stewart to which he first made reference in this House. Can the honourable gentleman assure the House that neither he nor anyone on his behalf has had any discussion with the Federal member of parliament referred to in that letter regarding the reference to that member of parliament in that letter? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I cannot. The member of parliament rang me to say that it was leaked to the Age newspaper, on Saturday apparently, following the close of Parliament here. So the Age newspaper was in touch with the member apparently. Mr Howard —Did he deny the allegation? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is a matter for the member. Mr Howard —Did he deny the allegation? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I would think he would. Mr WRIGHT —I draw the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry to a publication by the Queensland Government entitled 'Facts about Sugar' in which a number of claims have been made regarding the financial assistance that has been given by both the State Government and the Federal Government to the sugar industry in Queensland. Will the Minister advise the House as to what financial assistance has in fact been forthcoming from the State Government and, in turn, what financial contribution has been made by the Federal Government? Mr KERIN —The honourable member for Capricornia has a pretty fine appreciation of the realities of politics in Queensland inasmuch as it is the only Parliament controlled by the National Party of Australia. It is a unique Parliament. The Premier believes that cars can run on water. The Queensland Parliament does not have a public accounts committee. Hansard records debates that would pass as a farce in this place. In fact, the whole Parliament is a joke. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to return to the subject of sugar. Mr KERIN —So we can expect from such an aging old fraud as the Premier of Queensland these sorts of claims-the claims of so many millions of dollars going to the sugar industry. Unfortunately-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr KERIN —I am sorry that I am causing honourable members opposite so much embarrassment. What it all gets down to is the disbursement of rural adjustment funds. For a long time there has been a rural adjustment fund. The Commonwealth funds the States and the States administer the scheme. It all depends on who one thinks owns the money at the end of the day. It is pretty easy to draw up figures which show that the Queensland Government spent by 30 June last year effectively about $175,000 net from its own resources at a time when it was claiming to have spent either $30.1m or $31m-it is generally a moving target. I should explain the scheme. Under the current scheme, the Commonwealth Government lends money to the States over 20 years, charges 8 per cent interest, gives a four-year repayment holiday and sets a 15 per cent administration grant component. The trouble is that the States lend the money a lot shorter to some farmers. There are early repayments by some farmers. The States retain the administrative component, particularly when there have been few defaulters of the scheme overall. The latest report that I have available to me of the Queensland Government's administration of the rural adjustment fund-it is a report by the Rural Reconstruction Board-shows that by that process the Queensland Government has accumulated over $30m. There are two elements in that report showing that the Queensland Government allocated $2m to the Consolidated Revenue Fund from one fund and $8m from the other. This gave it $10m which it then said it took from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, not from the funds built up in the rural adjustment scheme itself. This is the money it on-lent to the co-operative mills at 14.8 per cent interest-that is, money that it got from the Commonwealth originally at 8 per cent. The whole problem is that the Queensland Government and other State governments believe that through this scheme, due to the accounting procedures engaged in and the way the funds are administered, they own the money and can therefore keep coming back to the Commonwealth. Other State governments have spent the money on a range of things which have nothing to do with farming. It is a rural adjustment fund and it is my view, despite what the States may feel, that the moneys that build up should go to the farmers themselves for further rural adjustment or debt reconstruction rather than these fiddles being engaged in. The Industries Assistance Commission focused on this and that is why the Commonwealth has taken the decision that in future we will have a much tighter rural adjustment fund mechanism in place. A new scheme will come in on 1 July. An amount of $30m was accumulated at the end of 30 June 1984. I suppose that at the end of 30 June 1985 there will be more than that $30m. Instead of going to the farmers, the Queensland Government being a true National Party government, it will go into Consolidated Revenue. The honourable member for Capricornia is concerned about the sugar industry. At present there is some special sugar assistance money available. The Commonwealth contributed $5m; we have certainly contributed another $10m. That is $15m net as well as the ordinary rural adjustment funding which goes out each year. But in terms of the special $10m at present available to the sugar industry as at 29 February this financial year, only $1.75m has gone out to the sugar industry through that special fund-that was $1.7m for debt reconstruction and $50,000 for farm build-up. Only $270,000 has gone out in respect of general rural adjustment assistance. So, again, those funds will probably accumulate. They will probably go into Consolidated Revenue and, once again, the National Party will not hand the money on to the farmers. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. What was the substance of the conversation with the Federal Labor politician whom he referred to a short time ago? Did it cover questions of any breach of both Commonwealth and State law? Did the Labor politician indicate why he was so concerned to ring the Attorney-General? Did he deny the substance of any allegation made against him in the letter? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The person rang me because he had been apparently contacted by the Age newspaper to say that it had a copy of a letter in which he was named and asked him to comment. He rang me to ask whether there was an anonymous letter about and I said yes, that there was. That is about the extent of the conversation, because he made the point-- Mr Howard —Was that the first contact? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, that was the first contact. Mr Howard —That was the first contact--- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, the first contact. It just shows honourable members how Mr Greiner did not bother to use it and the Age newspaper did. Mr Howard —I am not worried about it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know that the honourable member is not worried about it. I make the point that it was within the knowledge of the New South Wales Liberal Party for a long while. The fact that it was not used, I think, is to that Party's credit, and this detracts from the credit of honourable members opposite. Mr Howard —Is that all he said? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Of course it was. Mr Howard —Greiner has no problem. Mr Peacock —No. You introduced the letter into the Parliament. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Leader of the Opposition should not try to point his way out of trouble. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Acting Prime Minister to ignore the barrage of questions from across the table and to answer the question, which has been asked in order. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I note the flexibility of the minds of members of the Opposition. The reference I made related to what was happening in the New South Wales Police Force. We notice that today's question asks: Is a person named in the letter? Can we pillory that person? Mr Howard —Get back to the Leader's question. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Get back to anything! The honourable gentleman wants to get away from it; I know. Mr Sinclair —Why did you raise it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I raised the matter on the basis of indemnities being sought by police. They are entitled to seek them, but there had been previous answers to questions to say that there had been no interception. Ms FATIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Have there been requests from State governments for the immigration entry of nurses into Australia? If so, what is the Government's response to these requests? Mr Rocher —Very slow. Mr HURFORD —In response to the interjection 'very slow', it is very sad that there has to be a response to a request to bring nurses into this country. It is nothing short of a scandal that those who were in charge in the public hospital system and, indeed, financing the public hospital system in this country six to 10 years ago did not make sure that sufficient nurses were being trained in the system in Australia rather than having to bring them in. Nobody needs to be an Einstein to know that the Fraser Government's spending cuts were the main reasons for the shortage of funds for that purpose. The reduction in hospital training due to those government cuts is the main reason for the requirement for nurses. There are other reasons, such as the transfer of education of nurses from the hospitals to the colleges of advanced education and, sadly, far too many nurses are leaving the profession. I hope that those reasons will be addressed. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations conducts the labour market tests and those tests show that there is a shortage. Therefore my Department is responding under the employer nomination scheme and also through temporary entry permits to applications by such bodies as the Victorian Health Commission to make sure that registered, properly qualified nurses are able to immigrate to this country. In other words, there is a need and we can respond to it. Some States need these nurses, but I still think it is a scandal of earlier years that this situation has arisen. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australia-China Council annual report for 1983-84. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Finance Joint Working Party report on financial management in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Finance relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr MacKellar —From the discussion I had with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) I understand that a summary goes with that paper. It was not tabled in the Senate. I ask the Minister to check that statement to see whether there is a summary with the original document. If there is, will he make that summary available? Mr SPEAKER —I will allow the honourable member for Warringah to make that request by indulgence. I do not think that is unreasonable. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, I present a proposal for the construction of additional administrative accommodation at the Australian National Gallery. The views of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House are also being sought. When those views are available I shall be in a position to take further action under the Parliament Act to seek approval of the work by the House. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service entitled 'Serving Multicultural Australia; the Role of Broadcasting' Parts 1 and 2, together with the appendixes to the report and a synopsis and summary of recommendations. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —by leave-The report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure 'Ringing in the Changes: Telecom's Zonal Charging Policies' was tabled in Parliament on 4 October 1984. The inquiry was headed by the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) and I thank him and the members of the Committee for their work in preparing the report. Submissions were made to the Committee by 67 individual and organisations and public hearings were held in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Canberra, Penrith and Mornington. The Committee concluded that Telecom has not been sufficiently responsive to the needs of the Australian community in the 1980s and made 23 recommendations which, in the Committee's view, would promote Telecom charging policies which are equitable, consistent with Telecom's statutory obligations and adequately responsive to community needs. It is clear that the report makes sweeping recommendations that are the direct responsibility of Telecom. The report is being thoroughly examined by Telecom and I expect to have its advice in the near future. I will inform the House of the Government's attitude regarding the recommendations in the report as soon as possible. Mr MOORE(Ryan) —by leave-The statement just made by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) goes to the heart of a very major area of concern to all Australians, the working of Telecom Australia. It is an area which concerns both metropolitan and country users. I hope that the Government, when it gives consideration not only to this report but also, more particularly, to the response from Telecom, will take into consideration some disquiet that has been expressed with the general level of service provided to the users of telephones in Australia. I wait with some considerable interest Telecom's response. It is time that some competition was put into this area. It is high time that some consideration were given to allowances of the provision of handsets and other services by organisations other than the common carrier. The Acting Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: National Flag 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 Charles and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: Whereas space technology involves many of the very highest engineering and scientific disciplines that Australia possesses, which may be applied at an international level to reap significant economic and technological return to the nation, and; Since an appropriate space program for Australia must involve presently uncoordinated industry, government and research agencies, united together with Federal Government funding; Your petitioners therefore pray that you will support the establishment of an Australian Aerospace Agency to manage aerospace programs under a Federal Budget, promote technology transfer, and market our expertise overseas, while ensuring the continued operation of existing space-related facilities within the nation. by Mr Chynoweth. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority the decision of the Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard-core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with grave concern and deplore the decision of the Hawke Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become more widespread during the period of this inquiry. We 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 Tim Fischer. 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 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 Peter Morris. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the 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 fee 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. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Federal Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- That we the undersigned request Commonwealth and State co-operation and financial commitment to- (a) Providing an infrastructure and making aircraft available for the fighting of bushfires in New South Wales; (b) Further, we request the Commonwealth Government to retain the surplus Grumman Tracker Aircraft (approximately 17) and associated spares, for the purpose of conversion to firefighting aircraft for use on the above project. And your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will respond to our plea. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. 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 petition of certain electors of the Division of Dawson shows: (1) Concern about Labor's extension of travel and staff entitlements to cover de facto and homosexual partnerships of parliamentarians and public servants, (2) Legislation should reflect the traditional family as the cornerstone to a stable and cohesive Australian society, and (3) Prays that the Parliament will immediately pass legislation to reverse these regulations and confer proper recognition upon the traditional de jure marriage. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the West Coast of Tasmania respectfully showeth: 1. That we recognise the constant need for adequate funding for the Special Education Programme of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. 2. That such funding is essential for the remote West Coast area of Tasmania if our children are to enjoy the same degree of special training available in urban areas. 3. That we are concerned by the recent cuts in the Special Education Funding being made available to Tasmania. We therefore pray that the Federal Government reconsiders its reduction in the Special Education Programme funding in the forthcoming Budget determinations in the interest of our children's future. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. 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. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The necessity for the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the New South Wales police tapes in order to restore public confidence in the administration of justice. 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 N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(2.57) —There is a need for a royal commission to be established to inquire into the Age tapes matter, and I use that term in its broadest connotation. I mean not only a royal commission into those tapes, that transcript material and those tapings which had been popularly referred to as the Age tapes up until last week, but also a royal commission into the whole matter with the widest possible terms of reference. We ask the Government to concentrate on this, to do it fairly and to do it seriously. It is not simply a matter of political point scoring, because I put it to the Government that what we have discovered so far is two things. The first thing we have discovered is that there are serious problems of organised crime of which we have seen probably only the tip of the iceberg. We would maintain that it is a serious obligation on the Government to take its duties seriously and to have these matters investigated properly and fully. It is no good, with the greatest of respect, any Minister coming back and saying 'There is the National Crime Authority', because the National Crime Authority has specific responsibilities and, indeed, it has specific tasks which it is undertaking at the moment. We maintain very seriously indeed that what we have here is a situation that merits a royal commission. It is a situation which is analogous to those matters that have been inquired into by royal commissions in the past and it is a case where there is every justification for a royal commission to be conducted into this matter. The second situation that we have is this: We have been asking the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) a number of questions about this matter. It is true that he has been forthcoming, perhaps more so than he might like to have been on reflection, and he has given half of the story. But in the course of giving half of the story he has raised probably as many questions as he has answered. There are very serious matters concerning the Attorney-General and his understanding of the principles relating to identities. There are very serious questions so far as political figures are concerned; and these matters can be investigated properly and fully only by a royal commission. That is the substance of the case that we put. We ask the Government to look at the matter seriously and fairly. If it does look at it seriously and fairly, we maintain that it should come to the conclusion that a royal commission should be appointed. If that does not carry enough weight, I put it to members of the Government-perhaps to politicians this might carry more weight-that they can, if they wish, follow the same course as their brothers in New South Wales. They can allow it to go on day after day, with questions being asked, with the information coming out drip by drip, with scandal after successive scandal coming out. Or they can take hold of it. They can concede that there is public concern about this matter; they can concede that there are problems about phone tapping by the New South Wales Police. Let me repeat-because the Attorney-General has only now entered the chamber-that we are putting this seriously and we make the point that it is not a matter of political point scoring. The Government should, being conscious of its responsibilities, concede-we believe that it will do so if it looks at the matter seriously and honestly-that there are serious matters of organised crime; there are serious matters concerning phone tapping; there are serious matters concerning the indemnities; and there are such serious matters concerning allegations that have been made about public figures-indeed, about politicians, in particular, one member of this Parliament-that in total the only way of getting to the bottom of the matter is to have a royal commission. I repeat the point that I made briefly as the Attorney-General entered the chamber, to make sure that he understands this. I want to make sure that it is put to him fairly and honestly. The point is simply: This Government, if it wishes, can go the same way as the New South Wales Government has gone, with this matter coming out drip by drip and with scandal after scandal. The matter will not go away. The only way in which the Government can exercise its public responsibility on these serious matters is to appoint a royal commission. Madam Deputy Speaker, you may say to me, and you would be entitled to say to me: 'What would the royal commission inquire into? What are the specific matters that you would want the royal commission to inquire into?' I will tell you what they are. I venture to say that any member of this House who honestly and fairly looks at the questions that I am about to enumerate could not but come to the conclusion that a royal commission should be appointed. First, there is the question of the old tapes, as I will call them-the 1976 to 1981 tapes. There are still questions about the authenticity of those tapes. I suppose one should concede that at least the Attorney-General the other day, when he refused to grant indemnities to the police concerned, seemed to be making an admission that the tapes were authentic. At least we have got that far. But there is still a question in regard to the authenticity of the tapes, and particularly a question of the public knowledge of their authenticity. If they are authentic they reveal most horrific matters in regard to organised crime in this country. The public has every right to know whether the tapes are authentic. The second thing that arises is that, on the assumption that the tapes are authentic, it is said that they reveal very serious crimes. What we want to know, and what we maintain a royal commission would investigate, is what action has been taken and what action should be taken to prosecute those crimes revealed by the Age tapes and by the other material. The third matter that arises concerns the indemnities. I do not mean it in any disrespectful sense when I say that the Attorney-General does not seem to have or does not seem to have expressed to this House any understanding of the purpose of indemnities or the circumstances under which indemnities will be issued. It is a matter of very great concern to me that the Attorney- General does not understand this: If the Attorney-General is to consider whether indemnities should be granted, he should have a very serious grasp of the significance of the crimes which will be proved, if he gives indemnities so that the police can give evidence of the making of the tapes. But the Attorney-General has said that he does not know the seriousness of the crimes revealed on those tapes, for the very reason that he has not read the tape material. He has not read the transcripts or listened to the tapes. Frankly, we find it quite extraordinary that the Attorney-General can be pursuing on the surface what appears to be his responsibility of determining whether indemnities should be granted, without coming to grips with the raw material. He has an obligation to come to grips with that raw material. He has an obligation to read the tape transcripts so that he can exercise that judgment. A further question arises which goes to the public confidence in the public's elected representatives. It has been said that a New South Wales politician used the tapes to escape prosecution. One report is that he used the tape material to head off an embarrassing court case. Whether it was a criminal case or whether it was a civil case probably does not matter for the purpose of the point I am making. The fact is that the allegation has been made and there seems to be some evidence to suggest that some elected public figure in New South Wales used this material for an improper purpose. Not to put too fine a point on it, he used it to stop a court case. Whether he was personally involved in it, I do not know. But if that is the case, that is a very serious allegation and it is a disgraceful situation if an elected person, having access to that material, used it to pervert the course of justice. If there were ever a justification for having a royal commission into any subject at all that would be adequate justification. Even if there were nothing else concerned in this whole sordid matter other than that allegation made by someone already proven by his track record to have been right in the allegations he has made in drawing attention to matters of public concern, that is sufficient justification by itself to have a royal commission into this whole matter. It is not as if it is simply a matter of the Age tapes, as we knew them until last week. We now know that there is a collection of recorded material conducted by the police. Presumably it has something to do with crime. We know this material covers the period 1981 to 1984. The Attorney-General told us that the recording went on until January 1984. We were told on a television program last Friday night that apparently it went on until November 1984. It gets worse and worse as we go on. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has told us today that the Australian Federal Police did not have any involvement in or connection with that matter. Perhaps, for all we know, that is the real situation. Mr Young —Since the new Commissioner was appointed. Mr N. A. BROWN —Since the Commissioner was appointed; I am indebted to the Minister for his correction. The fact of the matter is that from 1981 to 1984 the police conducted what the Attorney-General has told us was illegal phone tapping. This is a matter of great public concern and should also be the subject of a royal commission. I refer also to the matter which we have been pursuing the Attorney-General on today. We have been told that there was an anonymous letter sent to Mr Justice Stewart that contained some very serious allegations. This was an anonymous letter to the effect that the taping was far more extensive than most people may have realised until the matter was made public. Indeed, as a result of that anonymous letter it is said that one member of Parliament and one other figure in a major political party were involved. It was said that they were caught out as a result of this. We do not know what they were caught out about. The Attorney-General keeps saying that Mr Greiner in New South Wales has a copy of the letter. I do not. I have not seen that letter. I have not the faintest idea of the contents of that letter. I simply say that it is alleged that one Federal member of parliament has been involved in this matter. It is sufficiently serious for telephone conversations to have taken place with the Attorney-General and it is sufficiently serious for the New South Wales Premier to go on record and say that he knows who the person is. We say that it is a matter of public interest that this should be pursued and the person revealed. If that person's record is clean, that person should have nothing to be afraid about. If there was no impropriety on this person's part, let there be an end to the matter. However, the public concern will not be allayed until the matter is investigated thoroughly and in very great detail. We are concerned about the way in which the Government has handled this matter so far. It has been handled in an amateurish way, particularly so far as the indemnities are concerned. What do we find so far as the indemnities are concerned? We have the situation where the Age tapes and other material reveal a series of serious criminal allegations. However, the Attorney-General says: 'My personal view is that they should not get indemnities'. We say the police should, at least so far as the facts brought to our notice are concerned. Mr Young —Indemnities for everything? Mr N. A. BROWN —No, not indemnities for anything. I made that point perfectly clear on Friday. I repeat: We do not say that. What we say is that the Government has already had revealed to it a serious situation so far as certain limited numbers of police are concerned and so far as certain limited activities and conversations are concerned. We say that the Government has an obligation to give them indemnity so they can prove the raw material and hopefully bring the miscreants, whose deeds are revealed on the tapes, to justice. That is not done simply by saying: 'I cannot make up my mind', which is what the Attorney-General says. He says that Mr Justice Stewart does not want his report made public, but when Mr Justice Stewart contributes to the debate, he says: 'I have done my report, I have given my advice, it is up to the Attorney-General'. For some reason the Attorney-General seems constitutionally incapable of making one of those vital decisions which is in the personal control and decision-making jurisdiction of the Attorney-General. The Opposition believes that this has been a lax exercise in the granting of indemnities and that the Attorney-General has not focused his mind on the matter. We want to know why indemnities have not been granted. We want to know why the Attorney-General has not turned his mind to this matter properly. We want to know how on earth he can possible make a decision at any stage if he refuses to read the raw material itself. We ask: How can the Attorney-General make a decision on the significance of the crimes revealed on the material, and hence go on to decide whether indemnities should be granted, if he will not read the material himself? These are just some of the unanswered questions in this matter. But I come back to the point I made at the outset. The Opposition puts this matter not simply as a point-scoring exercise, but as a serious problem in regard to organised crime which has been brought to the notice of the Parliament. We cannot stand by and do nothing about it. There is an obligation to have it investigated. We are not satisfied that it has been investigated properly so far, and we believe that the only way of doing it properly is to have a royal commission. The matter can go on without a royal commission. There are other alternatives open to us. We can pursue the matter in the Senate. If the Government wants to end up at the end of the day or at the end of the week with a Senate inquiry, so be it, but it is the Government and it has an obligation. It has to pursue the best course for the people and the public interest to have these matters investigated properly. The matter will go on and on until the Government follows the best course. The best and the proper course, if the Government has the slightest concept of public responsibility, will be to appoint a royal commission into this whole matter. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.12) —The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) has again put the case he put last week. It would not matter, in his view, that there was no real evidence about any matter. The big issue, in his view, is to have some sort of public discussion about what is said by somebody about somebody else. For example, the whole discussion up to the present-until today, which is quite fascinating-has been on the question of the Age tapes, a compilation of material gathered in the period 1976 to 1981. The significant point about the honourable member's submission today is that arising out of that material is something that was not done. He was a member of the Government throughout that period, or most of it-in fact, he held office. The Temby report clearly shows that the Federal Police got all the information not from Mr Bottom's compilation but from the tapes themselves. Let me ask the honourable member to address his mind to that question. One has it in the Temby report, with Inspector Lewington, Mr Farmer, Sir Colin Woods, with access to all the tapes and taking information from them. What is it the honourable member now suggests was not gleaned from that information in that period? It was made available to the Federal Police. They had it and I have no doubt they used it. So it is a bit ridiculous, is it not, to come into the House today and say: 'There is something radically wrong'. One knows that Mr Bottom is anxious to prove the authenticity of whatever material he got from somewhere and gave to somewhere else, but the matter was not so well handled if one looks at Mr Temby's finding. Mr Temby in his report, which is a document of record, said: It is regrettable that 'The Age'-- that is the Age newspaper-- without any apparent malicious intent, handled the transcripts and summaries, and indeed the tapes themselves, in such a manner as to lose both continuity and control of not only the 'original' papers provided to Mr Bottom, but of the sequential collation of the several copies which are in existence. The management of 'The Age' chooses not to co-operate with us, but even if co-operation had been forthcoming it is unlikely that the origins of the transcripts and summaries could have been reconstructed sufficiently to guarantee the integrity of the material. That is Exhibit A. That is what you have got. I wish to make the point that the Federal Police got the real McCoy. If one looks at what Inspector Lewington was saying, at the discussions with Hawthorn and at the fact that a transcript was made of those tapes, the Australian Federal Police got the originals at that period and handed them back. So where is the suggestion that there is something new in this matter? Of course, Mr Justice Stewart has had the responsibility of trying to find out whether what Mr Bottom had was really the same as what the Federal Police had. That is simply it. From the point of view of new matter, as the argument has been developed here today, the only reference appears to come in respect of an application for indemnity. The honourable member for Menzies is now saying 'Never mind about the Age tapes'-he is pretty right about that-'They are all pretty obsolete. They are four and eight years old. They were within our knowledge, as the Fraser Government. We in fact used them. We had them all'. I can understand why he is not worried about them. Mr N. A. Brown —Who do you say did that? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Who do I say did what? Mr N. A. Brown —Who in the Fraser Government did that? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a matter of record in the Temby report. Mr Spender —That is nonsense. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Of course it is not nonsense. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Attorney-General will ignore the interjections. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I cannot waste much time arguing with the honourable member. Surely he is not disputing the evidence given by Superintendent Lamb, who said that he got the tapes from Hawthorn, is he? Surely he is not disputing Superintendent Anderson's statement that early in 1981 Lamb told him that he was receiving information from the New South Wales Police, and he knew that Lamb had been offered tapes. The honourable member is not suggesting that he is refuting the evidence of Deputy Commissioner Farmer, who said he discussed the matter with Sir Colin Woods. Mr N. A. Brown —With what Ministers of the Fraser Government? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member can answer that question. Mr MacKellar —You said it was the Fraser Government? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentlemen on my left will cease interjecting. The Attorney-General has the floor. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It astounds me to think that the honourable member for Menzies and the honourable member for Warringah (Mr Mackellar), both former Ministers, knew nothing about the Commissioner of Police, the Superintendent of Police and the payment of money. I say to the honourable members that I think the intelligence gathered was in fact used. They know that, and the honourable member for Menzies in particular knows it. Mr N. A. Brown —That is absolute nonsense. You keep repeating those slanders. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not want any explanations. I want to make the point that the honourable member got more out of the Age tapes material than Mr Bottom ever got. Mr N. A. Brown —That is untrue. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Of course the honourable member will deny that. He must do so in order to protect himself in view of his argument today. His argument was based on the fact that there is some new matter in the Age tapes. In the finish he started to get away from that argument and said: 'Oh, I had better try to switch that argument. I had better think of something that happened since the 1981 period, because that is all our period in office'. Mr N. A. Brown —So you must know about it also. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know nothing about the matter. Today the honourable member made the point that the other day- Mr N. A. Brown —You said it would be obvious. What is the difference? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Attorney-General will resume his seat. The honourable member for Menzies has already spoken in the debate. He will not ignore the Chair and keep chattering across the table. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The honourable gentleman said that a very serious allegation has been made again that the Age tapes were used by a New South Wales member of Parliament to escape prosecution. Can honourable members imagine how that could be done? Can they imagine how the tapes could be used to escape prosecution when in fact all the material was known to the Federal Police at the time? Can they think of a set of circumstances whereby a person can say: 'Look, I am able to stop a prosecution', when the matter was within the knowledge of the police? Is the suggestion made that members of the New South Wales Police did not do their duty? That suggestion comes from Mr Bottom. On a recent AM program, Mr Bottom, who is always desperate to be noticed, decided to make another allegation. The perfect answer for Mr Bottom would be to go along to Mr Justice Stewart and give the information. He is duty bound to do it. Of course, Mr Bottom has a reputation for making aspersions which at times he cannot prove. Mr N. A. Brown —He is almost always right. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —What about Miss Schreiner, the magistrate in New South Wales? What about the inquiry before Mr Justice Cross which, of course, must cause some concern? At that inquiry Mr Bottom withdrew his allegations. Having virtually destroyed the woman's integrity this man then got up and said: 'I have no evidence to offer'. That was an outrageous situation. Enough of Mr Bottom. The question is: Has somebody been caught out? At the moment nobody has been caught out. In the last week honourable members opposite have been arguing in this Parliament against advice given to me by Mr Temby, the Director of Public Prosecutions, that an indemnity should not be given to police who previously had a chance to say whether they had intercepted telephone calls and who said no. That is his argument. Mr Justice Stewart says that they have requested that indemnities be granted. Mr Spender —Were these police officers questioned on oath? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will be speaking in the debate later. I suggest he save his powder. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think that is a matter for further judgment. I am not going to comment on that, except to say that Mr Temby was right in saying that they were asked. Of course, their names have not been divulged. I would like to disclose the report of Mr Justice Stewart but he has made the point that he does not want the report disclosed because he is still dealing with the matter. I make the point. I am sure that if there is any suggestion at all that any evidence given by any police officer will assist in the prosecution of a criminal, of course it would be considered, but at the present time we are considering a request from 31 police officers saying: 'I want an indemnity'. They have all been through the mill before. Every one of them said: 'We had nothing to do with the interception of tapes'. I think the Opposition is getting carried away with the suggestion that a royal commission will establish anything different from what Mr Justice Stewart can do. He is virtually a royal commissioner now. He has all the powers of a royal commission. In fact, as the head of the National Crime Authority he can investigate matters there on his own reference, if he gets the approval. What was the idea of setting up a National Crime Authority if we are going to prevent it from doing any of this work? Is it because there is this fanaticism of raising some political issue about this mythical thing called the Age tapes that the Opposition has overlooked the real issue as to what it is all about? References have been made to the National Crime Authority in specific matters-nothing to do with the Age tapes. Despite what Mr Warren Owens has said in the Sunday Telegraph-that he was very concerned that the National Crime Authority might not be able to do its duty-that is not the view of the National Crime Authority. It would be better if reporters who want to make those allegations were to check the position. I cannot see for the life of me what the Age tapes have to do with any current reference before the National Crime Authority. All the Age tapes are dealing with at the moment is whether Mr Bottom produced something that was valid or not. I make the point that everything that Mr Bottom had was about third hand. It had been chewed over, used, diluted-composite material-and apparently sold by him. That is his privilege. But do not let us make the point that it is first class evidence. It is not. In this argument about crime and the question of what has happened in Australia, it was not just in New South Wales. If one looks at the recent publication on the weekend regarding New South Wales, one would not relate organised crime to any one government. It is coming out in a book this week apparently. We will know the seriousness of the situation. It is very important that police, both Federal and State, uphold the law. The point I have been trying to emphasise here, despite the argument by the Opposition that it does not really matter, is that I do not think you can willy-nilly allow people to go on intercepting telephone calls without rhyme or reason. Mr MacKellar —Who said that? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It has been happening, and you know it has been happening. You know very well that it happened in your time. Mr Porter —You told us. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Apparently I have to tell you. You are so ignorant of the facts that I have to keep telling you what happened in your time. There is obviously a lot of material that has been accumulated. It is rather sad, is it not, to think, that, when royal commissions and joint task forces are established, the evidence given to the people that we appoint says: 'There was no interception.'? It seems to go against the grain if somebody can find the tapes even. They themselves would be adamant. We see the reasonable explanation given by the Federal police in your time that perhaps they were not intercepts; they might have been through listening devices or something of that nature. That was the argument given. Coming back to the point of organised crime, we are all very anxious to attack organised crime. The whole purpose of the National Crime Authority is to do that. It will do that. From the point of view of the Opposition's history on organised crime, the National Crime Authority was brought about because organised crime was not attacked in the 1970s or the early 1980s. We saw Nugan Hand, bottom of the harbour taxation schemes and the activities of painters and dockers-all this criminal conduct-going on right across Australia. It was not limited to one State. It was right across Australia. Nothing was done about it. It was on that basis that there has been an overwhelming swell of public opinion, inquiring why the previous Government in the national sphere could not do something about it. It is for that reason also that all State police Ministers have been very anxious to co-operate. If one looks at the structure of the National Crime Authority, one will see that for the first time the State Ministers are involved with the Commonwealth in a unified attack on crime. From now on there will be no limitations that we have only Federal powers and not State powers. We now have a composite capacity to deal with what is deemed to be relevant criminal activity. I am sure that any honourable member who has knowledge of any criminal activity would refer that matter to the National Crime Authority. I pay tribute to Mr Justice Stewart. He has a very difficult job. The only difficulty that I have to resolve at the moment is a conflict between him and Mr Temby on the question of indemnities in respect of matters, as I make the point, that I think are very ancient and well-used. But the other issues are still very current from the point of view of what criminal activity is still going on that we can attack. I assure honourable members that we will get more of it from the point of view of the prosecutions that Mr Temby has under way now. I believe many people will go to gaol and I say to the honourable member for Menzies that they should have gone to gaol when his government was in office. Enough of the personal argument. The questions are: Is the law adequate; is it being properly enforced; and am I able to assess my discretion when indemnities are asked for? I undertake to do that, but it will be done on the basis of the law and whether there has been any breach of it; and certainly the question of whether we could get a prosecution would deserve the utmost consideration. