Thursday, 18 April 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m. and read prayers. Debate resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.01) —Mr Speaker, the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill extends the bounty on injection-moulding equipment to one company, Battenfeld (Aust) Pty Ltd, which continues to manufacture this equipment in Australia. Injection-moulding machines have been the subject of no fewer than seven reports from the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority over the last 10 years and local production has been receiving relatively high, though gradually reducing, assistance for some years. The chequered history of the Australian manufacture of injection-moulding machines and parts demonstrates beyond doubt that protection over a decade is whether it be by way of tariffs or bounties, as in this case, is no guarantee for the long term viability of any industry in this country. In fact, this industry has continued to decline over the period, despite assistance, from a situation where it had four producers to one where it now has but one. It is a matter of great concern that the Parliament is being asked once again to endorse a commitment of $2m of taxpayers' funds over four years to support one company to remain a manufacturer of injection-moulding equipment when the domestic market has steadily fallen, from 103 machines produced in 1979-80 to only 30 machines four years later. Despite the failure of Johns Consolidated Ltd, the market share of Battenfeld (Aust) Pty Ltd decreased over those four years by nearly 30 per cent. In fact, just prior to the Johns company going into receivership, Battenfeld estimated that its market share was around 16 per cent but admitted that its tardiness in introducing a new series of machine designs had caused it to lose ground. The company itself, in evidence given before the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry, freely admitted that management decisions have contributed to its decline in market share and consequently in profitability. Yet, after two years in power, this Government which promised so much is unable to give this Parliament precise details as to how its industrial policy will establish viable Australian industries which are able to stand on their own feet and compete on both domestic and foreign markets. In 1983 the Australian Labor Party's policy for the manufacturing industry stated: . . . we re-affirm our commitment to the task of creating an efficient manufacturing sector, less dependent on all forms of assistance. We are well aware of the difficulties of developing coherent national industrial policies in a complex environment in which geographical location, the highly regulated labour market, rather complex and often unnecessary levels of governmental interference, and our outmoded systems of transport, communication and other services all add costs to the final product. There is also the difficulty of implementing a national industrial policy when quite often State policies are in direct conflict with the objectives of that national approach. There are in fact six markets rather than one national market, and the situation has improved little since Federation. This is one of a number of issues that government has to date failed to address. Although the Opposition supports the Government's initiative for the removal of State preferences, it notes that New South Wales, for example, the somewhat blemished jewel in Labor's crown, still refuses to co-operate in what is obviously, Australia's best interests. The Opposition will continue to encourage the Government to reduce all barriers or impediments to trade and commerce caused by State and Federal duplication and major differences in regulations between the States in areas such as commerce, law and transport. However, the Government has failed to implement with the States, the majority of which are the same political colour, a review of Federal-State jurisdiction to facilitate a truly national approach to building a national economy. Many of these domestic impediments to trade and greater efficiency not only restrict access to the limited national market for Australian products but also directly contribute to not being able to take advantage of economies of scale which, in turn, make access to overseas markets so much more difficult. For all these reasons neither tariff nor bounty assistance can be taken in isolation but must be seen against a total environment in which industry is expected to operate and, hopefully, to prosper. In allowing the passage of the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill we realise the reality that industry must have adequate warning of a change in government policy. We hope that, over the intervening four years, when this continuing assistance will be available to Battenfeld, it will be able to restructure to the extent that it no longer requires continuing taxpayer support. In the meantime, we hope that the Government will enact through this Parliament comprehensive industrial legislation which will effectively face up to the range of problems which impact on industry. We have accepted that, as a trading nation, our trade policies and our ability to compete on world markets are closely interwoven with our domestic industry and commerce policies. It is because of this that any effective industry and commerce policies must involve a blend of those policies related to wages and industrial relations, taxation, productivity and manpower, education and training, research and development, our approach to defence support industries and the domestic policies of both the Federal and State governments in relation to purchasing and offsets generally. For an effective industrial policy there is clearly a need to dovetail it with policies in fields such as trade and transport, the labour market and economic management. The Opposition recognises the undoubted difficulties of introducing reductions in trade barriers in Australia, particularly those which, in effect, support industrial inefficiency, distortion and inequities. The Government must have the political will to move in this direction. If it introduces policies which remove the barriers to competition it will have the support of the Opposition. However, as I have already stated, reduction of trade barriers cannot be seen in isolation but must form part of a total industry package. This is especially relevant for export industries because, as we know, tariffs tax exports. Indeed, the evidence for Australia is that at least 70 per cent, and perhaps as much as 80 per cent, of the tariff is borne by export industries including, of course, exports of manufactured goods which the Government is so keen to promote. Legislation such as this which we are debating today is a clear example of how it is so easy to continue with a level of government support rather than take the