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.27) —The reply that we have just heard from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is typical of the Government's treatment of the question of the Age tapes and of phone tapping since its very inception. It was evasive, misleading and designed to confuse. Let me make just one point. The Attorney-General referred to the report of Mr Temby, QC, into the Age tapes. He said that the report shows that the Government knew about it. He is not able to read a passage of that report which says anything of the sort. The reason that he is not able to read such a passage is that it does not exist; it is not true. To suggest that that is true is utterly misleading, and he knows it. It would be the same as saying it in regard to his own Government. After all, if this phone tapping is continuing under the present Government, as seems to be the case, by parity of reasoning he would have to know. On the basis of the evidence thus far, we do not say that of him. It is worth while remembering how this matter has been dealt with by the Government. When the Opposition first raised it it was derided. The authenticity of the tapes was ridiculed. We were accused of muck-raking and indulging in gutter politics. Contemptuous dismissal was given to the charges made by us as to the need to look into the tapes. However, finally, we had grudging acceptance and almost unqualified acceptance, so far as one can see, by the Attorney-General, because in this House on 20 March he said: The dilemma relates to the fact that 31 New South Wales policemen apparently breached the Federal Telecommunications (Interception) Act. That was very close to the Attorney-General saying: Yes, the tapes are authentic in the sense that there were planned intercepts over a long period. We have to ask ourselves why this interception has taken place. So far as we can judge, it has not been interception designed to advance the private motives of those involved. It was interception by a deeply frustrated police force, dissatisfied with what was happening to criminals in New South Wales; that is, that they were getting out. The police were determined to do something about it. I understand, although I did not hear it myself, that the Premier of New South Wales said on television, on Sunday last, that what they were doing was in effect working to put criminals in gaol and that the matter should be followed up. That is a far cry from the approach evidenced by the Attorney-General. What do we know thus far? Thirty-one police officers have been involved. That is an extraordinarily large number. There have been breaches of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. I point out that those offences are punishable by imprisonment for no more than two years. Certainly, there has been a breach of privacy. Certainly, we do not contend that breaches of the Act should be condoned or supported. The breaches having taken place, it is far more important that we get to the substance of the matters they were looking at than that we prosecute the police for breaching the Telecommunications (Interception) Act because they did not have the authority that they needed legally to do what they did. We all know-everybody in this country who has the least interest in public affairs knows-that the Age material and the material that has since been unearthed concerns important matters of organised crime and deep criminality, criminality of a far more important consequence to this community than the breaches by the police themselves. We now know a few further things that we did not know a few days ago. It appears that the taping and the interception continued until 1984. We are told very precisely that there is anonymous evidence that says that a special squad was doing nothing else but tapping telephones for a long period; that it had the blessing of the New South Wales Police Department; that a whole series of tapes covering a multitude of people over a long period with detailed diary notes were being made and appropriate records were being made. This is all said by the Attorney-General. As I read his answers to questions, this is his understanding of what the state of affairs was likely to be. We know from what has been said in the Age very recently that the concerned police officer, the person who has provided this anonymous evidence, has apparently named senior policemen. We know from the Age and from the answer given by the Attorney-General today that at least one Labor member of parliament has been named in some way in the Age tapes. I do not say that that is any evidence that he has done anything wrong. I do say that it is very clear evidence that something needs to be looked at when we have a Federal member of parliament and also a senior official of the New South Wales Labor Party named. That had to be drawn out of the Attorney-General; it was not volunteered in his forthright, frank and open approach to questions. This information is very precise and the very precision of the information is important. We know that it is said that some $400,000 has been spent for the purchase of equipment, so it seems, to run intercepts. We can only assume that somewhere in the Budget of the New South Wales Government that $400,000' is to be found. It either appears for what it is or it appears as a disguised item. In any event, we need to know more about that. The odds of learning from the New South Wales Government, given its track record in its approach to these matters, is just about nil. We know, as well, that this activity in sum has been carried on for years and it may have been going on until as late as November last year. Just this weekend we had some evidence from a former member of the New South Wales Police Force who, in answer to a question put to him about indemnities-the House will recall that the Attorney-General said I had misunderstood what I read-said: I believe that to be true. He said that in answer to the reasons why indemnities were not being given and whether or not what was being done was being done on instructions. He also said: I believe that this section has been operating for so long and involved in so many cases it would be impossible to believe that their high ranking superior officers didn't know what they were doing. And because of the administration of the New South Wales police force I find it impossible to believe that the government in New South Wales wasn't made aware of the activities as well. That is something more that has been added to the pot. What is the answer that has been given by this Government? The answer is that somehow or other it is under control, it has been sorted out, we have written to the New South Wales Government, and eventually we will get some sort of an answer. We are dealing with Federal matters. We are dealing with Federal intercepts. We are dealing apparently with a division of the New South Wales Police Force that has set itself up for the purposes of using intercepts to discover breaches of the criminal law. The way to find out the answer to these matters and the way to investigate the importance of the kinds of activities they have been looking at is through a royal commission. The National Crime Authority is simply not appropriate. It is not appropriate for two reasons. First of all, the National Crime Authority automatically involves the Government of New South Wales. If we are investigating the New South Wales Police Force, and perhaps also the Government of New South Wales, the last body one would want to be involved in it would be that Government. Secondly, the National Crime Authority has a limit placed on it in that it can investigate only certain kinds of offences. It cannot investigate offences that are punishable by less than three years imprisonment. A breach of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act is punishable by only two years imprisonment. So that pretty much puts the National Crime Authority out of court. Another good reason for having a royal commission is that a royal commission is the only body with the powers of compulsion which are required to extract the necessary evidence, whether it be from members of the New South Wales Police Force, the New South Wales Government or anyone else. Its powers are in fact wider than those that are given to the National Crime Authority. It is important for that to be noted because that is the reason why we need to have a royal commission. If we do not have this commission, the evidence may be lost. Does anyone think that the police and those who may be also involved are sitting by quietly, not doing anything? What is happening to the tapes and to the transcript of evidence while this Government delays? If this Government really wants to find out what is at the bottom of things, why does it not authorise the setting up of a royal commission to act without delay, with the widest terms of reference, so that the Australian people can know what this is all about? Does the Government in fact prefer to allow things to trickle on, hoping, hanging tough, that somehow it can find its way through and, perhaps, that the people concerned in these activities will remain undetected? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(3.37) —I think one of the most important indications of the deficiency of the Opposition's motivation in this matter was provided by the concluding remarks of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who said that unless a royal commission is held it is possible that the evidence may be lost. Presumably he was referring to what have become known as the Age tapes and transcripts. Many copies of the tapes and transcripts are in circulation, whether they be with Bob Bottom, the Age newspaper, the police who acted in New South Wales allegedly to make the tapes, Kevin Newman, the Australian Federal Police, or members of the present Opposition. There is such an abundant accumulation of tapes and transcripts floating around at present that we can be absolutely certain there is no likelihood of the evidence being lost or destroyed. I think there is no doubt that one of the main reasons why this matter of public importance has been raised today in the terms it has is that the Opposition is hell bent on creating a smokescreen, on establishing some diversionary tactics, and on accepting the proposition that the best line of defence is attack. It is doing so because of the overwhelming embarrassment it is starting to experience now not only in connection with some of the possible content of the Age tapes but also in relation to a number of other disclosures which are now being made as a result of the book to be published by Angus and Robertson. I suggest that it will be extremely good value for $9.95. The book refers, for example, to the former Liberal Premier of New South Wales, Sir Robin Askin-I think he called himself Sir Robert after he got the title. No one will ever know how much he paid for the title. Of course, he was in a position where he could nominate himself. Anybody else who wanted to acquire a knighthood and become a knight of the realm at the time Sir Robert Askin was Premier of New South Wales could get one for $60,000. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order on this character assassination of a dead man. My respectful submission is that the Standing Orders make it quite clear that if there are allegations or imputations to be made they should be the subject of a substantive motion. I respectfully ask you to call upon the honourable member to come back to the matter before the Chair, which has nothing to do with Sir Robert Askin, and to stop the character assassination of a dead Premier. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —There is no point of order. The honourable member for Denison would be well aware of that. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Honourable members opposite are just trying to waste time, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, as I know and as the honourable member for Denison knows. I was a member of the State Parliament. Ever since that fellow was Premier in New South Wales it was well known not only that you could buy a knighthood but also that you could buy a seat in the upper House. Mr Ruddock —Did you see the money pass hands? Mr ROBERT BROWN —I say to the people who are interjecting, including the honourable member for Dundas, that if they want me to give some of the names I can give them. I can also indicate to them the amount of money that changed hands in order for people to buy seats in the upper House of New South Wales. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member for Charlton that it may be appropriate for him again to look at the subject of this matter of public importance and to show some care in the matters that he is raising in this debate. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall wind up my remarks on this matter, which is of great concern, by referring to the question of organised crime in New South Wales and the Age tapes. This matter of public importance is supposed to be concerned with the restoration of public confidence in the administration of justice. If we are concerned about restoring public confidence in the administration of justice, I ask: If there is any deficiency in public confidence in the administration of justice in New South Wales, who has been responsible? I insist that my remarks are certainly in accord with the contents of the matter of public importance. According to Hickie, Askin joked shortly before he won government: 'I need only one three-year term in power to make my fortune'. Liberal members of this House can make whatever claims they like, but the facts indicate that before Sir Robert Askin became a member of the New South Wales Parliament he was brought from behind the teller's desk in a bank. He went in to the New South Wales Parliament with the bum out of his pants. When he died in 1981 he left an estate of almost $2m. I notice that there are no interjections now. Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order. Mr ROBERT BROWN —There is to be another spurious point of order. I seek your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a separate point of order in view of your previous ruling. I submit that the honourable member's remarks are simply not relevant to the matter of public importance before the Chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison has been here for long enough to know that frivolous points of order will not be tolerated continually by the Chair. There is no point of order. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The number of interjections and points of order indicate the degree to which honourable members opposite are concerned about the reality of that I am saying. I am saying that Sir Robert Askin went into the New South Wales Parliament from behind a teller's desk in a bank, with the bum out of his pants, and died leaving $2m. That is in the legal records. When the taxation officers started to make inquiries about where the money came from they were told by Sir Robert Askin's widow that he had won it at the racecourse-$2m. That was not all, because considerable sums of money also were in the hands of his wife. He won this after going into the Parliament, with the bum out of his pants, from behind a desk in a bank in Sydney. He got this $2m by betting on the racehorses. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I take the opportunity to remind the honourable member for Charlton again that the discussion of the matter this afternoon should be somewhat narrower than the broad affairs that he is introducing into the debate. I suggest that it would be appropriate for him to narrow his remarks somewhat to the subject matter before the House. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The matter of public importance refers to the restoration of public confidence in the administration of justice in connection with the Age tapes. All of these disclosures indicate absolutely that if organised crime became entrenched in New South Wales and was responsible for some limitation of or deficiency in the extent of public confidence in the administration of justice in New South Wales, it started to operate at the time Sir Robert Askin became Premier of that State. Not only did he leave $2m when he died but also his wife, who died soon after, left $3.7m. He was a colleague of the people who raised this matter in the Parliament this afternoon. When his wife was asked by the taxation commissioners 'Where did the money come from?', she said that the money came from his luck at the racecourse. The honourable member for North Sydney, who is trying to interject, this pillar of the establishment, this pillar of virtue, this lily-white, is the one who now is apparently trying to defend this fellow. Sir Robert Askin's wife said that he won the money at the races. Sir Robert Askin said that he never bet in amounts greater than $100. How many bets would this man have had to put on at the racecourse to accumulate $3.7m? Honourable members opposite have the hide to raise in this chamber a matter of this kind as a matter of public importance when the overwhelming evidence suggests that if there is any deficiency in the extent of public confidence in the administration of justice, that deficiency has been created by them, by members of their Party, by benefactors of their Party and by people in New South Wales like those who are prepared to spend $60,000 in order to get a knighthood. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —by leave-I wish to inform the Parliament of the Government's response to the report from the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on its inquiry into Australia's participation in international environmental organisations. The report was tabled in this House in October 1982. Although preparations were in train to present this statement to the House during the last sittings, this was not possible due to the shortness of the sittings and pressure of other business. The Standing Committee adopted the approach of being informative as well as being investigatory in preparing this report, by providing detailed descriptions of the role, structure and history of the more significant organisations. The Committee gave particular attention to Australia's involvement in three bodies: The United Nations Environment Program, UNEP; the Environment Committee of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD; and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, IUCN. Other international bodies considered by the Committee were the World Wildlife Fund, the International Whaling Commission, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, the International Waterfowl Research Bureau and various United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation programs. The report made 13 recommendations. Before I describe the Government's response to the recommendations I will make some observations on the benefits to Australia of these organisations. There are several reasons for Australia's participation in international environmental organisations. First, many of the issues considered by these organisations are inherently international because they are global in nature and cannot be resolved solely at the national level. The problems of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, destruction of the ozone layer, contamination of the oceans, control of hazardous chemicals and protection of endangered wildlife are clear examples. Secondly, scientific knowledge necessary to solve many environmental problems is still scarce and the sharing of information and experience between countries is essential. Thirdly, consultation between nations is important to help avoid the possibility of differing national environmental policies leading to international trade distortions and affecting the competitive positions of industries in various countries. Fourthly, the close connections between the environment and economic, social and political considerations are increasingly recognised as important both within countries and between them. Finally, countries can benefit from each other's experience in a great many aspects of environmental monitoring, planning and management. Such benefits are particularly relevant to Australia because many environmental problems are acute in other countries well before they become significant in Australia. The last two decades have seen greatly increased international activity and co-operation in relation to environmental protection and conservation, and a growing recognition of the need to reconcile economic and environmental demands through policies directed towards sustainable development. To a large extent, international organisations, particularly UNEP, IUCN and the OECD, have been responsible for this progress in international understanding of environmental problems, and for providing the stimulus for reducing these problems. Other international organisations which have played important specific roles include the World Wildlife Fund, the International Whaling Commission, the International Waterfowl Research Bureau and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation-UNESCO-through the man and the biosphere program and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. The scope for Australia's participation in international environmental organisations is necessarily constrained by economic factors and geographical isolation. Travel costs are significant and must be carefully considered in relation to the benefits expected from attendance at particular overseas meetings. However, many of our environmental concerns are similar to those overseas-for instance, pollution control, wildlife and park management, arid land management, deforestation, waste management and recycling, environmental impact assessment and environmental economics. Access to international information on these matters is of enormous value to Australia. Such information would not be available to anywhere near the same extent if Australia were unable to participate in relevant international activities. As well as those activities from which Australia benefits directly, the Government has a responsibility to participate as a member of the world community in environmental activities of a more global environmental nature, from which all countries stand to benefit in the longer term. The benefits of these activities may not be so immediately evident, but they are nevertheless important. In addition, there are occasions when Australia's participation may constitute part of its aid program-where Australia assists in providing expertise to developing countries through the programs of international environment bodies. In these cases, also, the benefits to Australia are less tangible, but the indirect benefits may be considerable. Turning to the Standing Committee's findings, the Government agrees with the Committee that international environmental organisations have a valuable role and that the benefits to Australia from involvement in these organisations can be extensive. The Government notes that the Committee recognises that there is considerable scope for improvement in the nature and extent of Australia's participation and that the Committee has made several recommendations aimed at maximising the benefits to Australia. I wish now to address each of the recommendations in turn, and seek leave to have the text of the Committee's recommendations tabled and incorporated in Hansard at this point. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Recommendations The Committee recommends that: 1. the Australian Government review the present role of the United Nations Environment Programme to establish its effectiveness; and as part of this review, the Government examine the level of its funding to the Programme. 2. Australia's continued active participation in the OECD Environment Committee be encouraged and furthered by the provision of the necessary resources to enable expert Australia-based attendance at conferences of its sub-committees to which Australia has made a commitment as a 'participating nation'. 3. the Australian Government maintain its support for and input to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; and to facilitate a greater and more meaningful involvement of non-government organisation members of IUCN, the Commonwealth Government re-examine the feasibility of increasing funding to these organisations to a level sufficient to permit their attendance at IUCN conferences. 4. the Minister for Foreign Affairs prepare and present to the Parliament a definitive statement stipulating guidelines for Australia's involvement in international organisations; and a mechanism be established to co-ordinate this involvement fully among the Executive Departments. 5. the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment table annually in the Commonwealth Parliament a report or reports on the proceedings and findings of international conferences of an environmental nature which Australia has attended in the preceding 12 months, indicating to the Parliament the response of the Australian Government to the recommendations from each conference. 6. the Department of Home Affairs and Environment circulate, on a regular basis, to Members of Parliament and recognised conservation organisations a list of publications available relating to Australia's involvement in international environmental activities. 7. all reports of international environmental conferences and copies of treaties of an environmental nature be produced in a form suitable for distribution to the general public and be made available for purchase through recognised Government bookshop outlets. 8. the Department of Home Affairs and Environment ensure that copies of selected international publications relating to the environment be obtained in sufficient quantities to enable distribution to Parliamentary libraries, major public libraries and environmental centres and that the feasibility of selling them through Australian Government Publishing Service Bookshops be assessed. 9. the adoption of the May 1981 Draft Principles and Procedures for Commonwealth/State Consultation on Treaties be discussed at the earliest available Premiers' Conference. 10. the Commonwealth Government monitor and actively pursue the implementation of international treaties and agreements relating to environmental protection and conservation; and the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment ensure that the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers and the Australian Environment Council regularly examine the implementation of new and existing treaties and agreements relating to environmental protection and conservation. 11. the Department of Home Affairs and Environment conduct a seminar at regular intervals of Commonwealth Government, State government and non-government representatives to exchange ideas and discuss Australia's approach to international and domestic environmental issues. 12. the Draft National Conservation Strategy for Australia be tabled in Parliament early in 1983 and that it be given full consideration by the Parliament prior to being adopted by the Government. 13. the Commonwealth Government continue to actively support Australia's involvement in Antarctica and provide sufficient resources to enable Australia's high standing within the Antarctic Treaty to be maintained up until 1991. Mr COHEN —The first recommendation is that the Government review its support for the United Nations environment program. My Department has reviewed the nature and activities of UNEP and Australia's involvement in that program. The review found that UNEP is the key international organisation through which governments address global environmental issues. It found that UNEP has been effective, in its first decade, in co-ordinating and catalysing the environmental component of the many diverse programs of the United Nations; in developing valuable environmental monitoring, assessment and information programs; and in providing the framework for better global and regional co-operation on environmental matters. The Government will continue to participate actively in this program. The Committee's second recommendation is that Australia strengthen its participation in sub-groups of the OECD Environment Committee. The Government acknowledges the considerable direct benefit to Australia of participation in the OECD environment program. We recognise that the major constraint of distance has severely limited participation by Australia-based officers in meetings of the OECD Environment Committee and its major sub-committees. The possibility of increasing the current level of attendance by Australia-based experts is being reviewed in the light of the Standing Committee report. I must make the point that the problem of distance is really severe and cost is a major factor. I do not know how we can overcome it. Departments always face this problem, which most of our colleagues in the OECD do not face. It is only a very short trip for them. It is a very long trip for us. Further consideration is also being given to the possibility of increasing the support for OECD Environment Committee activities provided by the Australian Permanent Mission to the OECD. The Standing Committee recommends continuing government support for IUCN and consideration of increased funding of non-government organisations to permit attendance at IUCN conferences overseas. The Government continues to support IUCN through its membership and participation programs. On the question of funds for non-government officers to attend IUCN conferences, funds for travel overseas meetings could be sought through the program of grants to voluntary conservation organisations. This program provides grants for general administrative assistance, technical assistance and research. The Government has recently amended the guidelines to allow organisations to use funds granted under the program to send representatives to overseas conferences. The level of funding for the program is decided each year in the Budget context. Honourable members will be aware that the Government has substantially increased the amount provided in both 1983-84 and 1984-85 over the amount available in previous years. My recollection is that the amount has increased from something like $350,000 to in excess of $800,000. The fourth recommendation is that the Minister for Foreign Affairs should present to Parliament a statement stipulating guidelines for Australia's involvement in international organisations and a mechanism to co-ordinate the involvement of Executive departments. This recommendation has been brought to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). The Minister considers that, in practice, satisfactory guidelines have now been established by the decisions of relevant Ministers since the Government took office. This matter will be kept under review. The fifth recommendation is that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment table annually a report on proceedings and findings of international conferences of an environmental nature indicating the Australian response to recommendations. This is a very important and far reaching recommendation which the Government has agreed to adopt. The task will entail close liaison and co-operation with relevant departments and authorities to follow up recommendations from conferences of the major international environmental organisations and other conferences of an environmental nature. Recommendations 6, 7 and 8 address the question of dissemination within Australia of information and material on international environmental matters. I support these recommendations. My Department is examining ways of improving dissemination of information on the work of international environmental bodies to Parliament, conservation groups and the general public. The Committee's recommendation that my Department provide major public libraries with copies of material from international environmental organisations would be unduly demanding on limited resources. However, major libraries will be included on distribution lists for notification of publications and arrangements will be made for borrowing departmental copies through the inter-library loan system. The recommendation that the feasibility of selling international reports through the Australian Government Publishing Service be assessed has been examined. In general this has not been found to be a feasible proposition. However, I note that the OECD and UNESCO already have Australian distributors for their publications. In relation to the availability of information on treaties, I note that copies of individual treaties are already obtainable through AGPS. The terms of the Committee's ninth recommendation, that the 1981 draft principles and procedures for Commonwealth-State consultation on treaties be discussed at the earliest available Premiers Conference, have already been met. The draft principles and procedures were drawn up by a Commonwealth-State officials committee in 1980, following an initial decision at the Premiers Conference in 1977 that there was a need to establish sound guidelines for consultation on treaties. The draft principles and procedures were subsequently examined by Premiers and were adopted at the Premiers Conference in June 1982. In November 1983 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) advised Premiers that the Government endorsed the principles and procedures, subject to certain important modifications. These modifications were designed to ensure that ratification of treaties was not unduly delayed and that Australia would not be seen in the international arena as attempting to use its constitutional structure as a shield to avoid or limit its acceptance of treaty obligations. The Committee's tenth recommendation is that the Government actively pursue the implementation of international treaties and agreements relating to environmental protection and conservation. Within my portfolio, treaties and agreements relating to environment and conservation will be monitored. The Council of Nature Conservation Ministers and the Australian Environment Council will be consulted closely in regard to existing and proposed new treaties and agreements. Recommendation 11 seeks to have regular seminars involving Commonwealth and State government and non-government representatives to discuss Australia's approach to international and domestic environmental issues. As resources permit, my Department will respond on a case by case basis to this recommendation, through seminars and other consultations. The twelfth recommendation asks that the draft national Conservation Strategy for Australia be tabled for consideration by Parliament. The Government sponsored a national conference in Canberra in June 1983 to refine the draft which the Committee had before it in 1982. The strategy agreed by consensus at the conference was tabled on 6 December 1983 and was endorsed by the Government in June 1984 on the understanding that endorsement implies agreement with the objectives and strategic principles of the document agreed at the conference. The final recommendation of the Standing Committee asks the Government to continue support for Australia's involvement in Antarctica and provide sufficient resources to enable Australia's high standing in relation to the Antarctic Treaty to be maintained up until 1991. This is already Government policy. Australia's strong concern to protect the Antarctic environment is well known internationally and is highlighted by the system of measures for environmental protection developed under the Antarctic Treaty. It should be noted, however, that the Committee's reference to 1991 in this recommendation arose from the commonly held but mistaken belief that the Antarctic Treaty will be renegotiated in 1991. It is Australian policy to support the indefinite continuation of the Antarctic Treaty and to maintain our high standing in its forums. The Government is appreciative of the work of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation in preparing this important report on Australia's participation in international environmental organisations. Mr Deputy Speaker, I make one last comment for the information of honourable members: In June this year the third meeting of the OECD Environment Committee at ministerial level is being held in Paris and I expect to attend. These ministerial meetings occur every five years and review the OECD environment program. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-I join with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) in complimenting the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on its report entitled 'Australia's Participation in International Environmental Organisations'. I note, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you were a member of that Committee and of the Sub-Committee which carried out this most worthwhile work. I should say in commencing, however, that I am rather dismayed that it has taken nearly two and a half years for the Government to respond to this report. It is not a difficult report. It did not involve any great re-analysis of existing government policies but merely a restatement in a number of areas on what they were meant to be. Nevertheless, as a report it has focused our attention on the need to see Australia's position in relation to the various United Nations and other international environmental organisations and agencies with which we are associated. The purpose of this inquiry was in fact to investigate the role and effectiveness of Australia's participation in those organisations. With due respect to the Minister, I do not feel, on hearing his response, that the Government has really taken seriously the comments made by the Committee because there is very little evidence that apart from saying 'Yes, everything is marvellous' the Government has considered aspects of Australia's participation in these organisations which deserve further examination. The report made the important observation that the emergence of environmental protection as a major area of public policy both on a domestic as well as a world-wide scale is relatively recent. It cites the late 1960s as being possibly the commencement of this world-wide trend towards an appreciation of the fact that the environment in which we live influences not only our own generation but certainly those which will follow. Therefore, all governments have a role to play, as members of the United Nations, in trying to maintain an overall world environmental strategy which will be for the long term benefit of the human species and in fact all forms of life on this planet. The Committee also made the point that many of the issues being considered were inherently international because of their global ecological scope; that local scientific data is often scarce and therefore there is a need to share information; that consultation between nations helps to overcome the differing environmental policies and approaches which nations or people may have in these matters; that there is a need for relationships between environmental, economic, social and political factors to be acknowledged and understood to a greater extent both nationally and internationally; and that more immediate bilateral problems were effectively forcing action by industrialised nations, in particular in Western Europe where trans-frontier pollution is becoming a critical problem. It is worth noting that in the last year or so the European Economic Community has attempted to get all members to agree to a convention for the reduction of atmospheric pollution, but unfortunately it has failed to get the co-operation of a number of states, including the United Kingdom. I think this demonstrates in a very real measure the major problems one faces at the international level in trying to get domestic problems into perspective in this field. The Minister also made some observations in relation to the problems of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, the destruction of the ozone layer, the contamination of the oceans, the control of hazardous chemicals, the protection of endangered wildlife and so forth. I think it is rather strange hearing this coming from a Minister of this Government which has put in place what must go down in history as the most inconsistent uranium policy ever known. I think it is worth noting that a large segment of the Australian Labor Party, both in this Parliament and elsewhere, seems to find uranium to be a matter of great concern, essentially because it fears its potential as a pollutant on the one hand and as a means of destroying humanity on the other. It is just as absurd to suggest that iron ore should not be mined because tanks or guns can be made with it just as cars, bridges and other things can. To a large degree the same principle applies to uranium. I think it is worth while noting that the generation of 1,000 megawatts of electricity at a 70 per cent load factor requires the mining and use of 5 1/2 million tonnes of brown coal, 2 1/2 million tonnes of black coal, over 1 1/4 million tonnes of fuel oil or over one million tonnes of natural gas. Yet only 180 tonnes of uranium are required to generate the same amount of electricity. We must consider whether the destructive influences of having a significantly higher level of carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere caused essentially by the use of fossil fuels, both coal and petroleum products, are preferable to the continuation of a sustainable level of uranium mining and the generation of what is in fact one of the cleanest forms of energy known at this stage. Nevertheless, as I said, this is an inconsistent approach which has been developed by this Government and will certainly change with the fall of this Government. I now refer to a number of the recommendations made by the Committee which have been referred to by the Minister. The report noted that the Government should review its support for the United Nations Environment Program. Again, it is a matter of some regret that in the Minister's comments it is quite clear that this was not done. I draw his attention to page 6 of the Committee's report which, in paragraphs 33 and 34, states: . . . It is, nevertheless, rather poignant to observe that the following comment was included in the CSIRO submission: 'International programs sponsored by UN agencies and other supranational bodies are generally poorly conceived, badly managed and politically motivated, rather than soundly-based technically and scientifically. It went on to suggest: . . . but given that Australia is the 10th largest contributor to the Environment Fund, the Government must ensure that it maintains constant vigilance of the aims and objectives of UNEP and be prepared to speak up at UN General Assembly conferences to ensure the effective continuation of this worthwhile program. I strongly suggest that we should have a more effective role to play in the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly which, as I recall, is responsible for budgetary matters concerning the efficiency and effectiveness of the manner in which our funds are spent by United Nations agencies. But this was merely an identification of the problem by the Committee which was not appropriately addressed by the Minister in his remarks. He simply said: 'Yes, my Department has reviewed the nature and activities of UNEP and Australia's involvement in that program will continue'. The report was not questioning Australia's involvement in the program but rather the manner in which the expenditure made by Australia and other countries was being utilised for various global environmental issues. It is not just a case as the Minister said of the Government continuing to participate actively in this program. The question is rather: Are we prepared to examine in detail the objectives of the various undertakings under UNEP and the manner in which public expenditure is being utilised for that purpose? The report referred to a similar problem in relation to Australian participation in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Environment Committee. The Minister made the point, for which I have some sympathy, that because of Australia's geographical position in OECD terms, along with possibly New Zealand and Japan, we are the most far-flung members. The rest are either in Europe or in North America. Consequently, a higher cost is borne by Australia if we wish to be adequately represented at OECD functional meetings. Nevertheless, the OECD does have an environment committee and a number of sub-committees which cover areas which are of relevance to developed countries such as Australia. In that context, if we want to be a full member of the OECD, it is clear that we should play a more effective role wherever we possibly can, including membership of the OECD Environment Committee. Another recommendation made by the Committee referred to continuing government support for the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and consideration of increased funding of non-governmental organisations to permit attendance at IUCN conferences overseas. This has been a fairly moot point in recent years. But I make the point that the Fraser Government to the best of my knowledge was the first to permit non-governmental organisations to be represented on Australian delegations overseas. I should note also that this is a practice which has been continued with success by the current Government. The fifth recommendation is that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment should table annually a report on proceedings and findings of international conferences of an environmental nature, indicating the Australian response to recommendations. This recommendation is of some relevance to other recommendations on the dissemination of information in Australia and also the role which the States should play in the determination of policy in relation to the environment. As all honourable members would recall, as a result of the decision in relation to the Tasmanian dams affair, the Opposition and the Government found themselves diametrically opposed in regard to the handling of environmental issues of this type. It is the strong view of the Opposition that the States must be brought into negotiations through international bodies for the establishment of treaties which will require obligations of a domestic nature which will have an impact upon State law. This is something which the Government, of course, finds some difficulty in living with. This point is in the Minister's comments on the ninth recommendation which were as follows: In November 1983 the Prime Minister advised Premiers that the Government endorsed the Principles and Procedures- that is, those relating to co-ordination between the Commonwealth and the States- subject to certain important modifications. These modifications were designed to ensure that ratification of treaties was not unduly delayed and that Australia would not be seen in the international arena as attempting to use its constitutional structure as a shield to avoid or limit its acceptance of treaty obligations. Nevertheless, the point needs to be made that many treaties do have a federalism clause included in them. It has always been the practice of previous Australian governments to ensure that our ratification of treaties is subject to the fact that the Australian Constitution does not leave in our hands all power and that many international treaties require the co-operation and support of State governments if they are to be applied within domestic law. Consequently, the observations made by the Minister in that context do not adequately take into account the realities of State involvement and the arrangements instituted by the Fraser Government to ensure that the States were brought into the pre-negotiating stage and, on some occasions, even the negotiating stage, to ensure that there were no difficulties in the implementation of international agreements. There has been a tendency on the part of socialist governments in Australia for many years to go around the world big-noting themselves, signing treaties willy-nilly, regardless of whether they will be applied. If this Government wishes to find itself in the same situation as that of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other communist governments, so be it. But I see no purpose, and neither does the Opposition, in signing Australia's name to treaties unless we will be able to apply them in relation to domestic law. This is not just a small issue which can simply be passed over; it is a matter of very fundamental importance. I refer now to the twelfth recommendation of the report, which was that the draft national conservation strategy for Australia should be tabled for consideration by Parliament. The Minister went to some length to make the point that a national conference was established. That is true. He also ignored the fact that the whole concept of the national conservation strategy was developed by the Fraser Government and that that conference had already been set in place before the change of government. Nevertheless, I agree with him that an effective and useful conference was held involving the States and non-governmental organisations as well as other Federal and State authorities and bodies to achieve some consensus on this matter. But the important thing is that the twelfth recommendation quite explicitly stated that the draft national conservation strategy should be tabled for consideration by Parliament. I regret that, in the two years since that conference took place, this Minister and the Government have made not the slightest attempt to have a debate in this Parliament on the introduction of the national conservation strategy, or on what it means for the development of Australia. As we pointed out at the time of that conference, it is essential that all bodies-environmental organisations, miners, farmers, industrialists as well as State and local governments-should be involved. Surely the Federal Parliament of this nation equally has a role to play and a right to have a point of view in matters such as this. My final observation is related to the question of Australia's involvement in the Antarctic. This was the final recommendation of the Standing Committee, which asked that Australia should continue to support our involvement in Antarctica and provide sufficient resources to enable our high standing in relation to the Antarctic Treaty to be maintained in the future. It is worth noting that the Labor Government has in many ways severely compromised Australia's vital interests in Antarctica. For example, our scientific activity has been severely handicapped by a number of budgetary cutbacks, in particular the 3 per cent real reduction in the expenditure of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in the 1984-85 financial year. Australia now has the same level of annual investment in Antarctica as it had in the mid-1960s. Consequently, the level of Australian scientific activity could be seen to be in steady decline. Professor David Caro, the Chairman of the Federal Government's Antarctic Research Policy Advisory Committee, said that there seems to be no accepted national policy on the Antarctic. He added that the $30m per year currently spent was so inadequate as to be a 'waste of money'. These are real issues which have been raised by the Committee in this report. I am frankly rather unimpressed with the level of consideration which has been given by the Government to these matters. It was not simply a case of having to go through the forms of the House to give a response. This House deserves a response of substance. I regret that in this case it failed to receive it. Debate resumed from 22 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. upon which Mr Sinclair had moved by way of amendment: 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 U.S. 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''. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(4.18) —When I was addressing the House last Friday in this debate I drew the House's attention to the issue of Aboriginal health. I pointed out that in regard to a wide range of diseases Aborigines fare very poorly compared with non-Aboriginal Australians. In fact, Aboriginals remain the least healthy identifiable sector of the Australian community. While the factors underlying the persistently poor status of Aboriginal health are complex, the major determinant is obviously the extreme social inequality experienced by Aborigines. There is a need for this Government to look more closely at its current policies in respect of Aboriginal health to see whether there are inadequacies and, if so, how they can be improved. We need a national plan for Aboriginal health similar to that which was projected in 1973. I now turn to the plight of the Aborigine caught in the criminal justice system. It is a sad fact that Aboriginals are ten times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Aboriginals. In Western Australia, we have one of the highest imprisonment rates for Aboriginals in the Commonwealth. This issue requires urgent attention by State and Federal governments. A research project carried out in 1981 by Mr Broadhurst, of the University of Western Australia's extension service, found that, compared with other Western countries, the community attitudes in Western Australia were more severe and that this could contribute, in part, to Western Australia's high imprisonment rate. Of course, we must remember that it is the sentencer, not public opinion, who determines the sentence. However, it may be that the sentencer's attitude reflects that of the wider community. I pay recognition to the work of the Aboriginal Legal Service in this respect. There is no doubt in my mind that the high rate of imprisonment to which I have already referred would be much higher but for its existence. All the lawyers, field workers and support staff who work in that service deserve high praise for their work. I turn now to the issue of youth unemployment. There is concern on both sides of the House at the high level of youth unemployment. The unemployment rate amongst youth, especially those in the 15 to 19 years age group, is higher than for any other age group. According to Windshuttle in 1980, this is not a new phenomenon; only the magnitude of the current rate of unemployment is unprecedented. In 1984 some 23.8 per cent of youth aged 15 to 19 years were recorded as unemployed. The Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs estimates that the real rate of unemployment, including the hidden unemployed, is 33 per cent. The average duration of unemployment among the 15 to 19-year-old group has risen from seven weeks in 1973 to 26.4 weeks in 1984. No honourable member on either side of the House could be satisfied with that state of affairs. According to Benn, today's youth are destined to become the chronically unemployed of the 1990s. It is generally recognised that the most vulnerable group of unemployed are young school leavers. Many youths who experience unemployment, particularly long term unemployment, have great difficulty in developing a work identity. The crucial months following their departure from school can have significant long term consequences in terms of their work and self-identity. Volunteerism and short term unskilled work are unlikely to instil a sense of work identity, as the Opposition naively advocates. It was in response to the problems of youth unemployment in particular that the Government set up the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs. The Kirby report addressed itself to many of the issues relating to youth and adult unemployment and made recommendations as to how the structure of labour market programs can be changed to make them more efficient and effective, considering the need for continuing restraint in the growth of public expenditure. However, it does not address many of the more fundamental issues of the nature of the economy and the market system which determines production according to profit rather than social criteria. The Kirby report recognises this shortcoming and acknowledges it as follows: Even the successful management of the economy is unlikely to redress the unemployment problem. As long as the market remains the arbiter over the conditions of work and living, unemployment will persist. The Kirby report acknowledges that increased youth unemployment is not due to the failings of schools or individuals. However, it appears to assume that by changing the characteristics of individual unemployed youth, unemployment amongst this group will be reduced by increasing their job prospects. Unfortunately, this is in contradiction to experiences over the past decade, which has seen growing unemployment amongst youth in a period when educational levels amongst this group have risen steadily to an estimated 66 per cent. How is it then that a new program of education will reverse this trend? Higher educational participation does not change the number of available jobs and cannot, therefore, reduce the stock of unemployed. Those with higher education simply displace less qualified people in jobs requiring skills below their level of competence. The question as to where new jobs are to come from, the crucial issue the Government must address if it is to reduce unemployment, remains unanswered by the Kirby Committee. The Kirby Committee identifies successful macro-economic management as the answer to this problem, but does not tell us what this is. In fairness to the Committee, this was not its brief. However, it is the issue which must be addressed by the Government and, rightly or wrongly, it is a question that many organisations in the community had hoped the Committee would address. This is a question to which the community will continue to seek an answer. I thank the House for its attention. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(4.26) —I wish to refer to the repeated commitment in the Governor-General's Speech known as the trilogy and its relationship to the rigidities that exist in our national, political and economic activity. The so-called trilogy laudably commits the Government to hold the growth in outlays within the rate of growth of the economy. It contains a commitment not to increase the Commonwealth tax revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product, and says that the deficit will be reduced as a share of GDP as well as in money terms. These are very desirable objectives but, given the rigid nature of Australian Labor Party factions and the entrenched position of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which now exerts an influence over economic policy beyond its representative base, one wonders-and the community is entitled to wonder-whether the Government will be able to meet its commitments and, indeed, whether they go far enough, given the sorry position of Australia, both in terms of its economic performance compared with other trading nations and in terms of the maintenance and improvement of the living standards of its citizens. This Government has been forced for sound economic reasons to make this trilogy commitment because elected representatives from all sides of the political spectrum have not moved from their entrenched position of obtaining votes in the short term at the expense of sound economic practice in the long term. They have all chosen to buy votes rather than sell good government. The result is ever increasing levels of government expenditure funded by increasing levels of taxation and public sector borrowing. As a percentage of GDP, expenditure, taxation and borrowing by the Commonwealth for the periods 1982-83 and 1983-84 are at their highest levels in 30 years. In 1983-84 Federal Government expenditure rose to 30.5 per cent of GDP. Commonwealth taxation took up 24 per cent of GDP. Net borrowings by the Commonwealth Government rose to 3.7 per cent of GDP in the same period. These sorts of levels in government involvement in the economy act as a noose around the neck of non-government economic activity, and, combined with other rigidities in the labour market, in the business sector and in society's attitudes towards the role of government, ensure that this nation is slowly but surely being strangled. If we do not release the noose and free up national incentive so that productive ideas and practices can turn around our declining economic position, and if we do not argue for reductions in the role of the state, then Australia is destined to become the 'White Trash of Asia' or the 'Pacific's Argentina'. The trilogy, while committing the Government to increases within the rate of growth in the economy, nevertheless still allows for increases in the role of government. This conditioning to inbuilt indexation of government activity is unhealthy and is not in the interests of achieving a smaller role for government and a greater role for the individual. Community leaders and elected representatives have a responsibility to create an environment and a climate of opinion whereby Australians positively support the proposition that government expenditure should be cut in both money and real terms. It is quite clear that governments are not the creators of wealth and can only give away taxpayers' hard-earned funds, generated in the private sector through the efforts of individuals and corporations. It has become unpopular at all levels of government in Australia to resist the catch-cry that the government should fix it. This inevitably means spending or regulating. As President Reagan said in his budget message: At some point, the collective demands on the public treasury of all special interests combined, exceed the public's ability and willingness to pay. The single most difficult word for a politician to utter is a simple flat 'no'. The American President has made commendable efforts to reduce the American deficit of $US222 billion to $US180 billion. Meanwhile, the Hawke Labor Government has shown its irresponsible attitude towards Budget deficits during its period of office by increasing the cumulative debt of this nation to approximately $20 billion, when with a surge in revenue resulting from the breaking of the drought, the wages pause and increased business profitability it had a glorious opportunity to reduce Australia's deficit. I now turn to the rigidities in the labour market and industrial relations system which have resulted in a cost structure putting Australian industry at a trading disadvantage compared with our overseas partners. It has led to a situation where the majority of our export potential comes from unprocessed or semi-processed resources from the mining and agricultural sectors. This rigidity has cost our citizens, especially our young people, dearly in terms of jobs. The report of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs cites the consequences of excessive wage rates and rigid relativities. Some 2.4 per cent of the work force was unemployed in 1970, whereas 8.6 per cent was unemployed in 1984. A wider definition encompassing the 'hidden unemployed' would show that 12.6 per cent was unemployed in 1977 but 18.6 per cent in 1983. But while the extent of unemployment has worsened, the severity of the duration has also worsened. In 1970 the average duration of unemployment for an unemployed person was 7.3 weeks and the number of people unemployed for more than six months was 6.5 per cent of the total unemployed. By 1984, the average duration had risen to 45.5 weeks and the number of unemployed for more than six months was more than 50 per cent of the total number of unemployed. Consequently, in 1970 0.1 per cent of the working age population was receiving unemployment benefits. By 1984 this figure had risen to 5 per cent. As a result, unemployment and sickness benefits made up 2.5 per cent of the social security budget in 1959-60, whereas by 1984-85 the percentage in the Federal Budget had risen to 19.3. This cost in both social and budgetary terms is significant. The loss of self-esteem to the unemployed themselves, combined with the loss to the nation of their skills, provides a major human and financial problem for policy makers in the next decade. Warwick Bracken in the Canberra Times on 5 February 1985 argued: Unemployment figures are a direct result of the failure of the wage fixation system. Australia's unemployment is too high because wages are too high and Australia's youth unemployment is two to three times the average unemployment rate because youth wages are too high relative to adult wage rates. He went on: Most economists agree that a decline in real wages relative to productivity is necessary for employment to grow and unemployment to fall. One of the Government's own advisers, Mr Alan Brackart, Director of the Office of Youth Affairs, has said: We do not need to know to what extent relative wage levels causes youth unemployment to conclude that a substantial reduction in youth wages would reduce youth unemployment. No amount of expensive make work programs, which provide menial work for short periods for the chronically unemployed, will cover up the victims of Australia's out-of-date, rigid and inflexible wage-fixing and arbitration system. Unless we move to a more decentralised industrial system, without arbitration commissions and where governments have no role, except in negotiating employment contracts with their own employees, and these wage and condition contracts should not be allowed to exceed comparable contracts in the non-government sector; we will continue to export less, shed jobs and burden the few in work with higher levels of taxes and charges to recompense the victims of our inflexible system and misguided policies. One has only to look at those countries where the philosophy of unionism is to assist in job creation and where market forces determine contracts between employer and employees and where wage indexation has been abandoned, to see the results in terms of jobs and productivity. Marvin Kosters, from the American Enterprise Institute, had this to say: The radical decline in the US inflation rate and the rapid generation of new jobs in the United States economy has been much facilitated by America's labourers willingness to make concessions. In 1983 when some five million jobs were created in the United States, wage reductions accepted were higher than in 1982, when the United States economy was in recession. A third of the workers covered by new contracts in manufacturing experienced actual reductions in pay. To quote the Institute of Public Affairs: In the first six months of 1984 with US unemployment down 30 per cent from its recession peak, wage increases negotiated by unions only represent an average annual wage rise of 2.8 per cent, hardly the inflation rate, which is in the 3 to 4 per cent range. Given that productivity has been rising 5 to 6 per cent, American business is enjoying a profits bonanza, which is paying off for the US economy in improvements of corporate balance sheets and a surge in new investment in plant and equipment and record levels of new business formation. That is what has been happening in America where a flexible labour market gets the results with new jobs, reduced unemployment, profit and job creation and, what is more, the system receives overwhelming public support. Meanwhile, we slide backwards. It can be further argued that wage indexation systems which lock a country into a rigid structure of absolute real wage and relative wage rates, irrespective of general economic conditions and irrespective or which industries are expanding or contracting, are, to say the least, inflexible and indeed counter-productive to the individual and general good. There is evidence to suggest that the countries which have the most flexible labour markets have done relatively well with respect to employment growth. Mr Emile van Lennep, the Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, when commenting on this matter in November 1983, pointed to the contrast between North America and Europe, both with roughly similar investment trends, but differing degrees of labour market flexibility. He said: During the past decade, employment growth in North America was more than 10 times as great as Europe. He went on: Even when aggregate investment was not particularly high, greater labour mobility, more flexible real and relative wages, and perhaps other factors related to the freedom for entrepreneurial initiative in small or new enterprises, led to the rapid creation of new jobs. In Japan, because of the capacity of the service sector to absorb or shed workers and the wage flexibility provided to larger enterprises by the bonus system, the degree of flexibility has been roughly similar. The OECD economic outlook in July 1983 showed, on a scale of real wage rigidity and productivity, that the performance of Japan was far ahead of Europe and slightly ahead of the United States, in terms of high productivity performance and low levels of wage rigidity. With regard to wage indexation, the OECD economic outlook of December 1983 suggests: It is because of the harmful effect of full wage indexation on employment and output that it has been abandoned in Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, France and Switzerland. Meanwhile, we pursue a course to our disadvantage with that unelected partner to the Government benches, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which consistently argues for full indexation with no regard to the cost of new jobs, let alone existing jobs, to say nothing of our competitive position against imports, domestically, or exports abroad. I urge the Government to continue with a deregulated approach to our wage fixing and arbitration system, just as it has done in the financial arena. The Government has continued on from the Fraser Government, in introducing changes to the financial markets as recommended by the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. I congratulate the Treasurer (Mr Keating) for implementing these important deregulatory changes and granting licences to overseas banks. Such changes can only result in a more market orientated approach and a competitive atmosphere in the investment and money market. So I urge the Government to be consistent in its approach to deregulation, and to dismantle the rigidities that exist in its approach to the pattern of government expenditure and to labour market operations. There is another area of rigidity which is working to the nation's disadvantage and that is our rigid approach to industrial change. In the Bulletin of February 1985, John Edwards noted: 'The three committees of inquiry since 1965 have pointed out that Australia's rate of growth since World War 2 has lapsed behind those of comparable countries. Australia exported a smaller share of its national output than did most countries of its size and wealth and imported correspondingly less. Other countries had achieved a faster rate of growth by specialising more in what they did well; Australia had specialised up to a point and then developed a manufacturing industry which could only survive behind some of the world's highest tariff and quota barriers. Professor Max Cordin of the Australian National University, has said: Australia developed a policy which discriminated against exports as well as imports. But, as most reports have established, protection against imports has not protected jobs in manufacturing. The Bulletin article went on to say that even though the average level of protection in the Australian economy has declined from 35 per cent to 26 per cent in the past decade, and while only four of the twelve major manufacturing industries have greater than the average protection of 26 per cent, two groups-cars and textiles, clothing and footwear-account for 40 per cent of the consumer cost of protection in Australia'. The article stated that political pressure has been such that even though these 'most highly protected industries employ only 3 per cent of the work force-their protection has increased mightily, but employment has fallen'. According to Tom Hogg, Director of the Australian Manufacturing Council Secretariat: Those industries which grew most rapidly over the period, generally had above average capital intensity with above average labour productivity, or a high degree of natural protection or export capability. Those which grew very slowly were labour-intensive, or with markets confined to the slowly expanding economy. There is another rather insidious side to the tariff question. Tariffs have become very convenient revenue raisers for government, with little or no political cost or outcry. Budget statements show that Customs duty on imports accounted for $841m in 1974-75 but $2,329m in 1983-84. So import duty now contributes 4.8 per cent to total receipts. The estimate for 1984-85 is $2,720m, an increase of 16.8 per cent from 1983-84. So one could be forgiven for wondering whether governments might not have a vested interest in maintaining tariff barriers, especially of the revenue raising variety. The problem we face is: If protection should be reduced, at what pace should we dismantle the tariff barriers? There is also the question of what form the assistance should take. Should governments have to justify their political decision to assist a national industry against unfair, or even fair competition, from imports? Should they have to do it by way of direct subsidy to the particular industry, thereby forgoing revenue and incurring Budget expenditure, or should they be allowed to hide behind import duty or an inequitable quota system and cause the consumer to bear the cost and pay the price for a decision made on political grounds? These are the questions that need to be addressed, and we should address them with an open mind, putting aside our vested interests, but with the long term good of the nation as the criterion. In conclusion, if rigid ideas, practices and structures are not attacked, not only will the trilogy be a farce, but future growth and prosperity will be only a pipe-dream, and we could well be asking Singapore and Japan for overseas aid. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(4.44) —In this Address-in-Reply debate I would like to address myself to some of the points alluded to by His Excellency the Governor-General in his most gracious Speech at the opening of the Thirty-fourth Parliament. Before doing so, I welcome new members to this House and say to them that if they have come here bringing the prevailing prejudices of their electorates they will be in good company. If they have come here hoping to influence the course of events and to bring new ideas, I say to them: 'You have a hard road to hoe, and you have my sympathy'. I want to turn my attention to the reindustrialisation of Australia. Our capacity in this regard has been raped over the last 30 years of events presided over by Liberal governments. I am confident that we can make anything in Australia but we should resist that temptation. We should concentrate on the manufacture of those things we do well. Nothing happens in isolation. Military purchasing is a vital cog in the wheels of reindustrialisation. In the past this has been almost totally ignored by the military, and its performance in this area has been extremely bad. In the inevitable cycle of fashion there are some new centurions who would take us down the Argentinian road. Just as the military junta of the Argentine met its Waterloo in the Falkland Islands, so will we meet our Waterloo if we allow them to take us down that road. The impending submarine purchase by this Government will be the biggest item of capital procurement undertaken for some time. Already I am confident that it has the hallmarks of another FA18 exercise, the demonstrable incompetence of which will weigh heavily on the wrong side of the ledger for many years to come. Last week Senator MacGibbon was quoted as saying that Australian Labor Party factions were responsible for holding up the submarine decision. This is simply not true, although my faction has taken a very keen interest in the submarine project definition study, and it continues to do so. Mr Hawker —Which faction? Mr CAMPBELL —My faction represents some of the most sensible and forward-looking ideas in the Parliament. It is a very small faction and at present I am the only member. I disagree entirely with Senator MacGibbon. I feel it is the responsibility of people such as me to take an interest in these matters, particularly when one is presented with the military's record. But we need have no fear for I am becoming painfully aware that as a back bencher I can have no impact in this area and the Ministry will go on endorsing the military as it did under the previous Government. I am aware that the choice of contenders for the project definition study has been decided by the submarine study group and their names will be forwarded to Cabinet, where, in the normal course of events, they will undoubtedly be endorsed. This was no doubt the reason for the outrageous article in the Australian Financial Review of last Friday under the byline of Peter Robinson. This has all the hallmarks of an official leak from the Navy and I am confident that I could put names to that source. I prophesy now that the two contenders chosen for the PDS will be HDW-IKL, one of the German contenders, and Kockumus, a Swedish contender. The reason for this article was no doubt to make it easier for the Navy to justify its choice. I might say that it would not in the least surprise me if the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) was a party to this action. It seems to be fashionable in Australia today to bash the Poms. Anglophobia is rampant in the armed forces, with the exception of this Army, and I suspect that it springs from some macho desire of the military to assert its independence. It conveniently overlooks the fact that it has been many years since the British exercised any real influence. Our areas or subservience today lie elsewhere. The article in the Australian Financial Review blames the British for just about everything since Jesus wore short pants. For instance, Mr Robinson blames the British for the IBM and Japanese Facom fiasco. He blames the British for the calling of revalidation of tenders which gave rise to a six-month delay. The truth is, of course, that the Minister, of his own volition, called for its revalidation because he was understandably far from happy with things as they were. Mr Robinson talks about the commercial blundering and incompetence of many British firms. He is quite right. For instance, Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd would have been far better served had it duchessed selected journalists as the other contenders did, or had it inundated us with glossy brochures as their competitors did, most of which had absolutely nothing to do with submarines. Vickers merely addressed itself to the submarine project and what it could do for Australian industry. Vickers's original submission was pathetic but, because of a palace coup, Vickers lifted its game enormously and set out to win the contract. The Navy's only concern should be to get the very best deal for Australia. The Navy should forget its emotional arguments and concern itself only with technical competence, and in this area the British are good. For whatever motives, the Navy wants the HD10 submarine. As early as last June I thought this was apparent. However, asking us to accept two paper boats is an act of extreme irresponsibility. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Royal Australian Navy specified in its request for tender that it sent out to all contestants that it be a design or a derivative of a proven in-service design of demonstrable performance and reliability and that it constitute a low technical risk for the Commonwealth. It further spelt out that the submarine to be selected should preferably have been built and introduced into service or there should be good evidence of a sponsoring government intending that it should enter service before 1986 so that it could be assessed from trial results before a submarine contract was entered into that the technical products risks were low. The minimum requirement should be that the design be a derivative of a proven in-service design of demonstrable performance and reliability. Further, any modification to the submarine platform and combat system to meet the RAN's unique requirements must be possible at low risk and within an acceptable cost. The Navy's response has been to choose two submarines, neither of which will ever be in service in their host countries, and the performance of which cannot be verified before Australia proceeds to its own decision. During our Committee's deliberations I was amused when the spokesman for the Swedish contender told us how he had served in the Royal Navy in Oberons and, with an expansive wave of his hand, virtually dismissed the entire expertise of the Royal Navy, conveniently overlooking, of course, that the British had built nine new classes of submarine since its highly successful Oberon. HDW, in the paper presented to us, went to great pains to explain how it is the best. It chose to denigrate the technologies embodied in nuclear submarines with all the gall of a commercial Cassius Clay and expected us to accept its chest-thumping as fact. I should like now to quote from the highly respected magazine Sea Power, the official publication of the Navy League of the United States of America, which quotes Secretary of the Navy, John F. Lehman Jr, as saying: The HDW design was found to have some attractive features but does not meet the current American standards relating to submarine silencing, safety, maintainability and manning. In order for a German design submarine to be sufficiently upgraded to be acceptable for United States submarine operation, it would be necessary for the Government of the United States to convey an extraordinary amount of engineering development and design technology to the Germans. The transfer of this information would eliminate the exclusive United States control of the advance submarine silencing technology that currently provides much of the advantage that United States submarines have over those of other nations. HDW's reply to this was simply a note in its submission saying that a paragraph of an article which appeared in US Sea Power, Volume 10 of 1982 at page 69, is completely without foundation. It does not make it clear whether it is saying that Secretary of the Navy John F. Lehman never said those things or whether the Secretary of the Navy did not know what he was talking about. In any case, it did not refute the even more damning references on page 71 of the same publication. It also attributed the poor showing of the Argentinian submarines in the Falklands contest to the inexperience and lack of training of the Argentinian crews. One might well ask why the Argentinians had decided to get Thyssen, the other German company, to build their new submarines. I might say that the article in Sea Power magazine was based on a United States House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services, Sea Power and Strategic and Critical Material Sub-committee of 11 March 1982. Admiral Thunman appeared before the Committee and compared the theoretical noise levels of the HDW 2000, although it must be remembered that this ship has not yet been built, with the known noise levels of the American SSN 688 class nuclear submarine. Although for obvious security reasons the figures have been deleted, it is equally obvious from the text of the article that the HDW 2000 did not compare favourably. It is also interesting to note that in the same hearing, the price of the HDW 2000 to the American Government was quoted as $200m in 1982 dollars. It is now being offered to us some three years later for $150m. I suggest to honourable members of this Parliament that there has to be a credibility gap in that difference. Incidentally, this paper is freely available from the United States Information Service, which provides an excellent facility for people prepared to undertake the necessary research. In the Bulletin of March this year, a well-known Australian defence reporter, John Stackhouse, said that the best the submarine technologies in the free world are held by the British and the Americans, usually in a shared pool. He also said: Rightly or wrongly, the Western Alliance of which Australia is part regards Sweden as insecure. There is evidence that the Russians have penetrated the Swedish defence system. If we enter into an intimate partnership with the Swedes on a submarine project, we will find advanced Western technologies withheld from us by the Americans and the British, who lead the world in such fields as stealth for submarines. Furthermore, there is an element of technology risk as the Swedes have built only small boats suitable for Baltic use. We need a submarine of double the size to provide range and advance weapon systems capability. He made many more salient points in that article, which I also commend to honourable members. However, I think that last quote is the nub of the matter, for what the Navy has done to us in its desire to see that it gets the submarine of its heart's desire is to team the Swedish boat with the German boat in the project definition study. The Swedish boat will inevitably sink from sight, wrecked on the very rocks that Mr Stackhouse has outlined. This will, of course, leave only one contender in the field. I feel a sense of frustration and outrage that we are once more being placed in double jeopardy at the behest of the Navy. Mr Adam Butler, the British Minister of Defence Supply, during his recent visit to Australia, gave an assurance that should the Vickers type R2400 be chosen, the Royal Navy wold modify all its subsequent purchases to provide greater commonality with the Australian ships. This would ensure that, should any problems arise, they would have to be fixed by the Royal Navy. It also opens the door for Australian industry participation in the supply of some components for their construction. HDW of course has also offered this. The difference is that there is no German order for the HDW 2000 and there is unlikely to be one. The choice of the Vickers submarine, teamed with the German submarine on the project definition study, would ensure that we had the benefit of the vast $1.5 billion annually that Britain spends on research and development in the defence area, a large part of which is spent directly on submarines. The other option provides a very good chance of a scenario where Australia, will pay for the research and development of the other country's submarines, so that the companies can in turn on-sell them to other countries. If the Navy is so confident that it has made the right choice with the HDW submarine, let it be pitted against Vickers in a project definition study. Let us see how it shapes up against the verifiable figures that we will be able to obtain from Britain before production commences. In terms of Australian industry, the British will have already gone down the learning curve as its first submarine will be sailing before we commence production. While all the contenders said that, yes, they would build all six submarines in Australia, the British were the only group which said that it preferred to build them all in this country. I put to honourable members that there were two reasons for reluctance on the part of the others. Firstly, they have little work for their own shipyards and, secondly, they are not confident enough of their design and would seek to have construction of the first model in their own yards so that they can do preliminary de-bugging before they move to this country. Members of the Industry Committee will be meeting this week with members of the submarine project team. They will no doubt attempt to convince us that they have made the right choice. They may find us marginally harder than Senator MacGibbon, although I do not doubt for one minute their expertise in the art of snowing. I note from the article in the Australian Financial Review that that process is already under way. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(4.58) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I inform you and the House that during the last few months I have been on a search for the trilogy. I had heard of this trilogy and I went looking for it. I had to try to identify it, define it and see exactly what it was. It has taken me months to track the trilogy down. I think I have it, but I am not certain because it depends on who one talks to and what journals one reads as to whether one really thinks one has one's hands on the trilogy. It was a fascinating search and study because the only definition of the trilogy I could find was when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) spoke at the National Press Club. In his policy speech to the electorate prior to the 1 December election last year, the Prime Minister did not mention the trilogy as such, but the trilogy came up at at the National Press Club as the major effort to convince Australians that the Labor Party should be voted back. This is what the Prime Minister said at the National Press Club when he launched the trilogy: In our next three year term of Government- the overall level of taxation will not increase as a proportion of the gross domestic product; the deficit will not increase as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product; Government spending increases will be restrained below the rate of economic growth. That, in fact, is the trilogy. I found the trilogy but I could not understand what it meant. That was my dilemma, so I went in search of interpreters. I have acknowledgment from my friends opposite that they do not know what it is either. It depends to whom one talks as to what the trilogy is. The first thing that caught my eye was the factor of the deficit. I had to find out about the deficit, so I went looking and I found all sorts of estimates on it. The most modest estimate came from the permanent building societies of Australia. They said they reckoned the deficit was about $90 billion this year. That is a lot of money. It represents $13,500 for each employed person in Australia. That is the amount that everybody is in hock. That is the size of the debt that individuals have to pay back. That is all tied in with the trilogy. There is an interest rate factor as well, of course, and the interest rate liability for individuals and employees around Australia is about $800 per person per year. That is $16 per week down the drain. Nobody sees it. It goes straight in with our tax to pay the nation's debt. We still have to pay off the principal somewhere along the track. I presume that is the Government's intention, and I presume that is part of the trilogy. Mr Rocher —We have to go into surplus first. Mr CADMAN —We have to go into surplus, yes. We then have to find extra money to pay back that $90 billion. My honourable friend is right. I went further in my examination of the deficit question and found that, despite public sector borrowing requirements last year, the deficit, the public sector debt, was about 8 per cent of gross domestic product. That is treble what it was three years ago. That is not a bad effort. This Government, in a couple of years, has been able to treble the size of the public sector deficit. It is evident that there has been pressure in financial markets or funds to make sure that we pay for this deficit. The same thing has happened in the United States of America to a fair extent. I found the definition of the trilogy and I found that it contained a really big deficit. The deficit was an important factor in the trilogy. I wanted to know a bit more about what Australians actually owed and what their debt was. I found that one can look at an internal debt or an external debt. I looked at the net external debt because I felt that it would give me an idea of where Australia stood in the world. The net external debt as a proportion of our gross domestic product, which seems to be the term to which everything is related in the trilogy, was about 11 per cent in 1970. In June 1975 it was about 3.5 per cent and in 1980 it was 6 per cent. In June 1984 the net external debt had grown to about 16 per cent of our gross domestic product. Wow! I was starting to get worried about trilogies by that stage. I know that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), who is at the table, has a great interest in housing and in balancing the population of Australia. When he finished his job as Minister for Housing and Construction he would have been really concerned to have new Australians coming into this country and finding that they had to pay off $16 a week as soon as they hit our shores, with a massive principal debt to repay after that. On top of that, those people would know that the factors contained in the public debt had risen three times in the last few years and that the estimated net external debt on the country was about 16 per cent. That is a matter about which people in Australia should be very concerned, particularly those people coming to Australia. I then tried to find out what the Prime Minister was saying about the trilogy. I was fascinated when I read the speech he made to the Australian people prior to the election and then followed it up by reading his address to the Press Club. Again I quote an extract from the Prime Minister's trilogy of promises on 5 December: And I repeat the commitment I have made on behalf of the Labor Government of Australia: In our next three year term of government- the overall level of taxation will not increase as a proportion of gross domestic product; the deficit will not increase as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product; Government spending increases will be restrained below the rate of economic growth. And when I say that no previous Prime Minister, no previous Australian Government, has given so clear a forward commitment, it is because no previous Government has been able to establish the conditions which make such a commitment achievable. I wondered about that and I found that Mr Hawke went on to say that Cabinet had considered all of this and that it would give him the right, in September, to go out- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will refer to the Prime Minister, not Mr Hawke. Mr CADMAN —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will certainly follow the forms of the House. Mr O'Keefe —It is about the only thing you will follow. Mr CADMAN —If the honourable member cannot follow the trifecta he is with me. Neither he nor his colleagues on that side of the House are following it. The Prime Minister does not even know what the trilogy is. It has almost become a trifecta. It is not a trilogy any longer. The Prime Minister said that he had gone to Cabinet and had obtained Cabinet approval. I found, in fact, that a leaked Cabinet document that surfaced on 5 December indicated that the whole matter did not go to Cabinet at all. The Prime Minister was running his trilogy around Australia, at the National Press Club and in other places, saying that no other Prime Minister had been able to make such commitments. That is absolutely right, because other Prime Ministers had discussed the matter with their Cabinets so that there would be a total government commitment. The trilogy seems to be the personal commitment of Mr Hawke, who happens to be the Prime Minister, and it is one that really does need close examination. Then I found that Mr Keating and Mr Hawke seemed to have a different understanding of what the trilogy was. Mr Hawke said- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member for Mitchell please address members of the House by their correct titles? They are the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. Mr CADMAN —I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Treasurer was saying that he felt that perhaps over a three-year period the trilogy would come into place, but the Prime Minister was saying that in each of the three years the trilogy would work. On the one hand, the Prime Minister was saying: 'We will be able to do all these good things-making sure the deficit does not get too large, that the tax take is not too much, and that government claims on revenue are not too much; in each of the three years we will be able to do this trilogy business'. On the other hand, the Treasurer said, and I quote from the Australian Financial Review of 27 February 1985: . . . the Treasurer, Mr Keating, issued a statement in which he qualified the trilogy saying: ''In 1985-86, the deficit will be further reduced, not only as a share of GDP but also in money terms. In the subsequent two years, the deficit will not be increased as a share of GDP.'' That is quite different from what the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, was saying. In Business Review Weekly of 24 November 1984 he is reported as saying: There's no doubt the absolute size of the deficit will be reduced, I would think each year, certainly in the first financial year of the next Government, 1985-86. So there we have the Treasurer on one hand saying 'I do not know whether we can do it this year, but perhaps in a couple of years time we might be right', and the Prime Minister saying: 'We are certainly going to do it in the first year and I reckon we will do it every year after that'. The trilogy was getting quite difficult by that stage. The statements the Prime Minister made at the National Press Club about what the trilogy is and how he intends to stick to it are fascinating. I needed to go to a person called Mr Ross Gittins of the Sydney Morning Herald. I wanted his opinion because these learned writers know the Government and members of the Government well. They talk to members of the Government all the time. I thought that Mr Gittins may have been able to work out what the trilogy meant. I notice that sometimes Mr Gittins tends to write in favour of the Government and sometimes not. Mr Gittins also had the problem I had in respect of the trilogy. His figures indicate-I checked his figures and I know they are right-that if the gross domestic product rose by 4 per cent Government revenue could grow by roughly 3 per cent in real terms. That means that one needs a fairly big growth in the Australian economy and output to be able to get a moderate increase in Government expenditure and do all the things the Government would like to do for the poor citizens of Australia. I do not use 'poor' as an economic description but I mean the suffering that people must endure under this Government. The Treasurer needs that growth in order to get extra things for Australia and to do all the good things that he wants to do. Growth of around 3 per cent in real terms in government revenue and government expenditure is dependent on a 4 per cent increase in GDP. The only trouble was that a group called the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development came along, gave the Australian economy a bit of a quick once over and said: 'There is no way that the Australian economy is going to grow by about 4 per cent. We reckon it is going to grow about 2 1/4 per cent. That is the best we can put on it'. The Treasurer's claim that there is going to be massive growth will not be realised. Of course, the Treasurer flew into a rage and wrote letters to the OECD saying that it did not know what is was talking about. He went to the Australian Press and said: 'All the figures are wrong, this distinguished international group of economists do not know what they are talking about and in fact the growth is going to be much greater than 2 1/4 per cent'. He said that the OECD was wrong. Mr Braithwaite —Did he give his medal back? Mr CADMAN —I do not know whether he did or not. However, I know that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) must have taken some notice of the OECD because he is now out to establish the extent of Budget growth. The Expenditure Review Committee of the Government, which does these sorts of cost-cutting exercises, started off with a target of about 3.9 per cent real growth in Budget revenue for the next year. But Senator Walsh is now saying that that is a bit too much. He says he has got to cut that by about half. So the Minister for Finance is out cutting everybody's budgets all around the place. That makes me think that the Treasurer has come to the realisation that there is not going to be a 4 per cent growth in Australia's GDP this year. Mr Rocher —The OECD is right. Mr CADMAN —It appears that the OECD is right, the Treasurer has finally accepted that it is right and the Government is going to base its Budget on a much smaller growth figure than we originally thought would be the case. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) assured us all through the election campaign that we were growing. He said that there was great growth and that Australians needed only to put their confidence in him and we would have more growth. It appears that that was wrong, that the Treasurer has a different understanding than the Prime Minister about what the trilogy is, that the anticipated level of growth will not be achieved and that the Budget will have to be really modified and harsh decisions made if the trilogy is to be adhered to. The problem with adhering to the trilogy concept is that there are other promises and other bids out around the place. For instance, we have been told that there are going to be tax cuts and tax restructuring. I know that the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher), who has farmers in his electorate, and my friend the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), who has good business people and workers in his electorate, really want to see the Government succeed. However, the trouble is that the Government has a funny understanding of what this trilogy is. If one looks at the figures one will see that the result really depends on how much effort Australia puts in this year-on how good we will be this year. The fact is that wages are going up about twice as fast as the cost of living. That is a real problem. We are having trouble with the size of the gross domestic product because it is not turning out as the Treasurer hoped it would or as the Prime Minister said it would. Therefore, the trilogy looks to me to be a very tenuous sort of thing. Mr Ross Gittins of the Sydney Morning Herald, to whom I referred earlier, is pretty perceptive because in November he saw some of the problems and said: This is why, when we turn to the likelihood of Mr Hawke being able to keep the trilogy in the two years after 1985-86, it all becomes much more doubtful. I think that would be a very gross understatement of the difficulty the Government is going to find itself in if it endeavours to abide by the promise of the trilogy because both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer appear to be willing to sacrifice any principle to be able to claim that the trilogy is in place. In my mind or the minds of most economists and newspaper commentators they have not been able to establish that the trilogy is sound and that it will stick. There are real problems with it because the gross domestic product of this nation will not live up to the predictions that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister placed on it. The size of the deficit is going to be vastly greater than they contemplated. A lax control of money supply is not doing anything to contribute to the situation. Australia's competitive capacity is complicated by things such as serious strikes and stoppages which interfere with our export earning capacity on world markets. The export of coal is just one issue. However, every major commodity item is affected by these interferences. Even the Premier of New South Wales is prepared to acknowledge this. He cannot be going to hold an election in the next few years, otherwise he would not. All Australians are starting to acknowledge that the predictions for the next few years for our nation are not as good as the ones presented by the present Prime Minister prior to the last election. It is a sad day when the Prime Minister has to fly in the face of public opinion and all advice to maintain a charade of the trilogy which cannot be maintained. I am sorry to say that he will go down regretting the day when he thought that the Australian people could wear a catchcry of 'let's have a trilogy'-it sound nice-'instead of sound common sense, instead of good economic management and instead of sound policies'. Catchcries which sound nice but are superficial cannot be substantiated by what this Government is doing. In my view it would be far more reasonable and sounder if the Prime Minister, instead of talking about gross domestic product, had talked about gross national product and taken the deficit into account in all of his calculations. Australians will face this problem for many years. They will be paying into the 1990s for the deficit management of this Government. They will be paying for the accord and for the Government's failure to take hard decisions. They will be paying for a catchcry which is a substitute for hard decisions and good policies. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(5.19) —The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) spoke about the trilogy. The honourable member should be reminded that he was part of a government that really made economic vandalism its hallmark. The trinity-not the trilogy-during the days when the honourable member was a member of that Government consisted of big Mal, little Johnny and the tax dodgers. I think that what members of the Opposition should understand is that one of the reasons they had some difficulty with respect to economic management-- Mr Braithwaite —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I believe that the references just made by the honourable member are contrary to the ruling that you just gave. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Certainly. The honourable member for Stirling should not refer to the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party as little Johnny. I ask him to withdraw that remark and substitute the correct title. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Yes, the former Prime Minister, the former Treasurer and the tax dodgers who seem to have an unholy alliance as a trinity. One of the reasons the previous Government's economic policy fell so much into disrepute was the combination of the agrarian socialists of the National Party of Australia, who always argue that one should spend more, and the so-called economic dries of the Liberal Party, who always argue that one should spend less. The difficulty faced on the other side is that there are some who always want to spend more. The National Party, in its desire to look after its electorates sensibly, argues that each of its electorates should be pork barrelled. Meanwhile, the economic rationalists of the Liberal Party seek to spend less. So honourable members opposite got into a great deal of difficulty. That difficulty was evidenced by the record levels of unemployment, inflation and industrial disputes. Of that there can be no doubt. I say to the honourable member for Mitchell, who has recently departed from the chamber, that it is important to understand that the previous Government's economic record was not altogether substantial. In speaking to the Governor-General's Address-in-Reply, there are some matters that I think it is important to raise. The first is an important initiative of the Government. Last week the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) announced that the Special Broadcasting Service multicultural television is now to be spread to Perth, Hobart and Darwin. That is very good news for the ethnic communities in those cities and it certainly represents an important improvement in the lives of members of those communities. Today the Minister tabled in the House the report of the Connor Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service, which inquired into the role of multicultural broadcasting in Australia. I am very pleased to see that one of the recommendations of the Connor Committee is with respect to the time sharing of facilities. Paragraph 2.26 of the synopsis of the Connor Committee states: . . . we have supported their access-- the access of public television- on the agreed basis, to some Channel 0/28 airtime, and we have recommended that public television organisations be used by multicultural television as one source of local input into programming. I suggest that the development of Channel 0-28 services in Perth offers a very good opportunity for the ethnic communities in my electorate, particularly the Italian, Macedonian, Yugoslav and Greek communities as well as the Burmese and Chinese. They will not only have access to a facility that is currently operating in Melbourne and Sydney but hopefully also see that public television will be engaged in some time sharing and will add to the output of Channel 0-28 in Perth. That is one area in which I am very pleased to see the Government moving and extending its broadcasting operations and offerings for the community. Another issue of concern is the issue of the first home owners scheme and its future in the context of the current Cabinet expenditure review. I know there is concern in the community, particularly among those associated with housing, that the first home owners scheme should continue. This is an area of great success for this Government, in marked contrast to the previous Government. We have seen a very substantial improvement in that we are looking at commencement rates of about 135,000 in the first year of operation of the first home owners scheme, compared with 106,000 under the previous Government, which was a 20-year low for housing commencements. The first home owners scheme has been a linchpin. I know that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), who is at the table, is very involved in housing and is keen to see housing flourish. I believe that it is very important that we as a Government continue the first home owners scheme under the current arrangements. I was very concerned last week to see a Press release dated 21 March from the Real Estate Institute of Australia under the name of Kevin Sullivan, President of the Institute, but attributed to the Institute's media contact, Mr Ged Lawrence, which talked about government expenditure being an obscenity. My concern is that the Real Estate Institute itself has benefited substantially from the first home owners scheme in terms of improved turnover and the number of sales throughout Australia. In its Press release it did not pay attention to the fact that sometimes government expenditure results in a net gain to the community in terms of incomes generated, tax taken from those incomes, the level of employment that has been generated and the activity of business. I suggest to the Real Estate Institute that it should look very carefully before it makes blanket statements criticising government expenditure. I think it is understood on this side of the chamber that government expenditure can at times be wasteful. In terms of the cost effectiveness of government expenditure, the first home owners scheme is very successful. I believe that comments like those from the Real Estate Institute do not help the debate when one is trying to argue in the context of government expenditure that the first home owners scheme should be maintained at an effective level. The third issue to which I refer is the community employment program, which has been another area of success for this Government. We have had some teething problems with the community employment program in my electorate of Stirling. The local government authority, the City of Stirling, has played a less than active role in relation to community employment from May 1984. I am pleased to note that as of two weeks ago it intends to get involved in supporting community employment at a substantial level. I welcome that because in the electorate of Stirling, in the areas covered by the three offices of Mirrabooka, Innaloo and Mount Hawthorn, there is an unemployment rate in excess of 7 per cent of the employed throughout Western Australia. Unfortunately, the level of CEP funding in Stirling is about 4 per cent of the total CEP funding, so we are below quota. What I urge upon the City of Stirling, the major local government authority in the electorate of Stirling, I also urge upon the regional advisory committee for the CEP. I urge both of those bodies to provide substantial support for the CEP. I believe that we can do much for young people in particular with the CEP. In talking about young people, I wish to address as the fourth issue youth unemployment. The Government has committed itself in a major way to dealing with youth unemployment. We have the report of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs and the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on youth unemployment and attitudes towards labour market programs. The emphasis of the Government is on training. We have reduced the level of unemployment amongst young people fairly substantially in the time we have been in government, from about 26 per cent to 22 per cent. So we have improved the position of unemployed young people, but obviously it is not satisfactory in government to talk about unemployment at that level. We are seeking to do something about improving the access of young people to jobs. There are a number of approaches to take-an educational role, an employment role, an income support role and a labour market program role. We see all of those roles as being a part of an approach to youth unemployment. However, I think the Opposition has made some points that do not really add to the debate. The Opposition, through its spokesperson on youth-or, perhaps, in the light of what I am about to say, I should say the spokesperson on youth exploitation-has been talking about deregulating youth wages. That is a very unfortunate approach because there is an emphasis on cutting wages for young people but very little emphasis on training. We, for our part, put much of our emphasis upon the idea of training and getting young people more mobile in the work place. It is important to emphasise that the Opposition seems to be very much preoccupied with getting the market mechanism to work totally with respect to youth wages, to so deregulate youth wages and to so cut youth wages that young people themselves are put in the position of having to face increased market pressure in order to obtain jobs. The only outcome would be a reshuffling of unemployment. The Kirby report talks about that. If we cut youth wages all we do is put mature age workers out of work in exchange for youth. That philosophy also carries with it an assumption-it is explicitly stated by the Opposition and the Opposition spokesperson on youth matters-that it should be possible for young people to bargain with employers in the context of settling youth wages. That is a very naive position because it assumes that a 16- or 17-year-old is going to be in a position to go to an employer and bargain about what should be deemed to be a living wage or a reasonable wage. Anyone who understands anything about the mechanisms of the labour market will understand that already there is exploitation of people in the market-place for labour. Otherwise why does the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, through its award inspectorate branch, have to spend so much time chasing up underpayments and award breaches? There is an enormous number of underpayments and award breaches. I add that some of the worst areas of exploitation happen to be in relation to women and particularly migrant women. The other areas of potential exploitation relate to young people. What disturbs me greatly is that the Opposition is sanctioning that. The Opposition is saying: 'Let us deregulate youth wages; let's open up the system'. So not only are we leaving the situation where exploitation can occur but also, by a structural change, we in fact may be encouraging youth exploitation. What we are really looking at is a situation which is unacceptable. I suppose we are really talking about a cut price youth supermarket. It is interesting that we use the term supermarket because if we focus upon two areas of youth employment-fast food outlets and supermarkets-and we talk about the Opposition's perception, we find that there are very few career prospects on offer for young people in supermarkets and fast food outlets. All that the Opposition and the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) are suggesting we should do is deregulate the wages so that those employers can pay less for young people than they currently are and still pursue the practice, which they currently pursue, of sacking them after two years of work. How many people who go into fast food outlets or supermarkets see mature age workers? I suggest to members of the Opposition-if they are capable of seeing this, and perhaps they are not-that in fact the majority of people employed in supermarkets and fast food outlets are young people. That is not because somehow the employers are very philanthropic in their employment practices. In fact, they are currently exploiting a market situation. If one talks to the parents and to the young people-I suggest to honourable members opposite that that would be a worthwhile practice to introduce some reality into the debate-one finds that very often those young people who are employed in fast food outlets and supermarkets are sacked after working there for two years. Someone who is younger than them moves in in their place. In our view, as a government responsible for the development of young people, that is unacceptable. A cut price youth supermarket-be it a fast food outlet, a supermarket or wherever-in which young people receive the lowest possible rate of pay is an unacceptable approach to dealing with the issue of youth unemployment. The problem is that always lurking in the minds of some of those honourable members opposite who call themselves the economic dries are the theories of Adam Smith in 1776 and the Wealth of Nations in which Adam Smith was talking about a completely free market. The history is very much against them. What happened was that we also had the theories of Charles Darwin. Darwin in fact postulated that if a species begins to die out it is because, in a sense, it is an inferior species. One can put the two theories together. The theory of Adam Smith, which says 'Leave the market to do what it will', means that we would get massive exploitation of people, as we saw the industrial revolution in Britain. The theory of Darwin says that if a species is dying out that is what it deserves. If one puts those two theories together one provides almost a theoretical sanction of what the Opposition is suggesting-if people are poor, if people are not well off and if people are exploited, it is their own doing; it is because they do not have the will to get themselves organised. That is implicit in the dries' argument, but it is very much without substance. In the long 200-year history of the illnesses of the industrial revolution people were grossly exploited. I do not think anyone can substantially deny that people were exploited by those theories. Now, in 1985, people are shuffling into this place opposite us and suggesting that those theories should be dredged up again, that somehow Adam Smith can be made respectable and that if young people happen to be exploited it is their own doing because they had it coming to them. I do not see how any society can sanction that position, even if the Opposition argues it. It is also unfortunate that last week a proposal was put forward by a spokesperson for McDonald's, the hamburger chain. He said: The McDonald's hamburger chain could employ 1000 more 15-year-olds if the rate of pay was cut to $90 a week, the head of the Australian branch of the company, Mr Peter Ritchie, said in Perth yesterday. . . . . . Paying $90 a week to 15-year-olds would not be slashing wages-it would be doubling the dole they get now--- That is an example of the sort of pernicious argument that is taken up by the Opposition in the context of youth unemployment. I might add that it fails to recognise that McDonald's has employment practices which are less than desirable. I go back to this point: How many people of mature age are employed in McDonald's hamburger outlets? The answer is very few, because there are no career paths or prospects. All McDonald's is seeking to do is somehow to reduce youth wages so that it can expand its profit margin. There is no talk about training. Training for what-to slice tomatoes or onions? What kind of a preposterous position do we have? It is interesting that when we talk to people in the industry in Western Australia we find a wide variety of operators. Kentucky Fried Chicken, Red Rooster, Hungry Jack's, Pizza Hut, Chicken World and Chicken Treat all have industrial relations practices which are acceptable and which the union group dealing with them finds agreeable. Why is it that whenever there are complaints about one particular outlet-it is the sort of outlet that the Opposition pals up with; that is, the McDonald's hamburger chain-the complaints relate to the McDonald's hamburger chain and to employees, usually 17 or 18-year-olds, who have just been fired by McDonald's? If that is the sort of industrial relations approach honourable members opposite want, they should by all means go ahead. By all means they should take that position and endorse it fully. That is youth exploitation. That is not training, not development of young people, not the offering of options and not a seeking to build in an educational component, but simple youth exploitation. That is a farce and it is an example of the sort of farcial theory advanced. The problem is that the Opposition does not even have a wages policy yet. In the absence of a wages policy what we are getting is, again, a resort to this market notion. Unfortunately, honourable members opposite have not learned or remembered their history. I think the position they are arguing for in respect of youth unemployment is very unsatisfactory. How can they come into this place and talk about exploitation of young people by arguing that their wages could be cut? That also flies in the face of the reality that already there is considerable diversity of wages in terms of award wages being offered in the market-place. These wages have been negotiated through the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. There has been a substantial variation from 100 per cent to 60 per cent of another rate of pay. I do not think the Opposition has really taken on board the substantial lesson that we on this side of the Parliament are talking about and that is training for young people and traineeships in relation to youth unemployment. Our attitude is that we believe that if we can improve the offerings for young people in relation to their job and training component we can do something about improving their prospects. We certainly are not in the business of trying to exploit young people. I say to the Opposition that if it is going to continue to offer contributions to economic debates in this place it should by all means go out and do the research; it should go out and talk to the people. If the Opposition does that seriously it will find that people at the moment are very concerned that it in fact may be sanctioning youth exploitation and not a program to deal with youth unemployment. In concluding in respect of the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's Speech I say that the economic management of this Government so far has been sound and satisfactory. The Governor-General's Speech is all about a continuation of that sound, economic management. Today I have listed some factors which I believe are important aspects of government management of the economy and society. In the context of this debate I believe it is important to be able to put some positive initiatives before the community. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(5.29) —The Governor-General's Speech on behalf of the Australian Labor Party Government contains two statements of major significance to those directly involved in primary production in Australia and for the future economic well-being of all Australians. Under the primary industry section, which was very short, the Speech stated: 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. The second quote I wish to make is from the area dealing with trade where the Speech reads: Australia's export performance in recent decades has declined significantly. Our trading prospects now, particularly in commodities, are uncertain. New forms of protection and export support are proliferating around the world, food self-sufficiency is increasing and increased competition in minerals and manufactured exports is coming from developing countries. What are the implications of these two statements? The first is a covert acknowledgment of the vital role agriculture had in the improved economic conditions of the past 18 months-I emphasise the word 'past'-and hence the massive impact that the rapid deterioration in farming fortunes will have on the living standards of all our people in the country and city alike. It is no wonder therefore that Australia's 172,000 farmers are bewildered by governments that rightly tell them they are so important, that they are the world's most efficient, and then fail to undertake any policy initiatives that will ensure the viability of their industries. They are also bewildered by falling prices and escalating domestic costs and so-called social equity policies that are destroying a heritage of initiative and enterprise. The last forecasts showed the gross value of rural production in 1984-85 at $14,780m, down $440m or about 3 per cent down from the 1983-84 level. The net value of rural production calculated by consideration of farm costs is forecast to be $3,680m in 1984-85, or a massive 25 per cent down on the previous year's figure. This represents a decrease in real terms of 29 per cent. Even the briefest analysis of changes in the value of rural production over past years indicates the varying influence of trends on output and prices. A major factor in 1984-85 will be the impact of lower commodity prices. In fact, despite improvements in general world economic conditions, commodity prices of many rural products still remain depressed. I need example only dairying, sugar and the dried fruit industries. While the volume of the rural sector's output is still slightly above trends, it is well below the world record production of 1983-84. Despite the fact that the livestock sector production is up, crop production will be marginally down. The Government has recently acknowledged the effect of the rural sector productivity of 45 per cent of our export income and the benefit to the total economy. Of course, it had had no alternative. What it fails to understand, in its reaction to the needs of agriculture, is that the 1984 recovery in the rural sector from the preceding drought had mixed influences. While there was a massive increase in the volume of production in the cropping industries, due mainly to increased acreage and a record harvest, livestock population and production declined, and these volume increases coincided with the escalating impact of cost increases. If we look at the aggregate of farm costs we notice the importance is not just the price of inputs but also their volume. In other words, farmers had to take advantage of the improvements in returns, where such was the case, to undertake so much of the expenditure and improvements deferred in previous seasons due to the drought. Madame Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard tables indicating the value of rural production costs and prices. I have shown the tables to the Minister at the table, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West). Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Are they not able to be read in Hansard? Mr PETER FISHER —No. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- VALUE OF RURAL PRODUCTION 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84(p) 1984-85(e) $m $m $m $m $m Gross value of Rural Production 11,498 12,607 11,621 15,220 14,780 Farm Costs(a) 7,523 8,889 9,903 10,322 11,110 Net Value of Rural Production 3,975 3,718 1,718 4,898 3,680 Index of Real Net Value of Rural Production(b) 113 95 40 106 75 (a) Includes materials and services, depreciation, interest paid and paid family labour (b) Base: average 1970-71 to 1972-73=100 (p) Preliminary (e) Estimate by B.A.E. PRICES PAID BY FARMERS (Percentage Charge Over Previous Period) Equipment &Hired Services and Marketing supplies(a) labour overheads(b) expenses(c) Total 1974-75 26.0 37.0 33.7 19.4 30.3 1975-76 17.9 13.5 21.3 14.2 17.2 1976-77 11.1 13.3 22.7 11.1 11.5 1977-78 10.8 10.8 -1.3 8.8 10.3 1978-79 8.6 6.2 6.1 8.5 7.1 1979-80 15.2 7.1 7.2 12.2 11.4 1980-81 17.6 8.7 14.9 11.1 14.9 1981-82 8.0 11.0 17.0 10.0 11.0 1982-83 10.2 10.3 17.2 8.1 11.4 1983-84 8.4 5.9 6.6 9.4 8.0 1984-85 - - - - 6.0 (a) Fertiliser, fuel, electricity, containers, chemicals, machinery, motor vehicles, replacement parts and building and fencing materials. (b) Rates and land taxes, insurance, interest, rent, freight inwards, contracts and other services. (c) Selling expenses and freight outwards. PRICES RECEIVED BY FARMERS (Percentage Change Over Previous Period) 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 Total Grains -1.0 10.8 -1.3 Total All Crops -4.0 6.5 3.6 Wool 4.0 2.6 7.2 Cattle -16.0 15.4 17.3 Sheep -3.0 -29.2 23.4 Lambs -3.0 -14.6 -0.2 Total Dairy Produce 18.0 11.3 1.8 Total All Products -2.0 6.0 6.3 FARMERS' ''TERMS OF TRADE'' Ratio of Prices Received to Prices Paid 1978-79 98 1979-80 106 1980-81 (Base Year) 100 1981-82 88 1982-83 85 1983-84 83 1984-85(e) 78 Mr PETER FISHER —I thank the House. Even a cursory look at the tables I have now incorporated shows that primary production has been faced for decades with fluctuating yields, prices and costs. Climate, fires, floods and changing markets, as well as international protection, have always been part of the life of the farming community. Most farmers have learnt to cope with these problems by increased efficiency through better farm techniques, improved plant and animal species, mechanisation and, of course, increased output per labour unit. We may well ask: Why is it so different today? Why is there this level of protest across rural Australia? Why are the world's most efficient farmers, as shown by statistics, taking to the streets with increasing numbers and developing wrath? The reasons are obvious: Government policies at both the State and Federal level over many years have been directed at satisfying insatiable expectations, including those of us in this place, those in the social security system, the public sector, and most employees in the private sector with their security in the work place, indexed salaries and wages, in many cases with absolutely no account taken of their productivity, individual competence, or the capacity of the employer to pay. At the same time the productive sectors, in particular agriculture and mining, have been told by governments to raise production, to improve efficiency and, with the help of the Industries Assistance Commission-usually devoid of any social obligations for its recommendations-to remove any policies that over the years have been aimed at producing for a low priced competitive export market into a highly geared costly domestic environment. Can we therefore look for a moment at the paradox of government policy during the past few months. On one hand, there has been the injection of massive funds into government enterprises such as Trans Australia Airlines, the Australian National Line and, of course, support for large employers such as Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and our car manufacturers. At the same time the Federal Government has encouraged a round of wage lunacy talks by appearing before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and agreeing with wage rises for all. This is no consideration for businesses on the verge of insolvency or any recognition that only increased profitability can lift this nation out of debilitating unemployment and decline into a second rate economy. When will governments, particularly this Government, which is dominated by a very strong left wing, see the link between low costs, low inflation, competitiveness, and a high standard of living? On the other hand, at State and Federal levels, while this has been going on, there have been cost imposts on industries struggling to survive in a desperate thrust to obtain revenue to meet the cost of public sector programs, extravagances and demands. We could well ask whether it is ignorance or simply a wish to sacrifice private endeavour to a socialist state that has resulted in this Government's decisions over recent months. Many of them, unfortunately, have been introduced by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), the very Minister whose support in Cabinet is essential to the well-being of the rural community. Let us consider just a few of the policies that impose enormous costs on our rural sector, which is struggling to survive. Look at the $60m that this year the Government will take from the grape industry through a wine tax at a time of oversupply and extreme economic conditions. Let us look at the policy that has denied a justifiable domestic price rise to dairy farmers and wheat growers as the Government curries favours with consumers who are generally in salary and wage groups protected against inflation. Mr McVeigh —The Labor Party hates the farmers. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr PETER FISHER —I am pleased to see that so many in the House agree with me! Let us look at the policy that has increased product inspection charges by up to 200 per cent, indexed fuel excises for off-road usage and increased the price of petrol twice this year, despite the fact that it has fallen in United States dollar terms over the past six months. Let us look at the policy which has introduced an assets test that is destroying family businesses and farms that have taken generations to consolidate. Now we see the Government setting out on its final attack on thrift, enterprise and the Australian way of life, an attack that will destroy wealth creation and capital development through capital gains and death taxes. Mr Robert Brown —And motherhood. Mr PETER FISHER —I would not be surprised, as the honourable member for Charlton says, if the Government does not set out to destroy motherhood as well. I could go on and on, but fortunately the chooks are coming home to roost. I am pleased to see that a number of Government members in this House during this Address-in-Reply debate have now raised concern about the effect of the assets test. I say to the Government that no single issue has caused so much distress to ordinary people, to families who have spent generations pioneering, developing and then consolidating assets from which to produce income for themselves and for the real wealth of this nation. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) may well raise a number of cases of wealthy people receiving a pension, of people who have capitalised their assets. If the Minister were fair, however, he could also raise similar abuses of the same system-instances of people collecting unemployment benefits to which they are not entitled and of single parent benefits being obtained illegally. He could even raise the question of Ministers in this place abusing their rights. We do not penalise everyone for these abuses. Of course, we have to stop fraud and control abuse where it occurs. But we should not penalise hundreds of families and drive them off their land or into poverty. For every example the Minister gives, I can supply him with scores of cases which clearly show the destructive nature of the assets test. However, I will give one example of a situation which is repeated over and over again in electorates right across Australia. I cite the case of a third generation farming family comprising a 40-year-old man and wife with four children who own 700 hundred acres which have been valued by the Taxation Office at $300,000. The property is owned jointly by the family and their 77-year-old parents who receive a pension and live in the nearest town in a home purchased by way of a mortgage on the property. This aged couple have now lost the pension, which, of course, throws them back on to the income provided by the property. What are the options for this family? There is but one, and that is to sell the property. Of course, we must recognise that this is not always possible, particularly at present with the downturn in land prices. But they have to sell the property to provide a secure income for the aged parents, which means that the younger generation must simply move off the farm that has taken three generations to consolidate and seek, if possible, employment elsewhere. This is a criminal act, and if the Government does not act immediately in regard to these serious anomalies it will be responsible for depopulating the rural regions of Australia and destroying the real strength of our economy-the family unit. I make no apologies for concentrating most of my remarks on the problems of the rural communities. My electorate, which comprises one-fifth of the State of Victoria, socially, culturally and economically ultimately depends on the well-being of agriculture and the businesses which service it. Mr Braithwaite —You look after it well, too. Mr PETER FISHER —I am pleased to agree with my colleague. We need only look to the excellent submission produced by the National Farmers Federation and presented to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to see the danger signals and to understand the reason for such rural pessimism. Our terms of trade will fall by 5 per cent in 1984-85. They have fallen by 21 per cent since 1981, while our farm inflation rate has increased by 41 per cent since 1980-81. Already our productivity increases are stretched to the limit and, with lower prices for most commodities, the scope for action rests with reducing farm costs and therefore-I repeat, therefore-with government policies at both State and Federal levels. As the National Farmers Federation pointed out, the Australian farm sector suffers a cost penalty of $16,000 per farmer resulting from protection afforded elsewhere in the economy. What, therefore, can the Government do? Of course, it can start by removing a number of imposts. It can remove the excessive tariff protection on imported goods and on many of our manufacturing industries. It can remove excessive spending and borrowing powers by all governments and their authorities. We simply cannot continue to run $10,000m current account deficits and living beyond our means. For the information of the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), who preceded me in this debate, let me say that the Government could well do something to free up a rigid labour market. In the labour market in Australia it costs 1.9 weeks work to get a week's work done because of regulations, minimum wages, manning scales and penalty rates. The Government could remove some of the over-regulation of our service industries, particularly in the transport sector. Of course, it could radically reduce government taxes and charges. Sadly, I have the distinct impression that one way or another, as a result of the tax summit and general economic conditions, we will see higher taxes, higher interest rates, higher inflation and less real spending power for our dollar. Taxation, wages without productivity and indirect imposts are the reasons for our decline in world esteem. Governments must act positively by decreasing expenditure and taxation, or it will be not only the farmers and the business sector but also the living standards of the whole nation that will continue to fall. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you and ask you to pass on to the Speaker my best wishes for a successful term in the chair. I congratulate all other office bearers. I also welcome all the new members of this place and I wish them well in their new role. I particularly welcome my six new National Party colleagues. Mr McVeigh —A good team. Mr PETER FISHER —They are a good team. Never before has Australia needed such quality rural representation, which I know they will all provide. Ms FATIN(Brand)(5.55) —Mr Deputy Speaker, as is traditional in the Address-in-Reply debate, I begin by offering my congratulations to you. I also congratulate the Speaker on his election and the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) on her election to the position of Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. They can both be assured of the continuing support and co-operation of their colleagues on this side of the House. I would also like to congratulate the many new members who have joined us on the government benches. The high standard of maiden speeches we have heard over the first three weeks of parliamentary sittings testifies to the commitment and integrity of the new members of the Government. During our first term in office, we were recognised by commentators from both sides of the political spectrum as being a government whose intellectual calibre matched its rhetoric. The qualities evident in our new colleagues mean that we are extremely well placed to maintain our track record. In participating in this debate, I must pay a special tribute to my fellow Western Australian, the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen), who moved the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply. Having performed the same task at the opening of the Thirty-third Parliament, I know that it requires a considerable amount of preparation and a very strong nerve. The honourable member more than fulfilled our very high expectations of her ability, and I congratulate her warmly. Speaking of Western Australian women parliamentarians, I also take this opportunity to send a very special message of goodwill to Senator Ruth Coleman. The courage and strength of will which we have come to associate with Senator Coleman are serving her well now, and I know that my colleagues will wish to join me in wishing her a speedy return to work. Like many other members of this House, I return to serve a different electorate in the Thirty-fourth Parliament. The redistribution, which despite the initial reservations expressed by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) was fairly and most effectively carried out by the Australian Electoral Commission, radically altered the Federal electorates to the south of Perth and resulted in the creation of the new seat of Brand, for which I am now the member. I still represent large areas of my previous electorate, and must pay tribute to the councils and local organisations in Armadale, Serpentine, Jarrahdale and Rockingham that have worked tirelessly with me over the past two years to improve the lot of their communities. The town of Kwinana, which is now part of my electorate, has been something of an electorate shuttlecock over recent years, and I know that the Electoral Commissioner's decision to finally link Kwinana with the Rockingham sector of the coastal strip is a welcome move. Kwinana and Rockingham share many resources, both human and physical, and I have been impressed by the manifest determination of both communities to overcome some of the terrible difficulties which confront a population living in a depressed industrial area. Deserving of particular mention are Des Mays and the Shire Council of Rockingham, Frank Baker and the Town Council of Kwinana and David Gorham, who has devoted an extraordinary amount of effort over three years to building up the Rockingham Chamber of Commerce. Rick Grounds and the staff of the South West Metropolitan Local Authorities Management Group have had a very significant effect on rationalising the development of the coastal strip and monitoring the effect of government schemes and programs. They have also been instrumental in getting several local projects started, one of the most significant of which is the Rockingham-Kwinana Emergency Relief Committee which will start work in the very near future. I must also mention the work of Ian Blackburn and the Armadale Town Council. Thanks to their drive and enthusiasm, Armadale has a real chance of becoming one of Western Australia's regional music centres as well as a thriving sub-regional centre. Once again I acknowledge the dedication with which the people in Byford and Rockingham are fighting the subscriber trunk dialling battle. The final report of Telecom Australia has been eagerly awaited for many weeks now. I am pleased to hear from the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) that it should not be too long now before the response is available. The electorate of Brand is comparatively large, covering an area of over 5,000 square kilometres. As well as the urban towns and areas I have already mentioned, it covers the seaside town of Mandurah and the rural communities of Waroona, Pinjarra, Harvey and Brunswick. I have had a considerable amount to do with the people of Mandurah already, having met many of the local pensioners and having recently allayed their fears about the assets test. I know this point has been made several times before in this place, but it staggers me that the Opposition was prepared to go to such astonishing lengths to score its political points off the pensioners of this country. I cannot refer to Mandurah without briefly mentioning the very effective work being done in the area by the local State member, my colleague John Read. His commitment to the people is evident. One has only to look down the list of State Government achievements and projects in Mandurah, such as the proposed hospital, the new bridge and the innovative work being done on cleaning up the inlet, to realise what a very fine local member Mandurah people have in Mr Read. I am particularly pleased to be representing the rural communities of Harvey and Brunswick. Although it sounds like one of those great lines invented by politicians, I was actually brought up in a place called Wokalup, just outside Harvey where I was born. I spent the first 11 years of my life in the area. It is a great pleasure for me now to be back in Harvey meeting with people who have known my family, the Fimmels, for many years. Mr Robert Brown —They are very proud of you. Ms FATIN —They are very proud of me. In the course of my work in the electorate, I have always placed great emphasis on helping local government authorities in their task of serving the local community. I now have eight councils in my electorate and I have already indicated to them that this Government plans to carry on forging the co-operative relationships which we established during our first term of office. We all recognise that problems exist. Councils will probably never consider that their revenue arrangements are 100 per cent satisfactory any more than any other tier of government is likely to admit it has sufficient funds to carry out all its programs. However, the Federal Government is absolutely committed to establishing a stable and secure base for local government funding. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House because I think that the specific content of the Governor-General's Speech has been more than adequately covered by my colleagues. No one on this side of the House is suggesting that the next three years are going to be uncomplicated or unproblematic for the Government. We have an Opposition hell bent on recovering what it sees as its divine right to rule. We have a State Government in the deep north of Queensland which is beginning to make previous conservative State governments look like radical reformists. Most importantly we have an economy which simply will not stand the indefinite blowing out which characterised the last years of the Fraser Government. However, despite the fact that we may not be able to develop as many programs as we would like we still have a most impressive array of innovative and reformist legislation to introduce. With the restructuring of the taxation system, this Government has the opportunity to go down in history as one of the great forces for economic equity and justice. The supported accommodation assistance program has been hailed by interested parties all over Australia as being one of the most comprehesive and potentially effective pieces of legislation ever applied to the area. Perhaps most significant of all, considering the extent to which our young people are bearing the brunt of living in times of rapid social and economic change, this Government is now in the process of formulating a youth allowance scheme which will significantly assist the young, whether whey want to stay at school, proceed to higher education, or receive specific training for the work force. As a member of both the Caucus Economic and Welfare committees, I consider all three of these issues to be of central concern, and look forward to taking part in all the forthcoming debates. In conclusion I reiterate the point made by a number of my colleagues who have already spoken in this debate. As has been obvious during the first weeks of the Thirty-fourth Parliament, the Opposition has not deviated one iota from its previous policies of division and destruction. When the people of Australia voted on 1 December last year, they voted for a continuation of the stability and security they began to experience during our first term of office. That is what we promised, that is what we delivered during our first term, and that is the basis of how we intend to proceed for the next three years. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(6.06) —At the outset of my contribution to the Address-in-Reply debate I will concentrate my remarks on those parts of the Governor-General's Speech concerning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Only three paragraphs in the Speech make reference to these Australians and there is no reference to the announcement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) of a uniform national land rights preferred model. In fact, the Speech refers to the fundamental importance of the land to Aborigines. It does not refer to the uniform preferred model. In fact, I believe that the Minister insulted this Parliament and honourable members of this House and was discourteous to all Australians in announcing, only the day before the Governor-General's Speech, a uniform national land rights preferred model. There is no reference to this in the Speech. The Minister has not had the courage of his convictions to come into this House to make a statement about the national uniform land rights preferred model. I believe that is an insult to all Australians, the Aboriginal community and the Parliament because the Parliament has no opportunity to debate the issue. The Government's preferred model has been a complete failure. The week before last the Minister went off on a trip to the north of Australia. He tiptoed into Queensland, then went to the Northern Territory and carefully avoided the State of Western Australia, of which Mr Burke is Premier, because the Premier has called Mr Holding a stranger to the truth. The Minister mainly went to the Territory. His trip was a complete farce and a failure because the Minister has no friends at all. What an incredible situation. He has managed to offend everybody. Only yesterday he admitted on the Sunday program that he had pleased nobody. It is a complete admission of failure by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to say that he has pleased nobody. However, he still pursues his obsession for national uniform land rights. In an attempt to create some goodwill I suppose with one Aboriginal community, he gave Ayers Rock to the wrong Aboriginal group. He failed to listen to a National Aboriginal Conference member, Ray Robinson, who suggested that Ayers Rock be owned by the Commonwealth on behalf of all Australians. The Minister gave the rock to a community formed at the rock. Undoubtedly, some members of that community would have claims to the rock because of the Dreamtime and legends of the rock, but the Minister gave it to a community rather than a tribunal group. Doubtless there will be argument over many years as to who the so-called owners might be and who will be entitled to the $100,000 a year which the Minister sold the rock for. That is a most disgraceful situation. He failed to take into account the call by a leading Aboriginal, Mr Rob Liddle, a member of the Town Council in Alice Springs and a leading member of the Aboriginal community of Australia, who said there was a need for anthropological survey and study to determine who had ownership of the rock. However, the Minister, doubtless listening to white advisers, proceeded regardless and gave the rock to the wrong people. The Minister is a complete failure. His preferred model is rejected by the Opposition. The Opposition undertakes to repeal this national uniform land rights legislation or any extension of it. The Minister seeks to cover up his own inadequacies. He has no friends anywhere. He has no friends in the Labor Party-he certainly has no friends in the Labor Party in Western Australia and he has the faction fighting going on here as to what his policy will be this day, that day or tomorrow. He has put the mining community off side. As a result there is complete uncertainty in the industry. The ability to mine, explore and develop is being set back daily. Investment decisions cannot be made. Things are going backwards because of the uncertainty created by the Minister's shenanigans and the way in which he goes around trying to sell his model. It is a failure and it creates more uncertainty. The Minister goes around selling his ideas and his model like a secondhand car salesman. Even further uncertainty is created and there is a complete disincentive to investment in the mining area. Perhaps even more important for the sake of Australia as a whole, in going round the country pursuing his obsession with a dictatorial uniform land rights model which will be the same for every part of Australia, the Minister is creating divisions in Australian society. He is creating great tension, there is ill will, ill feeling, tensions, resentment, and non-Aboriginal white Australians feel threatened. Fragmentation is taking place in Australian society today. The Minister must realise that he has the blood of the Aboriginal people on his hands. Mr West —What would you do? Mr SHIPTON —I would not impose uniform national land rights. I totally reject that concept. While the Minister is going on with this cheap charade, the real needs of the Aboriginal people are not being met. This Minister and this Government have let down the Aboriginal community. When Labor was in opposition in this place Labor members were cynical enough to offer Aboriginal people promises they could not fulfil-and they knew it. Labor offered those people great promises of uniform national land rights and promises it could not and will not fulfil. This Government and this Minister have sold out the Aboriginal community. I see a member of this House who was in the Redfern Legal Service before he came to this place. I seem to recall him saying that an international furore would be created if the Minister did not stick to the policy of the Australian Labor Party which was laid down at its last Conference. The Minister and the Government have sold out and, for their own cheap cynical political purposes, they have made promises to the Aboriginal people in an attempt to get their votes. They have used single-issue politics to obtain those votes. They have sought to build up and raise Aboriginal expectations in an unrealistic way that has made those promises impossible to fill. Now they have dumped the Aboriginal people and let them down. The Government has created this backlash and brought about tensions, divisions and ill will in Australian society. While all this is taking place, the real needs of Aboriginal people are not being met. That is a shame and a tragedy. It is outrageous that in Australia in 1985 Aboriginal Australians are blind with trachoma or sandy blight because there is no trachoma program in place to give them the medical attention and assistance they need. Everyone in this House feels the same way on this matter. I call on the Government and the Minister to do something about the blindness among these people. It is outrageous and offensive that Australians who happen to be Aboriginal and black are blind because the Government will not deliver to them the appropriate medical services. Funding for the next six months is in a state of doubt. Present funds have either run out or are nearly exhausted, depending on the State one is in. While this is going on the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is going round Australia selling this national uniform package which will be a failure in itself and will create a backlash. While the Minister is pursuing this obsession, the needs of the Aboriginal community and the health of that community are suffering, and Aboriginals who need not be blind are blind because their real needs are not being focused upon. The Minister's attention is being diverted from those real needs because of his obsession and his attempt to sell his policy. It is an outrage that Aboriginals are suffering trachoma or sandy blight, but it is also appalling that there is an increase in the number of new cases of leprosy among Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in some parts of Australia. I appeal to the Minister to have at heart the good will of Aboriginal communities and do something about their real needs. I ask him to concentrate on their health, housing, education, welfare, power and water supplies. It is outrageous that some communities do not have roads-they live in Third World conditions. These are the things that all honourable members should be concerned about and should be doing something to alleviate. The more the Minister goes round Australia trying to sell his model, the less chance the Aboriginal people have of being afforded conditions to which all Australians are entitled. A shabby and shoddy attempt was made by the Minister to divert attention from his own inadequacies and failures when he came into this House and attempted to attack the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham). Not once did the Minister concern himself with comments about the needs of the Aboriginal community. I see one Labor member present in the chamber who I know is concerned about these matters, although he and I may differ on the approach to them. I know that he has a concern for the Aboriginal people. But his Minister has not come into this place this session and debated the needs of the Aboriginal community. He has not even come in with his land rights package because he is afraid of what the honourable member might say about him. The Minister is running scared and he has not come into this House and talked about the real needs that I have outlined in my speech. In the remaining time available in my Address-in-Reply speech I shall seek to examine some of the issues that are facing Australia. I want first to look at the economy. As Australia goes on to the end of this century and towards the year 2000 and as we approach our bicentenary, I believe that it is time to return to a market economy. The development of markets led last century, as the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) pointed out, to the rise of democratic capitalism. We have seen social rights develop into social claims. The advancement of these social claims has spread to such an extent that it now needs to be curtailed. Governments have been allowed to implement and put in place policies that undermine the family. There seems to be something wrong with the acoustics. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —It is obvious that there is a problem with the loudspeaker system. To enable the problem to be rectified, I suspend the sitting until 8 p.m. Sitting suspended from 6.20 to 8 p.m. Mr SHIPTON —Before the suspension of the sitting and before the broadcasting system broke down, I was saying that governments in this country have been allowed to implement policies that undermine the family. Nowhere is this more true than in the case of the sole breadwinner in the single income family in Australia today. There is an enormously great need for tax reform in this area. I am no stranger to the advocacy of the need for tax reform. I remember that in the retrospective taxation debates in this House in 1982 when I crossed the floor to vote against the then Government, I said at the outset that we must not lose sight of the great need for tax reform in this country. The sole breadwinner has never been under greater pressure. Those people with dependants are discriminated against by the existing system. Single income families are being virtually wiped out by our current tax system and they are becoming the new poor of Australia. The single income family will become as dead as the extinct dodo bird because the tax system is forcing such families to the wall. Wives and children are discouraged by the tax system. How can the sole breadwinner in a single income family survive after paying the grocery bill at the supermarket, the petrol bill, the mortgage, ever-increasing land taxes and rates? As I drive around my electorate I see families which were in the past single units. I wonder how young people can now afford to buy homes in the Melbourne suburbs that I represent if both partners of those marriages are not working. The tax system should recognise the cost that single income families incur in supporting their families. We in the Opposition have a family policy. We recognise this tragic position and we have a policy that will lessen the burden of personal taxation on the single income family. Our policy, which we held at the last election and which we hold at present is one that the community needs to understand more and more. We will allow income splitting for tax purposes on the part of the single income earner and we will allow tax rebates for children as part of our emphasis on a broader based indirect tax system. We will also ensure a reduction in government spending, because it is vital that the single income family not be discriminated against. By so doing we are encouraging in this country a new elite of two-income families with no children. I said that the nation had to return to a market economy and that the rigidities in the economy which were stopping and prohibiting this state of affairs had to be removed. I wondered how this could be done and decided that the answer to that question is that we should ask what is needed to encourage entrepreneurship in Australia today. To encourage entrepreneurship, initiative, enterprise and investment we must have economic, tax and wages policies that create the framework or, if you like, the environment and the climate, for entrepreneurship to take place. We must reward effort, encourage incentive and create the environment to encourage entrepreneurship which will lead to economic growth and job creation. We have heard talk of a taxation summit and we have read about the arguments between the various factions in the Australian Labor Party. In discussing taxation, we are talking about redistributing wealth. What we have to do is encourage entrepreneurship and investment in the economy to create wealth, to create profit. During the life of the last Parliament as I went around Australia as shadow Minister for small business, I became convinced that the way to encourage entrepreneurship was to look at what was needed to allow the small firm to grow, to prosper and to do its own thing in the economy. As I went around the country, more and more employers said to me: 'We want to employ young people but we cannot afford to do so. We would in fact take on more employees if we could pay them half the adult award wage'. I think it is an outrage that our institutionalised, rigid wages system is causing 23 per cent of those between 15 and 19 years of age, who willingly want to work, to be unemployed. We have a patchwork of subsidy schemes for various training purposes which are band-aid measures. Some of these schemes do some good but at the end of the day none of them are a substitute for a real job. The way to encourage entrepreneurship is through the framework of policies in the economic and tax areas that I have talked about. To do that one will find that at present the state of the economy is such that the job opportunities, if there are to be jobs, lie in the small firms and in the small business sector. The changing nature of the corporate sector is such that the larger companies and corporations are shedding labour and cutting costs because of the cost explosion that has occurred, again because of the rigidities in the economy. The present private enterprise system, the capitalist system, is changing. Small firms have to be given the chance to breathe and to invest. Entrepreneurs have to be given the chance to invest in small businesses and small firms because that is where the jobs are. That has been proved by the Reagan-United States experience. We must have policies of the nature and the sort that I have mentioned to encourage small businesses to grow and thrive. One of the reasons that the Opposition developed its new wages policy, which proposes to abolish the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, to set a minimum wage and to provide for voluntary contracts between employer and employee to negotiate terms, wages and conditions of employment that might relate to a particular industry, region, State or firm, was the need to create the environment for small business to grow and prosper. The opportunities are there in Australia today. They do exist. If only the restrictions and the rigidity of the tax and wages system and the union system were removed, we would have an entrepreneurial boom the likes of which this country has not seen since the gold rush. We have to create wealth. We have to encourage profit and this in itself will create the jobs that I have talked about. Entrepreneurs do exist. They are prepared and they are taking advantage of the new technology and the information and computer revolution. If only we could free up the system, the economy would really take off. I was going to talk about the factionalism in the Labor Party today. Mr Cunningham —You would not know anything about it. Mr SHIPTON —I know enough about it. I want you to declare what faction you belong to. We would like to know. Would you tell us whether it is Left, Centre Left or the Right? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I ask the honourable member to address his remarks through the Chair. Mr SHIPTON —I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was provoked by the honourable member for McMillan. I was talking about the role of the small firm and small enterprise. Of the 730,000-odd enterprises in Australia 93 per cent employ fewer than 10 people; so they are fundamental. We have to rediscover our destiny. We have become corporatised, bureaucratised and socialised. The concepts of the individual and entrepreneurship are being discouraged. We have to encourage the individual and entrepreneurship. As we go the bicentenary and to the end of the century, the need to rediscover ourselves is even more urgent. We can encourage the growth of the family through the tax system that I have described. We can encourage the thrift and entrepreneurship that I have mentioned to create wealth, because that is the way ahead. That is the way for the future of Australia. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(8.09) — Madam Deputy Speaker, May I start by congratulating you and your colleagues elected as Deputy Speakers on your election to that high office. To the Speaker of the House the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) I also extend my congratulations and best wishes for a successful term. In speaking in the debate on the Address-in-Reply to the Speech given by the Governor-General on the occasion of the opening of the Parliament, I wish to take a few items from his Speech and make some comments on them. The first and most important issue is the economy of this country. I will quote from the Governor-General's Speech: The Government's major task in its firm term was the revival of the nation's economy. Economic policy was directed towards the simultaneous reduction of inflation and unemployment. Inflation and unemployment were certainly the two major problems faced by the Hawke Labor Government on its election. Inflation was running in excess of 11 per cent and no government over the previous 10 years had been able to bring it under control. Today we have the record of this Government already slowing down inflation to 5 per cent and falling further. Real unit labour costs are down to the levels of the late 1960s and early 1970s. We have unemployment and inflation down, the number of jobs is up, and there is strong economic growth. On the subject of employment, I quote from the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 14 March to a combined meeting in Canberra of the Economics Society and the Industrial Relations Society. When speaking about employment growth, he stated: Employment growth had been extraordinarily strong through 1983-84 but, as measured in the ABS survey, weakened earlier this financial year. Since then, there has been a return to strong growth in employment. One hundred and ten thousand jobs have now been created in the first eight months of this financial year. The Jeremiahs seized with glee the weaker figures early in the financial year as indicating that the Budget forecasts were wildly over-optimistic. With the latest figures from the Statistician, employment has already expanded by almost 2 per cent in the first 8 months of the year, and the Budget forecast of about 2 1/2 per cent now seems well within our range. The latest labour force figures bring total employment growth in the 22 months since we changed the course of Australian economic history at the National Economic Summit Conference to 360,000. We are running ahead of our target of half a million new jobs in our first three years of office. The dramatic contrast between the experience of employment growth under the Labor Government, and that under the conservative government which we replaced, is a measure of the relative success of the two Governments' approaches to economic policy. In less than two years under our policies, 360,000 new jobs have been created. In seven years and four months, a total of 340,000 new jobs were created under the policies of our predecessors. The figures speak for themselves. However, while we laud these figures, we recognise that there are serious problems among young adults and young people in relation to employment opportunities in this country. We still need to do much more in that area. However, long term unemployment has eased significantly. The number of people unemployed for nine months or more fell by 43,000 or 17.5 per cent over the year to January 1985. There are still 202,300 people who have been out of work for at least nine months. That is still far too many. Teenagers have also shared in the labour market improvements. The unemployment rate among teenagers looking for full time employment is now 23.1 per cent, a fall of 4 percentage points since March 1983, and five percentage points since the high point in July 1983. They are still very high figures and a lot of work needs to be done. The number of unemployed teenagers looking for their first full time job has fallen by 22,000, or 28 per cent, since the high point in December 1983. Over the last year to February 1985, teenage full time employment has risen by 16,600, or 3.8 per cent. Unemployment amongst the 15- to 19 year-olds looking for full time work has dropped by 21,800, or 12 per cent. We are now well on the track to meeting our employment targets. These are a direct contrast to the figures that were being presented by the previous Administration in this country. In assessing the approach of the two governments, I refer to Hansard and the speech given on 21 March by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), the Leader of the National Party of Australia, when he was talking in the Address-in-Reply debate. He said: As far as the Address-in-Reply is concerned, at this stage I wish to outline something of the climate back in 1983. Then he went ahead with a litany of excuses. The first excuse was this: Honourable members will remember that we had been through an extraordinarily difficult time internationally. The problems were nothing to do with that Government; it was all international. A little further on he said: Then we ran into one of the worst droughts in Australia's history. The drought became the Government's excuse at that time. Further on he said: Honourable members will recall that we then had the wages explosion, which bore heavily on every employer. Their own so-called decentralised, deregulated policies created that enormous wage explosion that did such terrible harm to the economy in the way it was carried out. Further down again he states: Of course, we then decided that it was essential that in some way we contain that wage explosion. We introduced the wage pause . . . They were lurching from one remedy to another. They had no idea of the direction in which they were going as far as the economy was concerned. It is quite clear that the approach of this Government is having a much more beneficial effect for the country. I refer again to the speech by the Governor-General, and quote a little further down: The Prices and Incomes Accord has played a crucial role in Australia's economic success. The Opposition at times has criticised the prices and incomes accord, but any thinking person in Australia fully understands just what that has meant as far as Australia is concerned. The Prime Minister has returned only tonight from a trip to Canada, where he was invited by the Canadian Government to address their summit on how things were being done in Australia and to give them an outline of what has occurred here. I quote from the speech the Prime Minister gave in Canada on 23 March to the Canadian Government on the accord. He said: The Accord embodies a commitment to wage restraint within a centralised wage fixation system-- something that our predecessors could not manage at all-- that is built on well-established features of the Australian industrial relations reality. The Accord with the trade union movement is part of a wider compact between the Government the Australian community embodying commitment to consultation and consensus, to the equitably distribution of the benefits of economic growth, and to the achievement of sustained, strong non-inflationary growth. These three commitments are inter-related parts of the one program. No progress can be made on any one of the three without support from the others. All relevant parts of society will support the national effort only if two critical conditions are met: that the benefits of growth are distributed equitably-- all people must share in it-- and that the process of growth, and the links between growth and the realisation of the goals of all groups in the community, are widely understood. There can be no beginning without the basic framework of policies on employment, participation, taxation and expenditure which promote confidence in the equitable distribution of growth in incomes. He went on to say further: But the process of consultation also plays a valuable role in informing the Government on community values and preferences, on the detailed effects of proposed policies, and on alternative and sometimes superior means of attaining Government objectives. We have never believed that the Government is the repository of all wisdom. They were the comments of the Prime Minister in Canada just recently-very true comments which indicate the direction this Government is taking. I now go to the third point in the Governor-General's Speech with which I shall deal: The Government proposes a major review of the Australian tax system during 1985. The Government has given the people of Australia explicit commitments regarding the budget deficit, budget expenditures and taxation. None of these will be increased as a proportion of gross domestic product in 1985-86 and over the Government's second term. We need to look at that trilogy to see just what the Government has said about that. Once again I refer to what the Prime Minister said in this regard in his speech on 14 March 1985: Further reductions in the deficit in money terms in 1985-86 and as a proportion of GDP over the life of the current Parliament; No increase in Commonwealth tax revenue as a proportion of GDP in 1985-86 and over the life of the Parliament; and A reduction in Government expenditure as a proportion of GDP in 1985-86 and over the life of the Parliament. These are the clear aims of the Government in the present circumstances. I believe that while the economy is on the track it is on we have every opportunity of achieving that. We must be clear that they are the objectives of this Government and we intend to carry them out. I refer again to the Governor-General's Speech on the economy, when he stated: The Government will move further towards its objectives of removing unnecessary controls in the financial system and increasing the efficiency of the financial and business sectors. The successful applicants for new banking authorities will be announced shortly. We all know that time has moved on and that that decision has been put into operation. I believe the former Government never had the courage or ability to make that decision to deregulate the financial system in this country for the good of Australia. We now have 16 new licences. In the long term, when the people of Australia look back over this, they will consider that this Government has been possibly the most reforming government that Australia has ever had, particularly when they look at the sorts of measures that have been carried out in this regard. If we compare this Government with the former National-Liberal Party Government, we see that that Government was totally unable even to deliver what the community had come to believe was that Government's charter; that is, economic management. It did not have the capacity or the ability to deliver the goods. The people judged it as such. Without that it did not have much going for it. Let us see what other policy areas there are in which the Opposition could possibly lay some claim to credibility. We have talked about its economic policies which were a shambles. Its approach was always that of high inflation, no growth and high unemployment. In the area of defence-this Government's Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is at the table-it was discredited. The Opposition has never really recovered from the Vietnam days so far as defence is concerned. The former Government had no policies whatever in the area of health. It would go back to the days when doctors chose with whom they would deal; who would be the disadvantaged people. We now have in Australia probably the best health insurance scheme anywhere in the world. In the education area the Opposition has been divisive. It has one policy in education, that is, to those who have, more shall be given. In the area of taxation there were years of neglect and a failure to reform. In primary industry we have regulation after regulation. This Government has a big task to break down some of the regulations which are restricting primary industry in this country. In the area of community welfare the former Government did not have the ability to provide assistance to the real needy, the poor. We need to look at the last Budget to see what this Government was able to achieve in that regard. As well as providing a tax cut of $7.60 a week, pensions and benefits rose. The unemployment benefit rose by $2.50 a week for single people and $4.20 a week for couples. Pensioners who were in rented accommodation and those with children also received extra help. Their rental assistance went up by 50 per cent to $15 a week. Additional pensions and benefits were increased by $2, to $14 per child. The mothers and guardians allowances were increased by $2, to $10 a week. From the time of the Budget after the Government came into office, a sole parent pensioner, with two children, living in rented accommodation, received an increase in pension of $30 a week which represents in increase of more than 25 per cent. That is something which the people out there will never forget as far as the Labor Government is concerned. There was a further increase of $2 a week for single unemployed people over 18 years of age. That will take effect from this May. That represents an increase of more than $20 a week, or 30 per cent, since this Government took office. It can clearly be seen that this Government does believe in putting its programs into operation for the good of the people. I now move on to another point in the Governor-General's Speech; that is, community welfare. I believe this section of the Speech highlights the attitude of the Labor Government. The Government believes economic growth is not an end in itself but a means to greater ends, a means towards the achievement of high social goals of equity and fairness. On the basis of strong economic growth achieved, the Government, during its first term, provided low income groups with substantial additional assistance. I have just outlined some aspects of that assistance. The Government, in its coming term, will continue to give a high priority to improving the living standards of the most needy in the community. We have a major objective in the taxation area. It will be an enormous job and one which I believe this Government will be able to carry out. In the time I have left to me I wish to make some comments on the issue that has been raised consistently by members of the Opposition, that is, the assets test. Over the last few days the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) have given us examples of how this horrid assets test was affecting people. I wish to correct the situation so far as some of the cases they put forward are concerned. We on this side of the House understand that in a situation such as this we do need to fine tune. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has given us an understanding that we will consistently monitor and fine tune the assets test to ensure that those people who are disadvantaged who should not be disadvantaged will be looked after. I want to take up the point raised by members of the Opposition. They keep telling us about the farmer who has retired and who has a property which his son or some other member of the family is running; the parents have moved into the town and are receiving a pension. No mention is ever made as to whether the person who has taken over the farm is paying a rent for that farm or is declaring the income that that farm is capable of producing by way of rent. That is the first priority that honourable members need to look at. Any property has, as its base, the capacity to be worth something to a next door neighbour, a son, a daughter, a son-in-law or anybody else when that person takes on the property and runs it as a business. What had been the case in this country for so long-it was the reason the assets test had to be introduced-was that people were not declaring that income from that property and were expecting the Department of Social Security, or the Australian Taxation Office through Social Security, to help to pay the rent of another member of the family. The point honourable members opposite miss is that involved in the case which was cited today by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher)-he talked about a dairy farm-this factor: Two young people, perhaps of the same age, and in direct competition with each other, could be running two properties. One person may be paying a genuine rent to run his business and the other could have his rent paid by Social Security. That is not fair for the person who is competing with him in the industry and it is not fair on the taxpayers. Let us get to the point. Let us refer to the genuine members of the public; the ones about whom we are really concerned. They are easy to name. They are the people who have always declared their incomes from any rents they have ever received. They have small blocks around this country-many of them soldier settlement blocks. They have their 40, 50 or 60 acres, or whatever, that was cut up after the Second World War. Those blocks are too small to be farming units as is, but they rent those blocks out to someone next door or someone up the road. Those blocks have a value in the dairy industry at least. They have a value in other industries, such as wheat and wool. Those people receive an income of around $60 a week for renting out 40 acres of land to a next-door neighbour. Those people have declared that income. In the past they received a top-up pension which brought them up to the standard rate on which most pensioners are living. It is not a high amount. Where we have the distortion in the system at present is that valuations have got out of kilter because of hobby farmers moving to those areas. Some of those hobby farm valuations are way and above what the land will produce. The valuations have created a situation where some of those people have lost their part pensions. The Minister has informed us that we are on the right track; we can fine tune the situations where those people have a genuine case. We can put it to the Minister and the Department that those people have never cheated the system; they are honest Australians; they have declared the income. I have not heard any member on the other side of the House say that. In every speech I have heard they have always lamented about the person who has never declared the income received from rent. A person is expected to be able to give the farm away to a son, a son-in-law or a daughter and let him or her use it for nothing while the Department of Social Security pays the rest. It is totally unfair either way-on the taxpayer and on those people in the industries who are having to compete against those people to whom I referred. We are quite clear in our position as far as the assets test is concerned. We understand when the people are honest. We are not bringing in a system that intends to crack down on anybody who has been doing the right thing. I can assure those people that this Government, as it has shown by its compassion in its distribution of income, will continue to show compassion for the genuine, honest person who has a problem with the assets test. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.29) —The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) has just made an impassioned plea to convince his electorate that he has not let it down over the whole business of the assets test. Me thinks he doth protest too much. The reality of his situation, and he has just admitted it, is that those farms-they are very lucky-have a rental value of $3,000 a year. Of course, to any investor that amount can be multiplied by 10, giving a value of $30,000. Is that the amount the Australian Taxation Office has added into the assets of those pensioners? I bet it is not. I bet it is put in the hobby farm value of $100,000 or $120,000 and then the pension is taken off those people. One would think that all of this had just arrived in the Parliament. One would think that over the last two or three weeks when people received those letters in the mail which said 'Next week you will not get any money' that was the first we had heard about it. The fact is that this issue has been alive and boiling in this Parliament for nearly 12 months. Mr Hand —All you are interested in is protecting the wealthy. Mr TUCKEY —We told the Government that people would be hurt. It is hurting them and it has done nothing about it. I say to the honourable member for Melbourne that the reality is that it is hurting people. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The honourable member for Melbourne is interjecting, which is out of order. Mr TUCKEY —He is also out of his seat. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will deal with that, not the honourable member for O'Connor. The honourable member for Melbourne is also out of his seat. Mr TUCKEY —That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the situation. It is no good the honourable member mealy-mouthing his way out of the way in which he has let the people down in his electorate. The reality is that he has had plenty of time to think it through. The honourable member has a farming experience and he knows that this situation affects many people. Tonight I would like to address a few other matters that are of concern. The reality is that, unlike the Australian Labor Party, the coalition some time ago decided that there was a need for a portfolio responsibility in the arena of small business. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) recognised that and consequently created such a portfolio structure within the Liberal-National Party coalition. The reality, of course, is that that is vastly different from the situation that exists with the Government. As with so many other areas, the Government has made promises but has not delivered. The Government has no Ministry for small business despite the general recognition throughout the world today of the economic contribution that the small business sector makes. Ministerial responsibility for small business in Australia is tucked away in the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. That is the order of importance-industry, technology and commerce. We never hear anything about small business from the Government. The Department is run by a lawyer in the Senate and, of course, that is not much help to the small business sector. The Government sold a bill of goods to the small business sector but we discover that those promises have not been kept. However, the coalition has recognised the situation and I am very honoured that our leader has called upon me, a person who has been there, done that, to represent and be the advocate of the small business community in this Parliament. I accept that responsibility and I am going to do the best I can in that regard. I would like to touch on a few statistics in respect of small business. It is a reality that 700,000 employers in Australia employ on average fewer than 10 people and that 620,000 of them employ on average fewer than five. It has been recently stated in the United States of America that since 1978 Fortune's top 500 companies shed one and a half million of their work force. Yet, in that same period, small business created six and a half million jobs. If that is not a message to a government that continues to ignore the small business sector, I do not know what is. Eighty-five per cent of the jobs created in America by business in recent times have been created by businesses that are less than five years old. In the 1978-82 period large businesses in Australia lost or shed 288,000 jobs; small business created 310,000 jobs. Still the Government chooses to ignore and neglect this sector. What did the Government do with the big manifesto that it gave? It did nothing. Why was no action taken in respect of what the Government called its small business action program? The only thing that the Government has done about its promises has been to increase the size of the bureaucracy. That is the only promise it has kept. What has the Government done that has not helped small business? What about the recent strike by public servants which was brought about by the ineptitude of the Government and its refusal to accept the realities of some of the legislation brought in by previous Governments? That is what caused the strike. The public servants promised the community 'You will not be hurt-we are only attacking the Government', as though that were something separate from the community. It is not. But the realities are that people have suffered badly. My colleagues and I ran a Customs hotline to discover the ways in which people were being hurt. We found that thousands of people were unable to get off wharves and from airports goods that were needed to keep their workers employed. When they went to the unions and said 'You will have to help me or I will have to dismiss my staff' there was no response to that plea to keep people in work. They were asked a simple question. The question was: 'Are your workers in a union? If they are not in a union we will not help them'. Mr Hand —That is not true. Mr TUCKEY —That is true and I heard it again on the phone today. The person I spoke to told me that he was informed that he could get his goods if he paid money to the union. He did so and he got them within 24 hours. He was told: 'You can either sack your workers or they can join the union'. There was no middle ground. That is the truth. The honourable member ought to get the message because if one hurts small business one hurts small business employees, and that is what has been happening. Another person drew to my attention the fact that he was about to put off his work force of 20 because he could not get goods that were sitting on the wharf. He also told me that if he started his business again it would be with half of his work force. But, oh no, there was no damage to be done to small business or the community by these terrible strikes all caused by a government, which did not know whose side it was on, forgetting its responsibilities as a government to the overall community! Of course, we know what has been happening recently in the building industry. There seems to be a campaign in this respect. It is interesting to me that under this Government the Commissioner of Taxation has decided for the first time that he needs a public relations team. Is it not funny that he did not need one before? The community accepted him for what he was. Now the Commissioner has to convince people that the things he is doing to them are nice, that the medicine is lovely. However, the reality is that he is making a calculated attack on the small business sector, contractors and others and that always seems to be followed by a visit from a union representative who also wants employees in a union. I just wonder whether there is any connection in all of that. More important than anything else, the one thing that people in the small business sector wanted from this Government was leadership. They wanted a leader who knew where he was going, who would give them direction. They were prepared to forgive him some mistakes every now and again as they would anyone else. They just wanted some leadership. Frequently I try to recognise success and excellence in my electorate by writing to young people who, for instance, have been made head boy of their school. The other day a young man who had been appointed head boy chose to write back to me after I had given him a few words about leadership. The second paragraph of his letter states: I totally agree with you on the point that leadership is very badly needed in our community. Unfortunately, even our Prime Minister is displaying a lack of good leadership. His sudden change of mind on the MX missile issue was pitiful. That letter is dated 22 February 1985. That is a boy of about 15 years serving sentence on the leader of honourable members opposite-a man who does not know where he is going, and the community knows it. He has reached the stage that wherever he is in the world he has to ring up and find out whether he is on the right track. That is not what the small business community wants; it is not what Australians want. This sort of thing is predictable about this man of consensus, who always flew into an issue when it was dead, when the protagonists were on their knees and said: 'Hey ho, watch me; I have fixed it'. He never fixed anything in his life. For the first time he is starting to feel the burden of government. He cannot handle it, he cannot cop it. Of course, nor can the great pretender, gullible Bill, who can be convinced by anybody. Of course, that is not a quality that marks good strong leadership. The small business community is not impressed at all by U-turns and by back pedalling; yet that is what it is getting from the Government at the moment. What are we getting on taxation? We are getting the great summit trick. I attended the first summit. I had a lot more guts than any of the people I can see sitting on the other side of the House. I demanded to represent the people who had enough confidence to vote for me. I said that my seat belonged to me, that I had won it and, what is more, that I could lose it. I had a responsibility for the seat, not the 100 invited guests of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), 30 of whom came from the trade union movement and one of those just out of gaol. They got him out especially for the occasion. Let us face it; if there is anything incorrect in what I said-- Mr Hand —Don't you talk about that sort of thing, for God's sake, you of all people to talk about being in gaol! Mr TUCKEY —I have no worries about that. We know who has been there. The Government sat them in seats in this place on the great summit trick. The Prime Minister thought he could have another one but, of course, the business community is a little more careful this time. Its members were flattered into submission. I saw them in here. I know that the only ones who got a chance to make a speech were the ones who submitted their speeches the night before so that they could be vetted. That is on the record. Is it not amazing that we have to have a summit to decide what the Government will do? As a taxpayer, I shuddered when the Prime Minister said to us-- Mr Beazley —You sat there like a lamb. Mr TUCKEY —Of course I sat there like a lamb. The Prime Minister promised us two days of debate. I thought I could get in on that but when I came along the Prime Minister decided that we would not have two days of debate. For four days we had set pieces, all checked out the day before by the Prime Minister and his mates. Old Norm had to put his stamp of approval on the speeches before delegates would rise to speak. The reality of all this is that summits are a con job on the community. Originally we were not going to have a summit. We were going to have the Economic Planning Advisory Council decide our tax future, not this Parliament. That is what the Prime Minister offered us. What is EPAC? It has 18 members. Five of them are senior Labor people-three from this Government, one from New South Wales and one from South Australia-and four from the Australian Council of Trade Unions. For the benefit of the honourable member for Melbourne, I will add those numbers up. They come to nine. Nine out of the 18 members are senior members of the Labor Party. Labor has to pick up one other number to have what it wants. What a joke! What an imposition on members of the business and small business communities. They want the tax monkey off their back. Mr Kelty said recently that members of the small business community should stop their bleating. He thinks they only pay income tax. What about the up-front charges? What about the fuel taxes and the payroll taxes? What about the rates of tax? What about all those taxes they pay whether or not they make a profit? I compare that to a factory worker paying $5 a day for the privilege of going through the factory gate for a boss who might not have the financial ability to pay him at the end of the week. What about those taxes that members of the small business community are called on to pay from the day they open their doors? Kelty says that they should not bleat about their tax burden. What a joke! This Government, with its tunnel vision, has put up the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) as the representative of the small business community in this place. It was interesting that he presented, with great political flair, one of my business letters the other day. It is a pity that he did not read it. He did not show any business acumen. I do not know how he will represent the scientific community but, with his reputation, God save the small business community. He does not know the facts and I do not think he cares. I would really like to know why the Labor Government so dislikes the small business community. I believe that I do know. Members of that community represent the wild card in the pack. They are the people who cannot be organised. They are no good for the Labor movement and they cannot be managed like the big business movement. They are the truck drivers who will go to work because they want to make the next payment on their truck. They are the people who will open their shops because they have good customers who are used to being able to go there and buy things from them. They are the people who cannot be called out on strike at the drop of a hat. As I have mentioned, the Labor Party is working in many ways to force them into becoming workers for their own cause. ACTU building sub-contractors have to incorporate so they can work for the company that they own-become employees-in order to be admissible to a union. That is the sort of thing Labor is doing. It is breaking down a sector that it went to, in the previous election campaign at least, and told it would help. As I said, it did not help. Mr Hand —You didn't help them. Mr TUCKEY —I do not think our performance for small business was all that brilliant in times gone by but we are on the road now. We have come to the conclusion. We do not mind admitting some errors of the past. We do not mind the Government's history lessons about the past. We are comparing the future we offer with the Government's performance of today. The comparison as far as the Government is concerned is pretty crook. It has ridden on the coat tails of past decisions for 18 months and we are just starting to feel what Hawke-Keating economics are all about. The Liberal-National Party coalition offers some good things for the community of the future. We have recognised the problems. We are showing it already in this place by bringing to the Parliament a Bill for prompt payment of government debt. Prompt payment of government debt means that people like chemists and others will get paid within a reasonable time. We are doing it by legislation, not by administrative decree. We do not trust administrative decree. We say that it should be legislated for. Our policy and our Bill in that regard will offer prompt payment or interest in lieu. That is the way it should be done. We will bring down private members' legislation to deregulate. We are not going to have another committee about that. I am fed up with government by inquiry, and so is the community. We are going to do things. We believe on this side of the House that judgment exists. We believe that we can go out to the people and discover what their problems are and agree with them. We will deliver within the competence of the Government, recognising our limits, of course, which the other side does not, to the tune of $7 billion or $8 billion worth of deficit this year. We will recognise the limits of what we can do because we know who pays for it. Anybody who thinks that a deficit is not taxation must go back to school. It is taxation deferred with an interest charge on top. Let us remember that interest charges in this year's Budget amount to $5,600m. These are the proposals that we will put forward. Mr Barry Jones —Million or billion? Mr TUCKEY —If I said 'million', I meant 'billion'. I thank the Minister. We will run a more efficient government because we will recognise in the first instance that the role of small business-- Mr Hand —What are you going to cut? Mr TUCKEY —We are not apologists for decisions of the past; we are offering a future, and a future is what Australians want. The future will be one of strong leadership. It was displayed in the last election campaign that the front runner could not cop it. But the back runner showed the great ability of a good stayer. He stuck in there, in the running, where things were tough and he improved all the way. We know all about front runners in the racing industry. They are the ones that stay in front until you tackle them. When you tackle them they do not run second; they run last. I will make that prediction too. The front runner is getting the pressure put on now and he is demonstrating, as we all knew he would, that he is the man of the great written speech, the man who could not ad lib or jump on his feet in a fit. We saw it after the election. When he realised his prepared speech was not going to work because he did not have a 50-seat majority he gave us more ahs and ums than words we could understand. That is Government members' leader-not worth two bob. He cannot lead Australia and he does not know what to do at the moment because he is scared stiff of being anything but Prime Minister. The small business community in particular is looking for someone a little different from that. Honourable members opposite have talked about deregulation. Deregulation to us means what we say. Deregulation to honourable members opposite means promising us in the Governor-General's Speech that we will have a National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. If that is not regulation I will go heave. It is something that has been handled for years by State governments and there is no reason for intrusion by the union movement. We are going to have intrusion in interstate road transport, and that is not supposed to be regulatory-not much! Even the sex discrimination legislation, for the first time in the history of Australia, gives government the final say in who a private person will employ. If that is not an imposition of government, what is? What is Medicare but further regulation of medicine? Let me touch quickly on the retail tax in my role as advocate. Retail taxing cannot make tax collectors into taxpayers. If the Government is going to do it, it should for goodness sake not make people pay the tax before they have collected their money. It should not make them pay tax on money that they have been unable to collect, on a bad debt. It should give the people a chance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(8.49) —In this Address-in-Reply debate I wish to canvass a number of areas and, in doing so, mention this Government's achievements. I heard the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) canvass quite widely many of those achievements and I will avoid repeating them. I wish to congratulate Ministers, chairpersons and Mr Speaker on their election to their responsible positions. I congratulate the Special Minister of State, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). It was his new Electoral Act, put through the last Parliament, that enabled so many new faces to be present in this Thirty-fourth Parliament. It was that same Electoral Act that improved the Senate voting system and brought in public funding of election campaigns. Those who have spent a number of years in this House will recall the determination of the Minister to see the reforms and the introduction of public funding. The first Hawke Labor Government seriously addressed the problems of the unemployed and those on community welfare benefits. This is a continuing task but one on which we in government will not turn our back. There is still very much to do. Thankfully, gone are the days when the ill and the infirm were treated like third class citizens when they applied for an invalid pension. Now they do not need to feel like street beggars, unwanted and uncared for. We have a government that is responsive to their problems. In the period available to me I would like to address some specific matters of great concern to Australia's standing as a nation in today's world. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has recently in this House condemned the outrageous killing of black people in South Africa on 21 March this year. Similar killings at Sharpeville were carried out by the South African Government 25 years to the day before these recent killings. The Minister, speaking on behalf of this Labor Government, reaffirmed the Government's total opposition to the injustice and inhumanity of apartheid. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), wholeheartedly endorsed this Government's statement. I applaud the shadow Minister for his stand. I hope he can hold that line. We respond when such an outrage as the recent South African killings is given world-wide publicity, but support for the black people of South Africa is needed on a continuing and increasing basis. The conditions of the South African blacks are without parallel in today's world. Let me give some facts to help illustrate the evil of South African apartheid. In South Africa last year 114 men were hanged. I repeat: 114 men were hanged. That is 24 more than in 1983 and 15 more than in 1982. All 114 were men, of whom 87 were black, 24 were coloured, two were white and one was of Asian origin. Just as evil and terrifying is the number of deaths behind bars. In 1984, 126 people died in police custody due, according to official reports, to injuries before arrests, 21; suicide, 38; natural causes, 61; assault by other prisoners, 6; and detainees taken to hospital, 15. The Minister for Foreign Affairs was correct when he said: The Government believes that the vile and repugnant apartheid system remains the basic cause of the unrest and discontent amongst South Africa's majority black population. Twenty three million blacks, 77 per cent of the population, cannot be deliberately excluded from the political life of their country. I am pleased to advise this House of the fine work being carried out in Australia by such organisations as the Campaign Against Racial Exploitation. The driving force is Jim and Irene Gale, two wonderfully dedicated people. There is also the work of Eddie Funde, the representative of the African National Congress. I try to assist as a trustee of the African Liberation Trust Fund. I commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs on his statement. I congratulate the Opposition shadow Minister for his support. I would be delighted to see more of my colleagues support the Campaign Against Racial Exploitation and the African Liberation Trust Fund. The people of New Zealand have shown an amount of courage, almost unequalled, in their stand against South African apartheid. In a land where rugby is a national sport it speaks volumes that the New Zealand people stood up against the South African rugby tour of 1981. Again, one of our oldest and closest allies, New Zealand, has shown that special kind of courage. I refer of course to its determination to struggle to secure a nuclear-free environment. The people of New Zealand in a general election on 4 July 1984 voted for a Labor Government and a policy of no nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered ships to enter their ports. The people of New Zealand are to be congratulated on their decision and their determination. In today's mad nuclear arms race, we must surely hope and pray that their lead will be successful and that it will be followed by many other nations. In the Governor-General's Speech at the opening of this Thirty-fourth Parliament, in outlining our Government's position the Governor-General said: The Government remains deeply committed to advancing the cause of peace, arms control and disarmament. He went on to say: . . . will actively promote programs for the International Year of Peace in 1986, and will advance the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone proposal. The stand taken by the people and the Government of New Zealand can and will greatly assist our Government in pursuing and, indeed, achieving a South Pacific nuclear-free zone. Indeed, the South Pacific Forum held in Tuvalu in August 1984 adopted Australia's set of principles to establish a nuclear-free zone. It should also be stressed that the South Pacific Forum accepted unanimously that individual Forum countries were free to make their own decisions about visits of United States nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered ships. That principle was as follows: That South Pacific countries retain their unqualified sovereign rights to decide for themselves, consistent with their support for these objectives, their security arrangements, and such questions as the access to their ports and airfields by vessels and aircraft of other countries. The concern for things nuclear is world wide. Tens of thousands of concerned anti-nuclear demonstrators recently took to the streets in Belgium protesting at the proposed siting of cruise and Pershing II missiles; likewise in the Netherlands. Canada, America's closest ally, does not permit the stationing of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. What is more, it does not consider that such a policy is incompatible with its obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. United States nuclear weapons were removed from Canada at the request of the Canadian Government in the late 1950s. The Canadian Government's official policy was most clearly expressed by the Minister of External Affairs, Mr Clark, in the House of Commons on 15 February 1985. The Minister made the following observations: The position of the Government of Canada on the question of nuclear arms on Canadian soil is abundantly clear. We do not allow nuclear arms to be stationed on Canadian soil. In the event of any contingency plan which might call for the stationing of nuclear arms here, this Government retains its right to refuse nuclear arms on Canadian soil, and this Government would be prepared to exercise our option to refuse nuclear arms on Canadian soil if we believed that to be in the interests of Canada. It is my view that those who would criticise New Zealand for its stand are out of touch. They are batting on the wrong side. The concern around the globe about things nuclear is growing. New Zealand has taken a courageous, forward-thinking stand and I sincerely hope that the Australian Labor Party Government will give New Zealand every possible help and support. We can demonstrate such support at the South Pacific Forum to be held in August 1985 in the Cook Islands, where the Forum countries are to discuss a nuclear free zone in the region. Support for the principled stand taken by New Zealand will be echoed in many countries around the globe. Even the United States has nuclear free zones covering 80 communities and nearly 10 million people. In Japan more and more people are concerned over possible visits by United States nuclear-armed ships. Declarations of local nuclear weapons free zones by Japanese towns and townships more than doubled between 1982 and 1984, from 64 to 146, and included at least five of Japan's 47 prefectures. It is accepted there will be nearly 300 such declarations by the end of 1985. No, New Zealand is not out of step. The New Zealand position has been determined by the belief that the nuclear arms race is the single greatest threat to international security and that the nuclear powers have no right to involve every other country in the risks of nuclear confrontation. This position was spelt out by Prime Minister Lange in his opening speech in the foreign affairs debate of 9 October 1984 when he said: Many believe the nuclear arms race to be the greatest single threat to their security. The Government commits itself to do all it can to reduce that threat. In the end realism dictates that nuclear powers will begin to exercise the responsibility they have to all of us when they are prepared to consider two basic propositions. The first is that the security provided by their competition to build more and improved weapons is illusory, and the second is that their security and ours can be enhanced only through agreement to slash the nuclear arsenals . . . The nuclear States have absolutely no mandate for imposing the risks of nuclear confrontation on all other countries and holding the world at ransom. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(9.04) —Mr Deputy Speaker, in speaking in the Address-in-Reply debate I want to express firstly to His Excellency the Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen, my complete loyalty to him and, through him, if he would, to Her most gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, that same loyalty. I believe that this Parliament functions on the monarchy which is the basis of the constitutional authority of this Parliament and this nation. I pledge myself to the service of this Parliament, to our nation Australia and to the Australian flag. It is my hope that neither the monarchy nor the flag will change, irrespective of the many pressures, political and otherwise, exerted on both unless it is by proper constitutional reform or through a referendum. The Governor-General's Speech states: 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 would like to draw to the attention of this House and this nation the actual conditions that were prevailing throughout the Australian economy and Australia at the time those remarks were made so we might recognise what lies before the Government, as it faces the next three years in government, in the economic, social and industrial fields and how those policies relate. I give some examples: For instance, at this very time real unemployment-that is, including those on temporary government sponsored work programs-has not reduced even if the community employment programs are taken into account. The Australian dollar has depreciated against the United States dollar from a high in the first Hawke Government of 96.48c to a low of 67.6c. The industrial protection remains too high and the regulations throughout this country stifle the natural expansion of our major industries. Australia has the most regulated labour resource, probably the most protected of any nation, protected by a central arbitration system, particularly against those with whom it trades. Our whole society and our industry particularly have become over-regulated. The income and wages accord, since its inception in March 1983, has been circumvented through redundancy provisions, incremental creep, reclassifications, deferred payments disguised as superannuation schemes and special allowances. Frankly, I believe that any Australian looking at the facts would say that the accord is not working. I do not think the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) should have been in Canada this last week to expound to the new Canadian Government the concept of an accord or an economic summit as I am not sure he is the right person to do it. We also see that Australia is one of the highest taxed nations in the world with, I understand, over 40 per cent of our gross domestic product going in taxation or government charges throughout the three levels of government. The tax summit, which is proposed for July, will inevitably add further taxes and give further revenue to the Government. The Prime Minister has indicated this will be the situation-that he is looking for more funds. The two Hawke Budgets have produced record deficits. The Government's overseas debt was about $42 billion at July 1984. By June 1987 it could be, on the present rate of deficit financing, approximately $70 billion. The trilogy, if it can be achieved, will simply cement a further record deficit in place for the next three years and will increase the cost of servicing the public debt. Servicing of the Commonwealth debt at $5.6 billion for 1984-85 stands as the fifth highest item of government expenditure contained in the Budget and represents a continuing tax on future generations of taxpayers to pay for this and past generations' extravagances. This represents over 8 per cent of Commonwealth expenditure. Just bear in mind that the debt is rolled over and is not taken into account as a repayment in those figures. What a record! Yet the economy is paraded as the high achievement of the first Hawke Government. Obviously many more comparisons could be made, but the conclusion we must draw from these few is certainly not that of a strong, fair and equitable Australian society. The manner of redressing all these factors lies not within the province or capacity of the Labor Government or the socialist Government, as it has proved to be. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) listened to the last speaker on his side, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott). Does the Minister fully agree with everything the honourable member was saying? If nothing else I believe that speech highlights the many factions there are within the Labor Government today. Not only are there those factions within the Party but there are its union commitments and all the other pressure points. In this the Labor Government has shown itself to be a government divided, with neither the will nor the capacity to redress these problems that confront Australia. I want to mention these instances, quite apart from the one I have just mentioned: The President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Cliff Dolan, prior to the last election insisted on a further tax on capital property and wealth, and mentioned that that would be part of the new economic and industrial deal that the unions would do with the Government. The ACTU therefore has staked its position as the non-elected government of Australia. The socialist Left does not want to mine and use our available resources, such as uranium, and is intent on destroying the ANZUS alliance along with all the other treaties and agreements with the West. The comments by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) over the many long months since the election, and those by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) indicate that the situation as far as they see it is that the ANZUS alliance is no longer necessary, that we can do without our American allies. Also, the powerful Caucus Resources and Trade Committee is committed to more and not less protection. The rigidity of the central wage fixing system is putting more persons out of work in the private and productive sector at the same time when the government or public sector is employing more in unproductive areas. The Government's pre-Budget leaks indicate a commitment to more and not less expenditure and also major checks on means testings of parents' income in regard to the receipt of unemployment benefits, the slashing of spouse rebates and also a national superannuation scheme. All of these are matters which have been leaked to the Australian public and we wait with bated breath to see what happens. One must admit that not all of these problems can be blamed on the present Government. But in spite of the many positives, such as the breaking of the drought and the revival of the world economies, the Government of the Thirty-third Parliament proved to be quite incapable of coping with the situation that eventuated in its term. The first Hawke Labor Government showed this by the breaking of 120-odd 1983 election promises, in spite of the positives that I have just outlined. The former Secretary to the Treasury, Mr John Stone, has said it all in so many ways. It has been said that Australians have become so accustomed to the hand-out mentality that we lack direction and purpose. Be that as it may, governments have certainly raised an expectation in people that they have only to ask and it will be granted. Australians should have been presented with loftier ideals within the Address-in-Reply than the Address has suggested. For instance, in the words of my colleague the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), who is in the chamber, maybe we should pause and ask ourselves: Where are we? Where are we going? What do we want for a greater Australia? That would in itself have formed a first-class address to the nation. Let us look at the taxation situation and analyse events throughout the world and the economic performance of other nations. The general argument in the tax debate-I refer to the coming summit, for instance-is that on the one hand some say, and I believe this to be the situation, that lower taxes should stimulate higher output by increasing incentives to save, to invest, to work hard, to innovate. A more moralistic approach can then be taken for the collection of a just and fair tax as opposed to the more common attitude of today, to avoid and evade a higher, unfair and unjust taxation regime. On the other hand, others will argue that lower taxation will benefit the rich at the expense of the poor; that funds for social services available from tax revenues will diminish and widen the gap between those who have and those who have not; and that there is no real redistribution of wealth in a lower taxation system. I have found some very interesting calculations which have been carried out by the World Bank staff and which have been presented in its working paper No. 605. They provide some empirical evidence on the links between taxes and economic growth. In the report, 20 nations, spanning almost the entire spectrum of world incomes, were compared in pairs, in duos, within the same per capita income basis. One nation represented a low taxation regime and the other a high taxing regime. Mr Deputy Speaker, I did seek the permission of the Minister who was previously at the table for the incorporation of one of those tables. I now seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 1 COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED LOW-TAX AND HIGH-TAX COUNTRIES AND THE U.S. Real average annual growth rates, 1970-79 (in per cent) Per capita income Consumption Gross groups domestic Labor Labor Country US dollars 1979 GDP Public Private investment Exports force productivity Malawi (low-tax) 200-300 6.3 6.1 5.7 2.3 4.6 2.2 4.1 Zaire (high-tax) -0.7 -2.2 -1.8 -5.0 -1.1 2.1 -2.8 Cameroon (low-tax) 500-600 5.4 5.4 5.3 7.9 0.5 1.3 4.1 Liberia (high-tax) 1.8 2.3 4.3 5.2 2.3 2.6 -0.8 Thailand (low-tax) 500-600 7.7 9.1 6.9 7.7 12.0 2.7 5.0 Zambia (high-tax) 1.5 1.8 -2.2 -5.6 -0.7 2.4 -0.9 Paraguay (low-tax) 700-1100 8.3 4.8 7.4 18.7 8.4 3.1 5.2 Peru (high-tax) 3.1 6.5 2.9 2.7 1.7 3.0 0.1 Mauritius (low-tax) 1100-1300 8.2 13.5 9.8 16.1 . . . . . . Jamaica (high-tax) -0.9 8.0 -0.6 -9.6 -6.8 2.2 -3.1 Republic of Korea (low-tax) 1400-1700 10.3 8.7 8.0 14.9 25.7 2.8 7.5 Chile (high-tax) 1.9 -0.5 1.9 -2.0 10.7 1.9 0.0 Brazil (low-tax) 1700-2100 8.7 8.6 9.1 10.1 7.0 2.2 6.5 Uruguay (high-tax) 2.5 1.5 (.) 7.5 4.3 0.1 2.4 Singapore (low-tax) 3800-5950 8.4 6.4 7.2 6.0 11.0 2.7 5.7 New Zealand (high-tax) 2.4 . . . . . . 3.4 2.1 0.3 Spain (low-tax) 4300-6350 4.4 5.6 4.4 2.5 10.8 1.1 3.3 United Kingdom (high-tax) 2.1 2.8 1.7 0.8 8.2 0.3 1.8 Japan (low-tax) 8800-11,950 5.2 5.0 5.3 3.2 9.1 1.3 3.9 Sweden (high-tax) 2.0 3.2 2.0 1.1 2.6 0.3 1.7 United States 10,630 3.1 1.7 3.6 1.9 6.9 1.8 1.3 Sources: World Bank, 1981 World Bank Atlas; World Development Report, 1981; and Accelerated Development in Sub-Saharan Africa (Washington, D.C., 1981). IMF, International Financial Statistics Yearbook 1981 and Government Financial Statistics Yearbook, Volume V (Washington, D.C., 1981). International Labor Office, ILO Yearbook of Labour Statistics, 1980. Mr BRAITHWAITE —The comparisons between each two countries in terms of real average annual growth rates from 1970 to 1979 is given in percentages and show the record in regard to the gross domestic product, public and private consumption, gross domestic investment exports, the labour force and the very important labour productivity. It is surprising to me that the low taxing nations showed much better performances than the high taxing nations except for Liberia which had per capita income of $US500 to $US600 and where it was shown in two comparisons between exports and the labour force that it performed better than the Cameroons which was the low taxing country in that comparison. Low tax countries reflected higher rates of economic growth and allowed for a substantial rise in real living standards shown by the higher levels of private consumption. In actual fact, the low taxing regimes have through that growth generated increased revenues which have expanded the tax base. This expansion in the taxation base has alleviated the fears of those who argue that lower taxation means a diminution of funds for welfare services by allowing the more rapid expansion of government services such as defence, health and education. Let us now look at examples that we can recognise within the Pacific rim and compare them with Australia's high taxing performance. For instance, Korea's average per capita income for 1979 was between $US1,400 and $US1,700; Singapore's average per capita income was $US3,800 to $US5,950; and the figure for Japan was $US8,800 to $US11,950. While there are other differences quite apart from the taxing structures, such as industrial and productivity differences, Australia must recognise that all three of these Pacific rim countries are out-producing, out-manufacturing and out-trading Australia in almost every department. It is important to recognise these facts because we are told so often that Australia's future depends on our trade in what will be the great economic zone of the world in the future. In that zone we will be competing with Canada, South Africa, the United States and South America, which have the same advantages with regard to freight as we do. For instance, when I was in Japan in 1978, Australia had a favourable balance of trade with Japan of three to one. Today in 1985 it has equalised. I am sure that those who know the 'flat rate' regime of Hong Kong would realise that it too is out-performing Australia. I do not count the differences in costs-that is, labour-as a standard of comparison because I believe that costs are a result of high taxation, low productivity and the misuse of industrial muscle. Under the combination of all three of those factors, Australian costs are on the ceiling when compared with those of any of the other countries within that rim that I have just mentioned. Let us look next at Australia's industrial and wage fixing system. Industry in Australia cannot claim to be free enterprise when 50 per cent of the costs to industry are the most regulated and rigid of all the cost components. Labour is certainly not a free resource. The Australian work force is approximately 55 per cent to 60 per cent unionised and wages are centralised on the industrial or arbitration commissions. In the United States, about 20 per cent of the work force is unionised and this works because of contracts and collective bargaining between the work force and management. Our major trading partners provide at best two weeks annual leave, as against our minimum of four weeks. With a 17 1/2 per cent loading, Australians are paid more to take their holidays than they are to work. Penalty rates in the United States commence after an employee works his 40 hours in one week. In Australia they are paid after seven hours' work a day. An employer is expected to pay unskilled youth labour at adult skilled labour prices. Likewise, university graduates, with all the theory and no practical application, make the same demands on industry when entering their first jobs. In addition to these conditions, if the arbitration commission's decision is unfavourable, the worker withdraws his labour and his wife and family are eligible for income support from the state-that is, the taxpayer. The unemployment benefit in the US is met from contributions of employees and employers. To this should be added the additional costs for no additional productivity of the other claims that I mentioned earlier which are made and granted to get around the prices and incomes accord. Yet, on top of this, unions will be seeking productivity bonuses this year. One might well ask: What productivity has there been? If such bonuses are given, where will they lead? Large businesses might be able to pass on the cost, but small businesses will have to retract their business activity and will have to cut down their work force. That is basically what will happen in regard to productivity claims. One has only to consider the national loss in the power dispute earlier this year in Queensland and the Commonwealth Public Service strike to wonder where Australia is heading. A writer in the Bulletin only the week before last made this very pertinent observation: Once upon a time, when there was no Arbitration Commission, no basic wage or 38 hour week, no sick or holiday pay, no unions or awards, it was necessary for workers to strike to get a fair deal. It was the only way to put their case. In 1985, when we have basic awards and conditions for workers and an Arbitration Commission to hear any claims or grievances, the right to strike is no longer necessary. It is uncivilised and outmoded. It has degenerated into a standover tactic which is slowly destroying the living standards of all Australians. The writer was Mrs Lorraine Prins of Nebo in Queensland. That is the crux of the whole matter. The living standards of all Australians are being destroyed. That living standard today is overvalued and can only suffer devaluation in the future if Australia continues down the same path. The vicious circle continues. We protect our local industries, not so that they can trade externally, but just so that they can sell internally against the challenge of imports. Our loss of productivity provides for more and more regulations and control. In order to survive in business today in Australia a person will have to be strong enough to overcome many regulations and controls. He will have to overcome controls governing the labour market, overproduction, subsidies to the competition, the monopolisation of the marketing of these products. He will have to pay the share of protection afforded his competitors and to less efficient industries. There will be controls over the valuation of his money. Monopolies will be set up in banking, transport and communications. The business will become the unpaid collector of taxes on behalf of government. There will be payment of taxes on payroll, indirect taxes, royalties, rental resources taxes and others. That person will have to maintain standards for the environment, health, building, staff, factory, machinery and pay the fees to ensure those standards are met. There will be controls over the hours the business can trade, with special fines and penalties for non-compliance. Finally, if a profit at the end of this is achieved it will be taxed at 46c in the dollar before one cent is available to finance inflating stock, repay the loans, provide the debtors, replace the machinery or pay the dividends. The Labor Government now intends to tax that person on yearly wealth or capital gain if the business is sold. If it all becomes just too much and death results, there is the likelihood of a death duty. Little wonder that, when compared with the freer and less regulated United States economy, Australian business finds difficulty in competing with the United States or any other Pacific rim countries. That business person is not paying for productivity and efficiency, he is paying for inefficiencies. The National Farmers Federation estimates that each farm in Australia pays $16,000 yearly for the inefficiencies of other industries and protection. Each Australian produced motor car costs $3,000 to $4,000 more to the Australian consumer. I understand that each worker in the motor vehicle industry is subsidised by about $23,000 a year. One's mind boggles as to what further subsidies we pay as Australians to the regulated monopolies through our postage stamps, telephone calls, air fares, electricity charges, railway freights and so on. Perhaps now we can look at the effect of taxes and regulations on what should be our greatest resource of labour. In the period from 1974 to 1984 Australia's population grew from 13.8 million to 15.5 million. In that time 711,000 additional jobs were created. Unemployment grew from 226,000 to 627,000. I ask for leave to have incorporated in Hansard a further table which was published in the Australian newspaper on Wednesday, 5 March 1985. Leave granted. The table read as follows- EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY 1974-84 ('000s) MARKET (PRIVATE) SECTOR annual 1974 1984 change % Agriculture 404.8 411.5 0.2 Mining 73.8 94.8 2.5 Manufacturing 1374.3 1159.3 -1.5 Construction 506.3 441.8 -1.2 Wholesale &Retail 1165.7 1311.7 1.2 Transport &Storage 13.4 349.9 1.1 Communications 130.7 138.1 0.6 Finance 429.4 609.9 3.6 Recreation &Other services 355.5 430.9 1.9 TOTAL MARKET 4,753.9 4,947.9 0.4 Non-Market Sector Electricity, Gas &Water 104.1 142.5 3.2 Public Administration 250.5 318.3 2.4 Community Services 746.7 1,157.5 4.5 TOTAL NON- MARKET 1,101.3 1,618.3 3.9 TOTAL (for both) 5,855.2 6,566.0 1.1 Mr BRAITHWAITE —In the period in which Australia's population grew from 13 million to 15 million and additional jobs were created the table shows that, as a result of taxation and regulation, employment in the private sector rejected a very small annual change of 0.4 per cent and the private participation rate, compared with total population, fell from 34.4 per cent in 1974 to 31.8 per cent in 1984. This transfer from the private and productive sector was made to the uncompetitive non-private sector, whose participation percentage grew from 8 per cent to 10.4 per cent, an increase of 30 per cent in 10 years. The annual change in the public sector employment was 3.9 per cent or 517,00 additional workers. The ratio of those employed in the public sector to those employed in the private sector went from one in every 4.3 in 1974 to one in every 3.06 in 1984. As I interpret the figures, this indicates that higher taxation and greater regulation are taking employment away from the private sector and transferring this to the public sector and to unemployment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(9.24) —I speak this evening in response to the Governor-General's Speech delivered at the opening of the Thirty-fourth Parliament just over four weeks ago. Many of the matters raised in that Speech could well do with further elucidation so that the record of this Labor Government is further illustrated for the benefit of honourable members. Might I at this stage, however, congratulate all of those new members who came into this place at the beginning of the Thirty-fourth Parliament on their election to the Parliament and on the manner in which they delivered their maiden speeches. Despite our philosophical differences-the differences that will exist between each of those new members-I believe all those honourable members have come here with one major overriding thought and theme, that is, to do their best for the people of Australia. It is well to remember the situation in Australia prior to March 1983 and what has happened since Labor came to office at that time. It is hard to believe that just two years ago the Australian economy was in recession and the loss of jobs each year was running at 200,000. When the Labor Government came to office the inflation rate was running at 11.5 per cent and the gross domestic product, or growth rate, was crawling along at minus 2 per cent with a forthcoming deficit of $9.6 million. That was the state of the economy which confronted this Government just two years ago. Most of the matters that were raised by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), have not occurred just over those previous two years. Indeed, most of the problems besetting this nation were in existence prior to those two years. A lot of the blame for those shortcomings must be sheeted home to the former Government. Hard decisions were needed at that time so that the downward slide into economic chaos would be arrested and new policies put in place so that the economy could start the slow upward movement towards recovery. This Labor Government took those hard decisions and set into place new policies and new initiatives which have brought about the fastest and most dramatic economic recovery of any country in the world. In that first term of office the Government sought and received the support and co-operation of the trade union movement and the Australian people in embarking on a course never before attempted during peacetime. This was a course of national reconciliation, recovery and reconstruction. The success of receiving that support and co-operation was achieved through the forging of the historic prices and incomes accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the process of discussion and consensus at the National Economic Summit Conference attended by business and community leaders. We tend to accept far too blandly that our economic recovery occurred just as night follows day, without any assistance from the Government. We must not forget that this Labor Government was able to achieve the remarkable economic recovery we have in Australia today. That is something no conservative government has been able to do. The people of Australia need to be reminded time and time again that any return to conservative government in Australia would turn back the economic recovery clock to pre-1983. When one listens to the speeches of honourable members opposite in this debate it is easy to realise just how short their memories are. This is particularly so when we heard what the new conservative members had to say in their maiden speeches. They talked of the policies that the Liberal Party had for achieving economic recovery, for taxation equity, for industry revitalisation and for providing jobs for so many people presently unemployed. Those new members have learned nothing from the past because it was the party to which they belong and which they now represent that brought economic ruin and despair to the people of Australia during the period from 1975 to 1983 when their party was in government. Theirs is a party whose policies were proved unworkable, yet, they have the hide and audacity to criticise the policies of the present Government which have achieved the economic miracle we have today. If nothing else, I appeal to those new members opposite to learn from the mistakes of history. I have no doubt that every honourable member of this House desires a continuation of economic recovery and full employment, but this is not possible without a realisation that past policies enunciated by the Opposition parties have not and will not work. We need the co-operation of Opposition members in sustaining our nation's economic recovery-not confrontation. We need their help, and not their hindrance. For the sake of our fellow Australians let us all work together in promoting recovery and building a better future for our citizens. I now come to some of the other matters which I believe need some mention and which have been referred to in the Governor-General's Speech. Housing has always been referred to as the great Australian dream. Not only do Australians want a roof over their heads but most of them ultimately want to own their own home. For those unable to achieve home ownership welfare housing through the States' housing authorities forms a large and important sector of the housing industry. Housing is a very good barometer of the nation's economy because the housing industry is usually the first to suffer in a recession. Before outlining the Government's achievements in respect of the housing industry, let me quote from two articles which appeared in daily papers one year apart. The first article appeared in the Australian on 10 August 1982 and was headed 'New home approvals down 32 per cent'. It stated: Approvals for new homes were at their lowest in eight years during June, leaving 1981-82 as one of the bleakest years on record for the housing sector. The influence of record interest rates and falling economic activity reduced the number of new dwellings approved by 18,000 to 138,504 during 1981-82-32 per cent since last June. According to the Housing Industry Association, the slump will last through this year, costing about $1250 million in investment and the loss of about 40,000 jobs in the building and related industries. Bureau of Statistics figures issued yesterday show there were 9255 new private sector homes approved in June-3.4 per cent lower than May. The figures indicate the Federal Government's latest housing package, announced in March, has done little to halt the flow of funds away from home lending. Disastrous This has had disastrous effects on building activity. The national executive director of the Housing Industry Association, Mr Bill Kirkby Jones, said the recession inflation and high interest rates had brought about the situation. ''Frequent increases in housing interest rates, the prospect of further increases, and marked uncertainty about security of employment have combined to seriously erode the confidence of potential buyers,'' he said. The association, a major party to the March housing agreement, has put before the Government a seven-point submission aimed at improving the flow of home finance without the need for higher interest rates. Mr Kirkby Jones said research by the association had shown that higher interest rates, designed to improve the lending capacity of banks and building societies, would only push the industry deeper into recession. The second article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald dated 20 September 1983 and is headed 'Housing Emerges from Slump'. It reads: It is now official-the housing industry has emerged from recession. A spokesman for the Housing Industry Association, Dr Ron Silberberg, said there was now ''no question'' that the home building sector had come out of the recession ''and it has come out very fast''. Dr Silberberg said a recent HIA estimate of 122,000 commencements this financial year (in 1982-83 commencements slumped to a 20 year low of 105,000) could now prove ''a little conservative''. He was commenting on Bureau of Statistics figures for the June quarter, which showed that in seasonally adjusted terms, home building commencements had reached their highest level since the first three months of 1982. Yesterday's figures showed that seasonally adjusted private sector commencements increased by 8 per cent to 19,600 between the March and June quarters. The actual number of commencements increased from 16,500 to 19,800. Other statistics from the bureau brought good news for individual home buyers. The price index of house building materials continued to record very moderate increases, with a rise of only 0.4 per cent in July. In the 12 months to July, the index increased by only 6.7 per cent, significantly below the latest annual Consumer Price Index inflation rate figure of 11 per cent. The significant increase in housing in those 12 months was brought about by the increase in confidence of potential home buyers following the election of a Labor Government in March 1983. It was a firm indication of consumer confidence which had come about before the commencement of the Government's first home owners scheme which did not come into operation until 1 October 1983. Government incentives and consumer confidence have resulted in 135,000 homes being commenced in 1983-84 and the estimate of 145,000 in the current financial year is well on target. The January 1985 commencements of almost 14,000 represent an increase of 12 per cent over January 1984, and the 12 months housing commencements to January this year are up 18 per cent over the same period to January 1984. The first home owners scheme has been a great success in enabling first home buyers to achieve the great Australian dream of owning their own home. Since the scheme began over $321m has been paid to 106,000 households, and by the end of this financial year approximately 142,000 households will have benefited from the scheme. In less than 18 months this Government has provided more in direct assistance to first home buyers than the previous Government did during its whole tenure of office. I turn briefly to the Government's involvement in the provision of public housing in conjunction with the States. The new housing agreement, providing a record $1,580m in Federal and State funds for public housing in this financial year, was a firm indication that the Government had every intention of continuing to provide an increased amount of money towards the provision of accommodation to those unable to provide for their own housing needs. Under the agreement the Commonwealth provides funds to the States for public rental housing and home ownership assistance. The Federal contribution of $623m to the agreement this financial year is 60 per cent higher than funds provided in the last year of the Fraser Government. A minimum $510m will be provided by the Commonwealth to the States for each of the next two financial years, a marked improvement on the $200m base level funding provided under the 1981 agreement of the previous Government. The agreement contains specific programs for rental housing assistance to pensioners and Aboriginals. The special problems of youth have also been addressed in that all States must now accept applications for public housing from youth. The new crisis accommodation program includes special provision for capital funds to be directed to youth refuges. Special allocations in the agreement for 1984-85 include $52m for rental housing for Aboriginals; $35m for pensioner rental housing; $27m over three years for a new local government and community housing program to enable local government and community groups to provide innovative low cost rental housing-for example, hostels and boarding houses; $13m for a new short term crisis accommodation program covering accommodation for youth and women's refuges; $22m for mortgage and rent relief to home buyers and renters experiencing short term financial difficulty. The new agreement reaffirms this Government's commitment to ensuring that all Australians have access to adequate and affordable housing. It also provides for a new system of low start loans administered by the States with repayments geared to income. Applicants will be able to combine this assistance with benefits under the Government's first home owners scheme. This will enable a family earning as little as $175 a week to repay a loan of up to $40,000 in just over 20 years without permitting more than 25 per cent of income in repayments. Eligibility will be determined on the basis of need. The most rewarding aspect of the Labor Government's initiatives in getting the economy working again, including the stimulus to the housing sector, has been the increases achieved in the creation of additional employment opportunities. Soon after achieving office the Government set about creating 500,000 new jobs in its first three years of office in accordance with its election promise. At that time of course many considered such a promise to be an impossible task incapable of achievement. Opposition members particularly have been the most vocal critics of the Government's proposals in this regard. Their remarks have done nothing to engender business confidence or to induce business to expand operations to create new job opportunities. The achievement of the 500,000 new jobs target is well in hand as to date 360,000 new jobs have been created since May 1983. This financial year alone to the end of February 110,000 new jobs have created. In February itself employment rose by 45,200, the third highest monthly increase on record. Just as important of course is the fact that this increase in employment has been associated with a significant fall in the level of unemployment from 10 per cent to 8.3 per cent. In the area of youth unemployment there has been a fall of four percentage points. This is very good news for young people. As the House will be aware, there has been a long term decline in employment prospects for young people from the mid-1960s to the early 1980s, during which period the number of full time jobs for young people declined considerably. This occurred in an almost constant wave for teenage girls and in two bursts for teenage boys. Fortunately, because of the Government's policies, this trend appears to be reversing, and in the last 12 months growth in full time employment for teenagers has increased by 3.8 per cent with the creation of 16,500 new jobs. We have had a decline of 22,000 in the unemployment figures for those teenagers seeking full time work, a reduction of 12 per cent. The teenage unemployment rate, as I mentioned earlier, has declined by 4 per centage points from 27 per cent to 23 per cent. We do not, however, intend to let the matter rest there. We realise that special action needs to be taken to ensure that a greater number of job opportunities are created for the youth of our nation. On the basis of recommendations received from the independent Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs, chaired by Mr Peter Kirby, the Government intends reforming labour market programs to give greater emphasis to improved training and work skills development. Particular emphasis will be given to providing broad skill-based training as one way to improve the opportunities open to young people, especially for those who have been unemployed for a long time. In recent months discussions have been undertaken with State governments and with education authorities so that the recommendations can be further progressed as a matter of urgency. The community employment program, which was launched in August 1983 and had created 57,000 jobs by the end of 1984, will also be responsible for assisting a further 65,000 people during the current financial year. I shall now speak briefly about industry development. Australia is involved in an ever-changing world. We are dependent upon trade for our prosperity and, as a result, in order to remain competitive we must adapt to changes in the world and its markets. Industry in Australia should be as responsive as primary production is to world change. The policies from the 1950s to the 1980s have been to make industry inward looking and essentially reliant on a small and fragmented market. As well, past policies have resulted in a dependence, at least in the psychological sense, on government support and industry laziness in addressing issues such as management and marketing skills, product quality and design, research and development, and technology transfers. This is not an argument for the removal of protective banners for Australian industry. Rather, what I am saying is that protection can no longer be looked upon as a saviour for industry as it has become too burdensome on the Australian community. In any case, protective measures are largely offset by movements in the exchange rates. Australian industry needs a more deliberately export-based policy and much greater investment in research and development and modern plant. Our existing export industries are under pressure as our traditional export markets are diversifying to rival sources. Thus the creation of a competitive manufacturing sector to pick up additional exports, or at least to be more competitive, must be a major objective of the Government. Means other than the tariffs can be used in restructuring Australian industry. There are more systematic ways of restructuring sections of industries. The Government's car and steel industry plans are good examples of this more positive approach to industry restructuring. The Opposition has often stated that to achieve effective restructuring Australia would need to have a wage structure competitive with that of other countries and that Australian wages are too high. However, a country such as Sweden, which has a higher wage structure than ours, is a great exporting nation simply because its products are advanced and highly innovative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(9.44) —Tonight I raise the issue of jobs, supposedly the principal concern of the National Economic Summit Conference and supposedly also, from reading the Governor-General's Speech, a prime continuing concern of the Government. My speech on the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's Speech contains the message that nothing in the Government's legislative program nor any element of its political platform effectively tackles the root causes of unemployment. But it goes beyond that. It asserts that the cumulative errors of 80 years of history must be looked in the eye and the power structures of our society altered before we can return once again to a period of full employment. This is a lesson for all parties and all groups, as most Australians, individually and collectively, have held to the view that the centralised systems of conciliation and arbitration, both Federal and State, have on balance had a beneficial effect on wages and conditions, industrial harmony and employment. At some times and under certain conditions this belief may have been justified. I do not propose to argue that question because it is irrelevant to our present and to our future. What I argue now is that the system has become little more than an instrument of the application of excessive union power, a power that is exercised not only to the detriment of the unemployed and those outside organised labour but also to the detriment of organised labour itself through a denial of the benefits of rapid economic growth. Enough analysis of the causes of unemployment has been done for us now to know why it occurs and if we removed the blinkers of established practice, to devise a plan to reduce it to nominal levels. I will deal now with the causes of unemployment and then go on to suggest a plan of action. Technological change has been cast as a villain in the riddle of unemployment. It is true that the introduction of technology leads to the loss of jobs in particular places or industries. New technology requires adjustment. However, we must be careful not to blame the new technology for our failure to adjust. We should concentrate instead on those rigidities in our economic and social structures that inhibit adjustment. If we do not, the extraordinary advantages of making new technology our servant will pass us by and be used by others to our disadvantage. If coach builders had successfully resisted the advance of Henry Ford, just think what the consequences for economic growth and employment would have been. We are all agreed that one major ingredient of an increase in employment is faster economic growth. Quite apart from the vagaries of international markets and the variable effects of the weather on our rural industries, there are many internal rigidities in our economy, rigidities defended by powerful interests, that make our economy less open and less competitive than it should be and therefore restricted to slower growth rates than are possible. These rigidities include the constraints on the capital market identified in the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System; the problems of manufacturing industry identified in the report of the Jackson Committee to Advise on Policies to Manufacturing Industry and in the report of the Crawford Commission to Advise on Assistance to Industry, and in successive Industries Assistance Commission reports; the shortcomings of our educational system, identified in the report of the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education, Training and Employment; the limiting effects of public sector activity through uncompetitive trading enterprises, particularly in transport and communications; inefficient operating activities, for example, in the delivery of services such as health; and excessive regulation of enterprise. However, the rigidity that most affects the level of unemployment, affecting not only the rate of economic growth but also the efficiency with which the available work is shared out, is the rigidity of the labour market. It is this rigidity that was the cause of the Government's advisers at the Economic Summit having to say that Scenario C, although more favourable in employment prospects than A or B, could not be followed because it was 'industrially unrealistic'. There are two main aspects of this rigidity in the labour market that prevent people getting jobs. The first is the general level of the price of labour, and average weekly earnings are one guide to that level. The second aspect relates to the wage that must be paid and the rules that must be followed before someone can employ someone else. These rules are the complex body of laws and industrial awards that must be observed by prospective employers if they are not to break the law. Taking the first aspect, the general level of wages and salaries-the price of labour-it follows in logic that as the price moves up the pool of money available, from whatever source, to employ people will employ fewer people than if they were all paid slightly less. This fact at least was recognised at the Summit, although the logical conclusion drawn by the late Sir Keith Campbell that any increase in the general level of wages at that time would reduce employment prospects was not accepted. It was 'industrially unrealistic'. In other words, it was not acceptable to the unions who have, under present conditions, the industrial might to enforce their views on the rest of the community regardless of the public interest. Of course, I am not saying that we can never have wage increases. I am merely pointing out the uncomfortable fact that if the average level of wages is pushed up too fast ahead of gains and productivity, fewer people will be employed. The available money will be spread over fewer higher cost units. The second aspect, the wage rates for individuals and the rules for employing people, has been built up over time to protect the gains in conditions that Australian workers have secured over the years. I suggest that these rates and rules have now become so complicated and so stifling that while they might in the short term protect the conditions of those in employment, they are having the effect of removing altogether that security in an increasing number of cases by the loss of jobs. Worse still, they are preventing potential employers from taking people on in the first place. They are also preventing entrepreneurs from even bothering to start businesses in what could be the next growth areas in our economy. Many of the rules governing employment in Australia were originally designed to protect the interests of workers in a society long since gone, a society of single income families-mum at home and able to shop during the day, dad at work for five days a week, sport on Saturday and religious observance on Sunday. This is a world far removed from the pluralistic society we live in today in which the role of women has changed dramatically. Increasing numbers of people want to exercise their free choice, to buy or to sell, to work or not to work as suits their own particular wishes. It is not surprising that when we try to impose these working patterns of a bygone age on our modern society and therefore try to make people do things they do not want to do, we restrict consumer choice, reduce employment prospects and slow economic growth. The needs of the industries of today and tomorrow are far removed from those of the 1930s and 1940s; yet the rules for employment still bear the old stamp. We cannot expect the bullet train to run on the old permanent way. Everyone knows what these restrictions are. There are restrictions on trading hours and manufacturing hours. There are penalty rates applying to weekend work. There are various loadings for holidays, shift work and literally hundreds of other reasons. There are required ratios of senior to junior employees. There are restrictions on the employment of casuals. There are increasingly costly retrenchment provisions that have the unintended effect of discriminating against the least employable. All these requirements were seen as benefits by unions and by employees at the time they were gained. Some industries can afford them. However, under our industrial system all industries and all employers are obliged to provide them whether they can afford them or not. Conversely, prospective employees who do not demand them are obliged by the law to remain unemployed despite the potential availability of a mutually beneficial contract-beneficial not only to the parties directly involved but also to the consumer in the form of additional service or lower prices. It is often said by observers of the labour market that it is so distorted that market forces do not apply, that the laws of supply and demand are inoperative. It is true that there are massive distortions there, but that does not mean that market forces do not exert themselves. They certainly do apply to the relationship between the price of labour and the supply of jobs. For example, we cannot force a potential employer to pay a price for someone's labour when he thinks the price is too high. The unemployment benefit for an untrained, inexperienced youth of 15 years is $50 a week. An employer might well employ the youth at double the dole rate-that is, up to $100 a week-but he is much less likely to take him on at the award rate of $150 a week. The young, the inexperienced, the partially disabled and the elderly who could be employed at a price and under conditions of service that would be mutually acceptable to employer and employee alike, subject to basic safeguards enacted by law, are currently excluded from employment because the law requires that they be paid more than their economic worth or enjoy conditions that are impossible to achieve within the requirements of a viable, profitable business. How many thousands of small businesses are there where the expansion of the business is prevented by the inability of the proprietors, often husband and wife and family, to go beyond the use of their own unregulated labour? If, as we are told, small enterprises are the greatest potential employers of new labour, creators of new jobs, surely these restrictions are preventing the creation of tens of thousands of jobs in small business. The fact is that proprietors of small business are subsidising the regulated areas of the economy by providing their own labour at rates well below award levels. If they did not, the economy would not work and those enjoying award wages and conditions would be paying a great deal more for the services that they currently enjoy. Electricity workers in Queensland should hide in shame when they take advantage of the lower prices or convenient services offered by the hard working proprietors of these small businesses. What we are talking about is sharing the work out, not by introducing yet another set of complicated rules superimposed on the existing maze, but by removing rules that prevent the market from sharing the work out through millions of independent mutually beneficial transactions. Magically this process of flexible sharing will have the additional effect of releasing new creative energies that will add to the sum total of work available to be shared. In short, it will promote economic growth. There is the challenge to our political system and to our society. The trade union movement will fight to preserve the existing rigidities, but opposition will not stop there. Some employer groups rely on the flow of inflationary wage settlements to prevent competition from other employers not immediately subject to the resultant awards. All sorts of established interests are involved. However, if we cannot as a society face up to this question of the price of labour and rules for employment, we will be excluding a significant proportion of our people from the economic mainstream and the essential human dignity and self-respect that come from employment. We simply must face up to it. Nothing will happen unless we have a clear objective of such obvious common sense that community consensus can be built around it-not the shoddy consensus of the vested interests of the past but a consensus of growth and hope, an agreed vision of the future. Our objective must be a labour market in which, firstly, each individual can be rewarded according to his or her individual experience, talents and performance; secondly, managers are able to tailor remuneration packages and work patterns to the competitive needs of the enterprise; thirdly, particular industries and enterprises have the flexibility to meet changes in domestic or global conditions; fourthly, average labour costs are more responsive to changes in economic fortunes, an essential requirement for the successful management of the Australian economy; and fifthly, employees and employers alike are protected by law against unfair practices or breaches of contract. Our objective is thus a flexible, decentralised labour market, individual freedom and a greater sense of personal worth to individuals, giving managers the capacity to perform in a competitive world, but also imposing on managers a duty to solve at the work place problems which many of them have abdicated to employer organisations and to industrial commissions. Can this objective be achieved without a wage cost breakout, massive industrial disruption or damage to our social fabric? I believe it can. The main obstacle to change is the widespread belief that the system cannot be changed. Once we believe it can be changed, we can plan rationally how to do it. I am certain that a dramatic new factor is about to enter the equation, that is, the conversion of one side of Australian politics to the belief that the system can be changed. It is not surprising when we think about it that the system has resisted change so successfully. Not only have we had all the powerful unions bullying everyone, including their own members should they question this way of doing things; the Labor Party, the political arm of the trade union movement, supporting the system with legislation and political clout; Federal and State commissions vigorously defending their continued existence and jealously protecting their influence; industrial lawyers guarding their briefs; and industrial relations experts in major enterprises and employer groups, while continuously protesting, nonetheless supporting the system; but we have also had successful coalition governments accepting the system as the basis of labour market regulation in Australia. This is about to change and I predict that that change will be of historical significance to this country, releasing the energies of its citizens by lifting from them a dead weight of restrictive practices and denials of human freedom that in their hearts they know are at once ludicrous and dangerous. I am confident that with one side of politics converted to a completely new set of objectives-objectives that can, because of their innate common sense, swiftly capture the public's imagination-the balance of argument will gradually but surely change as it has in the financial area. The defenders of entrenched privilege will go on the defensive, relying more and more on naked force to maintain their position. There will need to be an examination of a wide range of measures to weaken the existing power structures, avoiding head-on clashes with the most entrenched groups initially; encouraging more freedom in the less regulated, more likely unionised areas, such as small business; and gradually removing the props from the more highly protected areas. The particular measures to be considered might include: A public education program pointing out the absurdities of the existing system and the benefits of the proposed system; removal of the privileged legal status of unions; opting out provisions for bypassing Federal and State commissions; repeal of legislation or regulations that prop up restrictive labour practices, such as the coastal shipping legislation; reduction of protection behind which rigid labour markets can be maintained; privatisation of government operations into competitive units-for example, in Telecom Australia installation work; the maximum use of contractors for government work; and the cessation of union dues collection by employers. There will also need to be a protection for individuals not wishing to join unions for whatever reason. With clear objectives, a consistent strategy, continuing public education and, above all, the determination to succeed we can bring about the changes that will halt the slide of Australia towards third rate economic status and we can restore full employment. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(10.02) —Because the adversary system seems to operate in this place, it is anathema to do so, but I must say that on the many occasions when I have listened to the now shadow shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), I have appreciated his understanding of his former portfolio. Indeed, the lucid and logical dissertations that he has made on many occasions in this place have nearly convinced me of that on more than one occasion. Unfortunately for his sake, he has been relegated to the B-grade. Perhaps this is just an indication of rampant Liberal Party factionalism, but there was much good in what he said tonight. I think that the problem comes down to whether he would have done it if he had had the chance. Perhaps that is something that is being faced up to by his Party at the moment. I thought it might be salutary on this occasion, having been a member of this place for a couple of years and having watched the goings-on, to look back on what I have seen. One comes here with all sorts of expectations, but over time those expectations become tempered with reality, and one's idealism probably becomes tempered with pragmatism. So inevitably frustrations occur-frustrations about this place, the way in which it operates and about the system. I suppose the first and most obvious thing that came to my notice when I became a member of this place was the obscenity of travelling 20 or 25 times a year across the country to visit Canberra. Common sense and logic have prevailed in that regard. Not only are we saving money but we now have a much more efficient sitting pattern in this place. The procedures of the House, of course, to those who are newly initiated, are always a source of interest. It is interesting to know that two or three days in every year are spent in divisions and quorums in this place. It seems to me there must be a more efficient and streamlined way in which the operations of the House can be undertaken. Clearly, the Standing Committee on Procedure, which has just been set up, will look into that and it is hoped that there will be some improvement in that area. The second frustration about this job is the political process in which we find ourselves. While it is not perfect, many of us who entered this place at the beginning of the last Parliament were hopeful that there would be significant electoral reform and that, over time, there would be a simpler and fairer system. A committee was set up and recommendations were made. Those recommendations translated themselves into legislation. On 1 December, all that was tested at the Federal election. I am sure that the legislation had the desired effect in relation to the Senate, but clearly for the House of Representatives there was an abnormally high informal vote, and no doubt in some marginal electorates that was significant in the final result. I remember my colleague the former honourable member for Casey, who went very close to retaining his seat. In fact, the informal vote was his undoing. I hope that with that experience optional preferential voting, something I have believed in for some time, will find some credence in this place. I also take this opportunity to thank all of those in the electorate of Perth who have assisted me. Indeed, our result in the Perth electorate was the best of any in the metropolitan area for our Party. Those who worked and organised for me have my most heartfelt thanks for their support. I suppose the other aspect of the adversary system that any newcomer finds dramatic in its dimensions is the belief that one always has to oppose what is thought of, what is going on and what the Government is proposing. Perhaps the most disappointing issue in this regard is the assets test which we have seen toing and froing across this House for some time. The assets test made economic and social sense and was, I thought, something that could have been endorsed by both sides of this House. While in government many members on the other side of the House supported a needs based system of support, but how quickly they changed when in opposition. We knew in government that there would be a political cost. We knew that the Opposition might try to generate fear in the community about this issue. We also knew that it was economic sense and was reasoned, and that it had to be done at a time when our population was aging. While this Government held fast to its principles, our opponents searched around for anomalies and exceptions and engaged in a fear and misinformation campaign. Indeed, they are still doing it. I will be interested to see, in three years time, whether the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) will reaffirm his commitment to abolish this test when the economic consequences of such a decision will be even more significant. The scaremongering and the scandalous way in which this was handled is outlined in the Australian Pensioner of September 1984. The Australian Pensioner is not a hotbed of socialist doctrine by any stretch of the imagination. I think it crystalises the Opposition's stance on this issue when it says: Opposition politicians, certain sectors of the media and certain so-called pensioners' representatives have resorted to just about everything in their campaign against the assets test-even to the point of suggesting that a type of social security Gestapo will be created to body-search pensioners and ransack their homes to make sure they are not hiding any valuable assets. The Australian social security system has never operated this way and there is no reason to believe that it will start to do so now. So how do those opposed to the proposed test justify their hysterical outpourings? They do it, they say, in the name of pensioners' rights. Well, pensioners do have rights, and the first of those is the right to be told the truth; the right to be informed, not misinformed. If those opposed to the assets test have a legitimate case to put, then let them put it honestly and openly. Don't play on the ignorance, fear and insecurity of this most vulnerable group. No Opposition which sets out to win a point by creating such anxiety in a community can ever be regarded as worthy of governing that community. No individual or organisation which uses misinformation as a means of building support to suit their own ends can ever honestly be regarded as representing pensioners. If anything, they are misrepresenting them. Perhaps I should say that credit should be given to the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). Earlier in the day I asked the Parliamentary Library to go through all his speeches and Press releases with regard to the assets test. I found only a passing reference from one of those members on the other side who is perhaps the most lengthy orator in this place. Clearly, he supported the assets test and was done over in the shadow Cabinet. Perhaps the greatest task of this Government is to dispel the myth of our opponents-the myth that has been perpetrated in the past and continues to be pushed. The rhetoric of the past and the action of the past have not tallied up. Honourable members opposite were the great free marketeers. These were the people who would deregulate. These were the champions of enterprise. They are still saying that that is what they stand for, but they cannot be believed. Just like Kim Hughes, they do not have the runs on the board. The difference between Kim Hughes and them, of course, is that next season he will play with the great talent he has and he will be back in the team. Kim Hughes has had one bad season and they have had seven. Unfortunately for honourable members opposite, the person who has taken over as Prime Minister has had two good years. What did those great free marketeers and deregulators, these champions of enterprise do? Did they float our currency? Did they actively set about deregulating the financial structure? Did they initiate the entry of foreign banks? Were they the ones who brought about taxation reform to restore incentive? They said that they would sell Trans Australia Airlines and deregulate air travel. They gave us the two-airlines agreement and effectively put a strait-jacket on that industry. No, these great free marketeers and deregulators, these champions of enterprise, failed. But honourable members do not have to believe me. I can quote what was said by the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown). Interestingly, just about a week ago he is reported as having said this about the Fraser Government: But we never seemed to have time to talk about where Australia was going; about the falling standard of living of the ordinary Australian; about how we could give them a good and secure future; about how we could encourage new industries in Australia; and how we could get rid of the dead hand of government, our Government, that was stifling initiative and taxing us into oblivion. Indeed, these great deregulators, these champions of free enterprise failed. The honourable member for Menzies is also reported as saying: We actively and wrongly opposed the breaking up of the Telecom . . . did little to encourage deregulation or competition in the finance industry--- The previous Government is condemned by a person who was within its own ranks. The truth is that we have a mixed economy and it is necessary for any government to find a balance between providing services and cutting fat and stimulating enterprise. Conservative governments failed for 30 out of 35 years. It is a difficult task but finally we have a Government that is prepared to take it on. Indeed, I feel very hopeful that the next three years will see this Government continue in that direction to a greater extent. I would like to speak about two things very briefly which perhaps are the most pressing domestic problems that face us. The first is, of course, unemployment and in this respect one must again look at the Opposition rhetoric. The Opposition shadow spokesman says: 'We will clear away the myths and get to the reality'. Members of the Opposition talk about deregulating youth wages. They talk about the terrible public sector and about how all growth has been occurring in that sector. But how in practical terms do they think they are going to solve this problem? There is no substance in what they have said. They tell us to wait and see what their policy will be. The reality is, of course, that there was a massive wage push associated with the destruction of centralised wage fixation by the Fraser Government. This was the catalyst for the recession that we have experienced. The reality was that unemployment under the Fraser Government was at a level of 10.3 per cent. It is now at 8.3 per cent. The reality was that under the Fraser Government jobs were being lost at the rate of 250,000 a year. Since this Government has come to office 360,000 new jobs have been created. In addition, there has been a drop of 5 per cent in youth unemployment since the July 1983 figure was released. Indeed, the annual growth in the private sector has been increasing. Finally, let me say something very briefly about what we might see as a necessary evil in our society, and that is taxation. If we want to demand services we must all consider the level of taxation. Again, the free enterprise people, the deregulators and the free marketeers, could not even deliver tax indexation. For over 30 years the system lost its progressiveness. Over time it has destroyed incentive. The only incentive that exists is that to avoid paying taxation. Indeed, honourable members opposite did their very best to assist those who wanted to do this. At the end of this year nearly two and a half million Australians will be paying tax at the marginal rate of 46 cents in the dollar. Not only are taxes higher but also they are unfair and the burden is falling on the middle and low income earners. The aim of this Government is to restore progressiveness to the taxation system, to release the burden on low and middle income earners and perhaps to renew the incentive to produce rather than directing effort to avoidance. It is a difficult task and many sectional interests will have something to say. They will lobby very heavily. The political opportunists will snipe at us. But it is too important for us to do badly. The right tax package is perhaps the most fundamental thing to our continued growth and development. Debate interrupted. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BURR(Lyons)(10.15) —Tonight I wish to protest in the most vigorous manner at the high-handed attitude that has been adopted by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in his proposed restructuring of the dairy industry. I am sure that all honourable members will be aware of the valuable contribution that has been made by the Australian dairy industry to our national economy. Last Friday at a ministerial council meeting the Minister for Primary Industry adopted a most high-handed attitude towards restructuring that industry against the advice of the State Ministers for Primary Industry from all of the six states of Australia and against the advice of the dairy industry itself. The Federal Minister for Primary Industry has decided to restructure the industry in a way that will in fact give a decided export market advantage to the dairy producers of New Zealand and Europe. I do not think that any of us in this Parliament can accept the ruling that has been given by the Minister for Primary Industry effectively to sell out this valuable industry to our economy in a way which will give an advantage to Australian communities that are dependent on it and which will simply give an advantage to New Zealand and European dairy communities. This matter has been taken one step further today with the public announcement by the Minister for Primary Industry that in fact he is prepared to talk to Victorian dairy farmers, although stressing that the plan he announced last Friday is totally non-negotiable. If the Minister is prepared to talk to the Victorian dairy farmers or to dairy farmers from any other part of the country, what is the point of the Minister saying right from the outset that the plan is non-negotiable? He is saying effectively that the door is closed before he even commences those negotiations. Mr Cadman —That is right. That is absolutely right. Mr BURR —I agree with my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell. What is the point of these dairy farmers speaking to the Minister if the plan is non-negotiable? Mr Cadman —It is a confidence trick. Mr BURR —As my colleague says, it is a confidence trick. What is the point of going into those negotiations if the door is closed before they commence? I think this whole thing is even more cynical and deceptive than simply a plan to restructure the dairy industry. All of us in this chamber know that the Minister for Primary Industry announced his plan to restructure the dairy industry one week before the Victorian State election took place. This timing was designed entirely to minimise the effect of the announcement during the Cain Government's election campaign. However, following the election the Minister came back to the dairy industry, to this Parliament and to the State Ministers and said: 'Sorry boys, it is all off. Mr Cain has won his election. Now we are going back to the real situation that I had in mind before the State election came up'. I do not think that we in this Parliament can accept the cynicism of that sort of plan. I do not think the dairy farmers of Australia can accept the cynicism of that sort of process. What is more, I do not think that the Australian community can accept a Minister for Primary Industry who in reality is prepared to sell out every dairy farmer in Australia to the New Zealand and European dairy industries. Mr Goodluck —He is a coward. Mr BURR —As my colleague from Franklin quite rightly says, he is a coward. He has been selling out the dairy industry of Australia. The Tasmanian Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has assessed that the announcement by the Federal Minister for Primary Industry will in fact lead to a loss of between 500 and 1,000 jobs in Tasmania alone. I dare not think of the loss of jobs it will lead to in Victoria. As my friend on the other side of the chamber the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) would know, all the export dairy products come from Victoria and Tasmania. I dread to think-he has been very silent tonight-how many lost jobs it will lead to in his electorate. I think the whole of this Parliament should tell the Minister for Primary Industry in no uncertain terms that we as a Parliament are not prepared to accept this decision. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(10.20) —We have heard a lot in the past few weeks about the possible reintroduction of tertiary fees for colleges of advanced education and universities. What we have seen in the Press to date has been based on speculation and hearsay. Let me say at the outset that the Australian Labor Party's policy on fees for study in universities and colleges of advanced education by Australian students is quite clear. As a member of the Labor Party I am bound to support the policies which have been determined by the conferences of our Party. In fact, as all my colleagues realise, the democratic nature of the Labor Party means that its policies are decided upon by the Party as a whole after extensive debate throughout our branches and affiliated unions. The delegates to State conferences and from State conferences to the national conference bring to their deliberations the confidence and support of the membership of our Party. As I said, I am bound by the pledge that all Labor parliamentarians signed, a pledge designed to ensure that the democratic nature of the ALP is upheld. In addition, the rules of the Party make quite clear the role of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party. Rule 5d reads: The Federal Parliamentary Labor Party shall have authority in properly constituted Caucus meetings to make decisions directed towards establishing the collective attitude of the Parliamentary Party to any question or matter in the Federal Parliament, subjected to- (iii) No attitude being expressed which is contrary to the provisions of the Party Platform or any other decision of National Conference or National Executive; The policy of the Labor Party is unequivocal when it comes to tertiary fees. It recognises the importance to the nation of a healthy tertiary education sector. In particular, section 8BT, in part reads: A Federal Labor Government will ensure that Australia maintains a tertiary education system which makes a vital contribution to our social and economic well being, which contributes to the development of knowledge and intellectual resources and which makes itself widely accessible to the Australian community. Accordingly a Labor Government will: . . . . (6) Maintain the provision of free tertiary education. This is clearly a commitment from the Labor Party to improve access to tertiary education for Australian students and, in particular, to maintain free tertiary education. It is not a statement which allows for an interpretation that would enable a Labor government to reintroduce tertiary tuition fees. It is, as I have said, unequivocal. It is a well known and well accepted policy in the community about which we have given assurances time and again and for which we blocked legislation in the Senate in 1978, when the Fraser Government attempted to reimpose fees for second degree and post-graduate students. It is apparent when one looks at the available data why the Whitlam Government moved to abolish fees and why we as a party have continued to oppose their reintroduction. For instance, in the 10 years following the abolition of fees, the participation rate of women in universities rose by over 10 per cent. In the 20 years before 1974 women's participation rose by only 12 per cent. While it was rising more rapidly towards the end of that period, the abolition of fees provided a noticeable fillip to the increase. What is particularly significant about the participation of women in the universities is the fact that the actual numbers attending increased massively at a time when there was a marked increase in the numbers of men attending. Data referring to mature age students also shows that the removal of fees had a beneficial effect. By 1984, 47.25 per cent of students in universities were older than 23 years and 26.23 per cent were over 30 years of age. In the advanced education sector, 52.42 per cent were over 23 and 28.61 per cent were over 30. The remarkable thing about these figures is that over 50 per cent of mature age students are over 30 years of age, and in this group women are even better represented than in the overall figures. When the historical run of figures is examined it becomes patent that this trend has been accelerated quite dramatically with the abolition of fees. Since that time the age distribution of students in universities has changed markedly in favour of mature age students, especially those over 30 years of age. The suggestion that a reintroduction of fees would benefit low income earners cannot be demonstrated. The evidence from later research by Don Anderson shows that a trend is emerging to a much better social mix in the universities and colleges. This is supported by research presented by higher education unions and student groups. It is also suggested in the data that the Minister- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.25) —I rise to speak on a matter of real concern to the families of my electorate of Deakin and, indeed, to all Australian families. That matter is the dramatic fall in the value of the Australian dollar. That fall has been depicted by the Government as arising simply because of the surge in value of the United States dollar, but in fact it is no such thing. For example, from 2 January to 23 March the value of the Australian dollar dropped 16 per cent against the pound sterling, 13 per cent against the Japanese yen- Mr Bilney —Whacko! Mr BEALE —The honourable member should not say 'Whacko' because it is destroying our international competitiveness. The dollar has dropped 13 per cent against the German deutchmark, 13 per cent against the French franc and 11 per cent against the Swiss franc. The fall in the value of the Australian dollar has occurred against all major trading currencies. The only currency of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries with which we trade in any significant way against which we have fared better is the New Zealand dollar. We all know that, for reasons that are now clear even to the Government, international confidence in New Zealand has been wiped out. The erosion of our currency has mainly been described in terms of high finance and international trade and is of grave concern to bankers, economists and custodians of the public purse, with a variety of reasons being put forward as to its cause. The electors of Deakin see things quite simply. Their hip pockets are being turned inside out and their standard of living has been abruptly reduced. Here is how the electors of Deakin see the situation. The cost of clothing and shoes, which are imported to a significant degree, will rise substantially for every Deakin family. The price of imported cars will go up by up to 20 per cent. The costs of medical equipment and many medicines will also rise. Honourable members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Mr BEALE —Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not mind a little competition. I am from the private sector. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is not for the honourable member for Deakin to mind; it is for the Chair to mind. Mr BEALE —Electricity and gas prices will increase because the inefficient Victorian Government authorities have borrowed United States dollars and will now be forced to pay higher interest payments to cover the rise in their debts. Petrol prices which have already increased by about 2c a litre since late last year, could go up by a further 5c a litre over the next few months, which means taxi and public transport fares will also increase. Overseas travellers will find that air fares and tours will cost perhaps 20 per cent more. Mortgage interest rates, already at historical highs in real terms, will rise for many families and small businesses in Deakin. The price of everything we purchase from overseas, last financial year totalling $24 billion, will rise sharply, affecting our cost of living index and putting inflationary pressure on the economy. Our inflation rate, still much higher than that of our trading partners, our current account deficit and the rigidity of our work rules, all coupled with the instability of this Government, have eroded confidence in our future. On behalf of the families of Deakin, I appeal to this Government to get its economic policies in order. We must get our inflation down, get our international trading in balance, and break the job protection cartel. To be supporting national wage rises, public severance pay rises, and so-called productivity pay rises just when a huge slice has been taken from our national wealth can lead only to further loss of confidence in our economy. The Government now has to prove to the international community and to the families of Deakin that it is not asleep at the wheel-and those families will be watching and judging. Mr GEAR(Canning)(10.30) —The pensioners of Australia today are covered by a very much fairer pension system because of the introduction of the assets test. I would like to spend some time tonight having a look at a bit of the history of the assets test. It is clear from the examples of some of the speeches of honourable members opposite that people on the other side really do not know what they are talking about. The history of our pension system goes back to good old Bob Menzies, the pariah of the Liberal Party of Australia, who gave the people of Australia the freedom of choice to look after their own retirement incomes. The freedom of choice principle still operates today. I hear it talked about now and again on the other side of the House. Certainly, we can have a look at the protection system which Mr Menzies built into that system. He had an income test and he also had an assets test. In actual fact an assets test was a feature of the pension system in Australia between 1908 and 1976. So for a relatively short time in our history we have not had an assets test. This Government had the guts to put one back in because we could see what was happening to the pension system without one. People of substantial means, as the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) pointed out the other day, were able to arrange their affairs in such a way that they were able to get a pension and the fringe benefits. What they really did was to lower the amount of money we could give to pensioners in need. So when we talk about the assets test we should remember that it is not a new thing. It has been in existence for quite a while. Let us look at the demise of the assets test. I would ask those students of politics to look at the relevant dates because they will notice that proposals in relation to the pension always appear just before a Federal election. The tapered means test which was introduced in September 1969 affected 47,000 pensioners. In September 1972 there was an increase in the free area and 30,000 pensioners were affected. Also in September 1972 we had the superannuation and annuity concessions. That was, again, as I have said, just before the Federal election of that year. Mr Bilney —It did not save them. Mr GEAR —It did not save the Liberals that time and neither did a subsequent proposal. In November 1976 there was the introduction of the income test and 200,000 pensioners were allowed to have pensions when the assets test was scrubbed. If we thought it all ended there we were wrong. In November 1982, in the infamous family Budget of that year, 420,000 pensioners were affected by the increase in the free area. That was another sop to the pensioners to try to get back into power. But, as history records, that did not happen and the Hawke Government came to power. There are only two options the Liberal Party or the conservatives can put to the people of Australia if they are really dinkum about scrubbing the assets test. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) knows that well because at least he has a grasp of the fundamentals behind the scheme. Next time the Liberal Party can either raise taxes to give the pension to those people who are scrubbed off this time-the richest 2 per cent, I remind honourable members-or it can do as it did before. This is the likely option: It can allow the value of the pension to drop over time. History shows that when the Whitlam Government was kicked out- Mr Beale —Kicked out? I thought the people made their decision. Mr GEAR —Sacked, or whatever one likes to call it. When the Whitlam Government left office the pension stood at 24 per cent of average weekly earnings. When the Liberal Party was kicked out of office in 1983 the value had shrunk by about three percentage points. We can see what the Liberal Party is all about. It is all about the erosion of the pension system by stealth. We can look at some of the supporters of the assets test that was re-introduced by the first Hawke Government. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) the other night bagged the assets test. But what did he say before he was a candidate for the Liberal Party? This is what he said: The government is absolutely right in introducing an assets test . . . He went on to say: The latest version of the assets test proposed by the government offers a much more equitable formula than has previously been produced . . . Mr Bilney —Who said this? Mr GEAR —This is the honourable member for Mayo who bagged the assets test the other night. He also said: It would be folly . . . to reject the assets test outright, as it is the only avenue which leads to effective control over the spiralling costs of retirement policies. He would be a good Liberal because he, like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), is saying that it is equitable, but when the Liberals get into power they change their tune. John Elliott, the Treasurer of the Liberal Party in Victoria, said: I have always argued that the social security system should be based on need. Therefore I do support the assets test . . . The Liberals support it too. We can look at what we will do in the next election campaign. The pensioners of this country will always remember the party that lied to them and the party that put in the scare tactics. If the Liberals were responsible they would be agreeing with us and educating the pensioners, as did the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) who did not get them upset. At least he had the guts to tell the bloody truth which is something the Liberals never did. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.35) —I will not get involved in the debate about the pensioners of Australia, but the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) missed the most important point. A lot of politicians miss it too. We are all different and pensioners are all different. Some work a lot harder than others and some do not work at all. Some who have had their pensions chopped are looking at other pensioners living on the street corner who have wasted their money all their lives. That is the reason why there is a little bitterness and why the politics of honourable members opposite will not win out in the end on that point. We are all different and honourable members remember that. But I do not want to get involved in that debate tonight. I will leave the discussion of the elderly until a little later in the year. One thing has been worrying me. My two younger colleagues the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles)-they are exceptionally good colleagues-need to be aware of what is happening in Tasmania. I do not want to attack the Wilderness Society continually and I know there are some very good conservationists on the other side who get very upset when I attack the conservationists. Honourable members must be aware of what the conservationists are trying to do once again in Tasmania. Last week I looked at a big professor from the University of Tasmania. He looked straight into my eyes; I was standing on a box. I said to him: 'Why do you get so upset about the dam issue?' He said to me: 'It really was not about the dam, Bruce. It was a cause'. Tears started to fill his eyes and I started to realise that another cause was occurring in Tasmania. The Wilderness Society is now trying to tamper with our wonderful forestry industry which employs 4,000 Tasmanians. It is very important to the economy. The wets and the dries of the Liberal Party of Australia and the Left, the Right, the Centre and all the other conglomerations on the other side of the House had better be aware that the conservationists want to destroy the timber industry of Tasmania. They want to preserve the rain forests in Queensland. They will do it in a manipulative way. They will walk around the forests. They will go to the media and entice some of the media to support them. This will be very, very serious for the economy of Tasmania. My two colleagues had better be aware of this fact. They had better not be trapped like some of our good colleagues were over the dam issue. They were trapped by false impressions of what was going to happen in Tasmania. Mr Cadman —This is a lot of good advice. Mr GOODLUCK —It is very good advice and I hope to goodness that many others listen to it. The conservationists are working in Tasmania. They are starting to condemn the wood chip industry. It is very important for the economy. They are starting to tamper with the park in the south-west at the moment. They are trying to increase its size. They are trying to do exactly the same as they did with the dam issue. We know what happened then. They conned a lot from the people who worked against the people of Tasmania. That is the reason why the people of Tasmania elect five Liberal representatives. They know dash well that they were conned. But this time I hope my two colleagues will fight the conservationists very hard and make certain that they are not led up a track- Mr Miles —No worries. Mr GOODLUCK —I know that they will. I am sorry to give advice. I am the older member now and I can give advice. I know that some of my bright colleagues on the front bench do not take any notice of me, but many people do. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.39) —Last week, 21 March was Afghan International Day. It was also the beginning of the Afghan New Year and the first day of spring in Afghanistan. Since the Soviet invasion 21 March has assumed an additional significance as it is celebrated as Afghan International Day all around the world and amongst the millions of Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran. In December 1979 the Soviet Union sent thousands of its troops into neighbouring Afghanistan to prop up the unpopular regime of Babrak Karmal. Since then the Soviet troops have been used to maintain Karmal in power in Kabul. My Party, the Australian Labor Party, and the Australian Government are opposed to the Soviet invasion. I am opposed to the invasion of Afghanistan. Such action by a big power to impose its will on a small neighbour is to be condemned by all those who esteem and support the right of self-determination of all people, small and big. I view the Soviet action in Afghanistan with the same disgust as I view the United States military intervention in Central America and I condemn both with the same vehemence. I hope that honourable members opposite will join me in condemning the US action, the long string of US military interventions in Central America, just as they are willing to join me in condemning the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan. In the last five years the Soviet army has fought many battles against the mujahideen and it is no closer to achieving complete control over Afghanistan than it was five years ago. The people of Afghanistan do not and will not accept foreign rule. They are a free people and are fighting for their independence. The British learnt to their detriment that the freedom loving people of that mountainous region overlooking the crossroads of Asia will not accept foreign rule. In 1981 I visited Pakistan and had the opportunity to see the Khyber Pass. I stood right on the Afghan border looking down into Afghanistan. I felt that the ancient tradition of love of freedom and independence of those mountain tribes that inhabit that rugged but magnificent country will not be easily subdued, even by modern arms of a foreign power. At the same time while visiting the area I came into contact with the refugee problem and the enormous suffering caused by years of fighting. At that stage, in 1981, there were by the most conservative estimates more than a million Afghan refugees in Pakistan alone. I have seen the camps, the tents and the mud huts, and while there was no starvation amongst the refugees, thanks to the generosity of international relief agencies, life in the camps was miserable. The Afghan refugees escaped the fighting and the dogmatic influence of a foreign power only to come under the influence of Pakistani Islamic fundamentalists. What a choice, and what a choice of dictators, to live under Zia or Karmal! However, since I was there the situation has worsened and the number of refugees is now put as high as four million. Thousands of civilians died as a result of fighting and many more thousands were injured. Many people have lost their crops and livestock and there are widespread food shortages. The world should be made aware of the suffering and the misery of the Afghan people. Our Government has provided generously in the past to relieve the plight of the Afghan refugees. However, there is still more need for humanitarian aid. At the same time we have to work towards the achievement of a negotiated peaceful solution. Unless the fighting is stopped, unless the millions of refugees are resettled into their homeland, the instability of the region will continue. What is even worse, the suffering of the Afghan people will go on, the suffering which can be prevented by peaceful negotiations, while war and continuous fighting will not resolve anything. Therefore, I hope that our Government will do everything it can to bring about peace in that region. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.43) —Tonight I wish to raise a matter relating to the standard of living of every Australian and particularly relating to the future of many of our provincial cities and towns. Of course, I refer to the farm sector and the contribution it makes to that standard of living, earning as it does still well over 40c of every export dollar and therefore contributing very directly to the well-being of every Australian. On Tuesday, 5 March last, a farm cost summit was held in Canberra between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), a number of senior Ministers and a series of representatives from the National Farmers Federation as the peak organisation representing most rural organisations across Australia. At the conclusion of a four-hour session the only concrete thing to come out of the farm cost summit was simply the creation of yet another committee to do what? Just to investigate the accuracy of some of the statistics contained in the submission of the National Farmers Federation to the Federal Government. I have to say that that news, when released as a consequence of and following on from the summit, was a bitter disappointment and a bitter pill right across rural Australia because there had been quiet hopes that for once the message was getting through, that for once there might be some positive action in respect of the farm cost situation and the very serious plight of many primary products on the world markets at present. The farm sector is not crying wolf this time around. There are some who think it is typical of the farm sector to cry wolf the moment there is the possibility of a drought or a flood, that there are always good times and bad times, that those things are cyclical and that the farm sector will bounce back. This time around two notable differences are causing the farm sector to suffer very seriously indeed. Firstly, a previous mechanism which allowed increases in productivity to occur in many commodities and so enabled farmers to withstand cost increases has evaporated. The productivity cow has been milked dry. There is just no room to manoeuvre in extracting yet further increases in productivity in so many commodities produced by Australia's great rural industries. Secondly, the cost increases have become incessant. They have far exceeded the consumer price index and so many of them relate to government charges, State and Federal, of one sort or another. This time around the farm sector has very real and genuine problems. It does not cry for subsidy for subsidy's sake. The years of doing that are long past, and that is where they should be-in the past. What we want and what we seek are realistic accurate policies from government, State and Federal; a realistic appreciation of the costs associated with the farm sector; more economic efficiency in terms of the weaponry utilised by government in managing the economy-for example, the replacement of the tariff that costs some $14m a year on the import of autoheaders into this country by a bounty which would merely cost some $2m and protect the Australian jobs that are at stake in relation to that issue. What the farm sector wants is for its message to be heard loud and clear between now and the meeting of the committee that will look at the statistics. It hopes that when the farm cost summit mark II version occurs some time in April there will be not just another committee to consider matters but real and positive action because the rice industry, the dried fruits industry, the dairy industry and a number of other industries that I could mention are in serious trouble and in need of specific, direct reasonable action and-I mention it again-not just subsidy, indeed not even subsidy, but policies which will help provide for a lessening of the cost-price squeeze which is so affecting the farm sector. I add, in conclusion, that the assets test and its hardship provisions, which are well known to the Minister at the table, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), have done little to ease the mind of many in the farm sector and many retirees because of the stringent guidelines associated with the administration of those hardship provisions. That has been an added burden on the farm sector and one which has done nothing for the confidence of the sector. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(10.48) —I rise tonight to place on record my wholehearted welcome of the statement made earlier today in this place by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) that by September our Government will be in a position to select a second Sydney airport site. It is of very great interest to, I think, all Australians that the environmental impact statement will be published some time next month, that for the following eight to 10 weeks public comment will be called for and that a decision will finally be made in September of this year. It is a matter of great relief to not only the 75,000 constituents in my electorate but also the 1.1 million people in Sydney that a second Sydney airport is coming. It is with a great deal of satisfaction that I welcome this, because it is a great victory for grass roots community action which united people of all political persuasions, all sorts of business persuasions, right across the southern Sydney area and the inner western suburbs, to stop a second runway being built into the bay. It was a great victory because we had right on our side at all times. If any members of this House, especially those opposite who were prepared to sell out my electorate at the drop of a hat when they were in government, should doubt this, let them have a good look at the cost figures and the capacity figures for the potentially expanded Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport as opposed to a second airport and also the inevitability that such a second airport should come about, let alone the ecological disaster that would have left Botany Bay to the sand crabs. It is interesting that at this time, with the bicentenary coming up and the importance of Botany Bay to the history of this country, we are seeing the death of Botany Bay and the slow environmental choking of it. I say unequivocally to this House tonight that, if a second runway had been built into the bay at Mascot, we could have written off forever the bay and all the life contained in it. This has been a very difficult decision for this Government to make; but it has not shied away from the task. The former Minister for Aviation, the present Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), did an excellent job at the beginning of this undertaking and has been followed equally well by the present Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation. He has done an excellent job, unlike the honourable members opposite who showed cowardice on this issue when they were in government. The Government has taken the bit between its teeth. Honourable members opposite, when they were in government, simply saw this issue as a political one; that is all. They were prepared to write off the Federal electorate of Barton after the 1980 election when they won the seat by a small handful of votes. They knew that in 1983 the electorate of Barton could not be held by the Liberal Party. Having lost all other seats around it, they were prepared to put politics ahead of what was right for the industry and what was right for the inhabitants of Sydney and the commercial and business interests of Australia. Mr Beale —Why don't you deregulate the industry? Mr PUNCH —It is all right if one owns Moonie Oil; but there are many poorer people in business in Sydney. The second Sydney airport, therefore, was an issue that this Government took on principle, and it has fought it through and won. It is now an acclaimed position throughout Australia, in industry and otherwise, that a second Sydney airport is a necessity. If there is a need for further proof of the cowardice of the Liberal Party on this issue, I refer to Malcolm Fraser's letter to Premier Wran, of April 1981, when he conceded that a second Sydney airport had to built anyway. The question remains today: Why did the Liberals filibuster for so long? Why did they try to sell out my electorate? Finally, I say that the present position arrived at by this Government will represent the best of both worlds for my electorate and the areas of Sydney around it. We will be saved from the future social, economic and health costs and environmental disasters that another runway in the bay would present. At the same time we are saved from incurring any job losses because not one job will be lost at Mascot with the operation of a dual airport system. Indeed, those people in mobile positions in the work force-especially professional people from my electorate-will be presented with dual job opportunities with yet another airport as a potential employer. This decision has been a brave one, a well thought through one and one which historically will stand this Government in good stead. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(10.54) —Most of us know how those living in the biblical era regarded tax collectors. Time certainly has not changed public opinion and it is not difficult to understand why, when some of the decisions made by the Commissioner of Taxation are considered. I wish this evening to raise the matter of the interpretation of the definition of 'aids to manufacture'. A company in my electorate engaged in the housing and construction industry has purchased a computer which is used, not primarily and principally, but exclusively, in the design of non-standard roofing trusses for the building industry. The machine, on the basis of information input, will plot and draw and also compile cutting lists which are all essential to the manufacture of the said trusses. The program used was bought from another country which also provides the basic intermediate materials used in the manufacturing of these trusses. 'Aids to manufacture' means goods for use by a registered person in the course of carrying on a business, being machinery, implements and apparatus for use exclusively or primarily and principally-in this company's case-firstly, in testing or checking the quality or specifications of goods processed in any process or treatment for the purpose of bringing goods in to the form or condition in which they are to be used for the manufacture of the goods or, secondly, in carrying out scientific research in relation to manufacturing operations conducted by the manufacturer. This latter condition may seem inappropriate. However, although 'scientific research' is not defined, an indication of its scope is illustrated by the following examples of equipment that have been accepted as being for use in scientific research: The investigation of possible improvements to his existing factory processes for the production of certain products and the investigation of processes of manufacturing of certain products which he contemplated manufacturing. These were accepted by the Commissioner. It seems to me that, if the first example, which covers the testing and checking of goods processed, and not the design thereof, is not sufficient for exemption, surely 'scientific research' as it has been interpreted provides reasonable grounds for the Commissioner to agree that this particular computer is an aid to manufacture. It is not used for anything else. The age of technology, wherein manufacturers have an opportunity to use modern equipment-indeed, they are virtually forced to do so to remain competitive and capable of meeting job requirements-ought also to generate enlightened thinking and an appreciation by the Commissioner that the description given by one of his officers in rejecting this company's claim-that under the Act an aid to manufacture is something used directly in manufacture and not an item used in design-is a Dark Ages type of thinking and fails to comprehend the requirements and the demands of modern business. I urge the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to direct his officers to approach this area of aids to manufacture in a more realistic manner. The narrow interpretation that the Commissioner has put on 'aids in manufacture' is affecting many areas of business throughout this nation. I believe that the interpretation should be updated to take into consideration the fact that Australia has moved into a technological era and therefore aids to manufacture are not just those welding machines that are used to manufacture motor vehicles, but that certainly modern technological equipment items, such as computers, also should be considered as an aid to manufacture, particularly when they can do the computations of a technical nature which are so necessary for this industry. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(10.58) —I take the few moments that are left in this debate to raise an issue that is important to me and, I believe, to every other member of parliament-that is, the difficulty that people throughout this nation have in filling out government forms at the national, State and local authority levels. I make an appeal to Ministers and Government departments to think very carefully about the forms that they produce because they are creating trauma. We saw this in recent- Mr Shipton —In the assets test. Mr WRIGHT —I accept the point. Some of the requirements placed on people to fill out forms are unnecessary. It is certainly true that when it comes to making application for all types of jobs and pensions people are unnecessarily faced with great difficulty. In this time and age, when insurance companies are able to consider simple English policies and it is something that is happening right across the board, government ought to consider as well that we have various levels of education. But it is not always the level of education that is the problem; it is simply the difficulties in understanding the terminology. I have seen this in recent times when people have been filling out sponsorship forms- Mr Howard —It sounds like Mick's affidavit. Mr WRIGHT —I know that the honourable member for Bennelong has great difficulty in understanding his party's policy, let alone forms and applications. I suggest that this is a serious matter. I would have thought that, if members of the Liberal Party had had any sensitivity to the need of people, they would have supported this proposition instead of trying to make fun of the whole issue. I suggest that, if they bothered to spend some time in their electorates, they would support the issue. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 25 March 1985: Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 14. Navigation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 28. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 21) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) How many air services are presently provided per week between Japan and Australia under the Japan-Australia Air Agreement. (2) How many of these services are presently operated by (a) Qantas and (b) Japan Airlines, and between which airports do these services operate. (3) Is there provision for additional services to be run between Australia and Japan; if so, from which airports within Australia will these services be operated, by which carrier and when could they commence. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Six regular air services are operated each week between Australia and Japan under the Australia-Japan Air agreement. (2) (a) Qantas operates three B747 combi services weekly between Australia and Japan two on a Melbourne-Sydney-Tokyo routing the third operating Perth-Sydney-Brisbane-Tokyo (b) Japan Airlines currently operate three weekly B747 services between Tokyo and Sydney. (3) Under new arrangements formalised by the Japanese and Australian Governments in Tokyo in September last year, Qantas and Japan Airlines may each operate up to four B747 services weekly between Japan and Australia from April 1985. In addition it was agreed that a once weekly B747 joint freighter service could be introduced from 1 October 1985. Qantas' additional service will operate Sydney-Brisbane-Tokyo. The company's Perth service which currently operates through Sydney-Brisbane will then operate Perth-Sydney-Tokyo. Japan Airlines' additional service will operate between Tokyo and Sydney. The joint freighter service will also operate between Tokyo and Sydney. (Question No. 23) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: What are the present official fare levels agreed upon by (a) Qantas and (b) Thai Airways International for travel between Australian east coast airports and Bangkok for (i) premium class or first class, (ii) business or executive class, (iii) full economy, (iv) advance purchase, (v) tour basing fare and (vi) other excursion fares. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Identical fare levels have been agreed upon by Qantas and Thai Airways International for travel between Australian east coast airports and Bangkok for all fares except business class fares. Present fare levels are set out below. As these fares are due to rise on 1 April 1985, I have also included for the honourable member's information the fare levels effective for travel commencing on or after 1 April 1985. FARES AUSTRALIA-BANGKOK (Australian dollars) Effective to 31 March 1985 Sydney- From Code Melbourne Brisbane Townsville Fare type (i) Premium/First Class P/F 1,682 1,629 1,499 (ii) Business Class (Qantas) J 1,321 1,278 1,176 (ii) Business Class (Thai) J 1,200 1,162 1,069 (iii) Full Economy Class Y 1,200 1,162 1,069 (iv) Advance Purchase-Peak YHAB OW 727 727 Advance Purchase-Basic HLAB OW 601 601 Advance Purchase-Peak YHAB RT 1 118 1 118 Advance Purchase-Basic YLAB RT 924 924 (v) Tour Basing Group-Peak YHGV RT 958 958 Tour Basing Group-Basic YLGV RT 792 792 (iv) Excursion YE28 RT 1,283 1,243 FARES AUSTRALIA-BANGKOK(Australian dollars) Effective from 1 April 1985 Sydney- From Code Melbourne Brisbane Townsville Fare type (i) Premium/First Class P/F 1,766 1,710 1,574 (ii) Business Class (Qantas) J 1,387 1,342 1,235 (ii) Business Class (Thai) J 1,261 1,220 1,123 (iii) Full Economy Class Y 1,261 1,220 1,123 (iv) Advance Purchase-Peak YHAB OW 727 727 Advance Purchase-Basic HLAB OW 601 601 Advance Purchase-Peak YHAB RT 1 118 1 118 Advance Purchase-Basic YLAB RT 924 924 (v) Tour Basing Group-Peak YHGV RT 1,006 1,006 Tour Basing Group-Basic YLGV RT 832 832 (iv) Excursion YE28 RT 1,283 1,243 942 (Question No. 96) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: Has an instruction been issued to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to alter the proportion of its funds spent on agricultural research; if so, (a) will the instruction result in a lower proportion of funds being made available for this research and (b) on what basis was the instruction issued and by whom. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No formal instruction has been given to CSIRO to alter the proportion of its funds devoted to agricultural research but I have suggested to CSIRO that it should work towards deploying resources away from agricultural, mineral, energy and water resource research to research in support of manufacturing and information and service industries. On a distribution of research effort based on the percentage of total professional staff, I give the present distribution and the level of support for each sector I have proposed: Current Proposed percentage percentage Rural Industries 31.6 29 Mineral, Energy and Water Resources 19.6 18 Manufacturing Industries 26.8 29 Knowledge and Management of the Natural Environment 12.2 12 Information and Service Industries 9.8 12 As to the basis of this proposal, my views on the importance of diverting more resources in support of manufacturing and newer industries, such as Information Technology, are well known. (Question No. 99) Mr Adermann asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the congestion, long delay, and number of accidents on the Bruce Highway north of the 4-lane section so far completed and in use. (2) What is the anticipated completion date (a) of the section under construction between Beerburrum to the Caloundra turn off, (b) of the section from Caloundra turn off to the proposed Nambour by-pass and (c) of the Nambour by-pass. (3) In view of the extreme danger of a horrific accident in Nambour possibly involving transport carrying combustible materials, will he accept my often extended invitation to meet me in my electorate and inspect the problems and concerns referred to in part (1); if so, when. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Because of the many problems on the Bruce Highway the Federal Government accords it highest priority for works on national highways in Queensland. In view of the considerable need for upgrading over the entire length of over 1700 km of the highway it is considered that the section to Nambour receives a relatively high proportion of available funds. Approximately $65m will be spent this year on the Bruce Highway and about 14 per cent of this on the Beerburrum deviation alone. (2) Whether the existing timetable and priority for upgrading of this section of the Bruce Highway can be maintained is dependent on a number of factors, the most important being movements in construction costs, decisions as to future funding after the expiration of the current Roads Grants Act in June 1985 and the speedy resolution of possible environmental issues. On present indications the Queensland Main Roads Department anticipates the various projects will be completed as follows: (a) December 1985. (b) Late 1988. (c) Late 1989. I have also been advised that the by-pass of Nambour would have been undertaken much earlier if there had not been local concern about the impact of the Bypass on Nambour. (3) As I have indicated before, I am happy to meet the honourable member and the Chamber of Commerce to discuss the problems when I am next in the area. I cannot at this stage say when that will be.