difficult decisions to initiate policies which will encourage companies to be more competitive in their own right. The record of the first two years of this Labor Government will be seen as a saga of lost opportunities in this area. It was elected on a platform of hope. It will be rejected if it fails to address adequately the nation's fundamental economic problems. But time is running out. It is not in Australia's favour. Some of these problems include escalating wage costs, escalating non-wage labour costs, escalating government charges and costs of regulation, decreasing export opportunities, increased overseas protectionism, increasing unreliability of supply, dumping and aggressive foreign market practices, poor product orientation or performance, discrimination against capital intensity and excessive government expenditure and share of gross domestic product. In recent days we have seen the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) trying to restore confidence by talking up the economy. But talk is cheap. It is no substitute for action and on that the Government will be judged. The effect of continuing government failure to address these macroeconomic issues is illustrated by the fact that Australia now has the highest real interest rates of any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country. Australia now has the highest money supply growth in the OECD area. Australia has the fastest sinking currency in the OECD. Australia has the second highest current account deficit of any OECD country and Australia is the only OECD country with full wage indexation since even Italy abandoned that practice. A national and co-ordinated approach is therefore essential if we are to improve the competitive environment for manufacturing industry. The best test of this Labor Government is not what it says it will do but what it has done. Members of the Labor Party talked of a consensus between management and labour. In reality it was between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and executive government. They talked of restraining cost increases, and yet we have seen average weekly earnings increase at a rate greater than that of inflation, thus making labour intensive industries such as Battenfeld even less competitive and creating greater unemployment in the less skilled areas. We have heard Ministers of this Government prattle on about how industry must improve its competitive position, yet this Government has failed to reduce government sector imposts on business and to appreciate the most fundamental fact of all-that as a nation, Australia is now living well beyond its means. We depend more and more on borrowed capital for consumption and debt servicing rather than for productive investment. Only a more internationally competitive economy can possibly hope to generate the kind of trade surpluses required to service Australia's widening external debt. Currently, even some Latin American countries are doing much better than Australia in generating the trade surpluses required to meet their external debt. The fact is that Australia is likely to have a current account deficit of almost $11 billion in 1984-85, compared with the Budget forecast of only $8 billion. That is a cost that every Australian has to be prepared to bear. The present devaluation of the Australian dollar does give Australian industry an opportunity to become more competitive. Our competitiveness, in fact, has returned roughly to the level of the 1970s. The Government appears determined to destroy the opportunities presented by devaluation. It has now conceded to the ACTU position that there will be no discounting of full wage indexation for the effects of devaluation. On top of that, the Government will support a productivity increase of 3 per cent. All this comes after a 2.6 per cent wage rise in April and a 2.7 per cent non-wage drift outside the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the second half of 1984. The fact is that Australia's inflation rate is still some 25 per cent above those of our major trading partners, and at a time when the very successful Japanese economy is facing a wage demand for 1985-86 of only 4 per cent, Australia is facing increases of at least 7 to 8 per cent. I seek leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a consumer price table from the Treasury 'Economic Round up' of 22 February 1985. Mr SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr John Brown —I want to have a look at it first. Mr CONNOLLY —It is straight out of the record. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind honourable members of the usual arrangement. I think the honourable member for Bradfield knows that there are some restrictions on the type of material that is incorporated in Hansard. It is usual to consult with the Minister so that leave can be given. Mr John Brown —If it is capable of being incorporated into the Hansard record, we have no objection. Mr SPEAKER —Is it just a table? Mr CONNOLLY —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —There is no problem in having that incorporated in Hansard. Leave is granted. The table read as follows- TABLE 18: CONSUMER PRICES(a) Change on previous period Change on a year earlier Treasury Economic Round up December December 22nd February 1985 1983 1984 1983 1984 per cent per cent per cent per cent United States 3.2 4.3 3.8 4.0 Japan 1.9 2.2 1.8 2.6 West Germany 3.3 2.4 2.6 2.0 France 9.6 7.3 9.3 6.7 United Kingdom 4.6 5.0 5.3 4.6 Italy 14.6 11.6 12.4 9.4 Canada 5.9 4.3 4.5 3.8 OECD 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.9 Australia's major OECD trading partners(b) 3.9 3.9 3.6 4.1 Australia 10.1 (c)6.3 (d)8.6 (c)(d)5.1 (a) Not seasonally adjusted. (b) Comprises the United States, Japan, West Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada and New Zealand. Percentage changes for 1983 and 1984 are weighted by 1983-84 import and export weights. (c) Excludes the effects of the introduction, from 1 February 1984, of Medicare; including the effect of the introduction of Medicare, the CPI was 4.0 per cent in 1984 and 2.6 per cent higher in the December quarter 1984 than a year earlier. (d) December quarter. Mr CONNOLLY —I was glad to see that the Prime Minister conceded last week that 'depreciation initially implies an unavoidable reduction in national income and wealth' and that 'all parties will need to share, in some degree, in the initial process of adjustment'. Again, it was just words because, in the next breath, the Prime Minister then told us that he would insist on a policy which maintains the real income of wage earners. He stated: The Government sees no compelling reason why these firms or industries should be subsidised by the wage system. In other words, the Government is still not prepared to give companies, such as Battenfeld a real chance not just to compete but to survive. In over two years, little has been achieved which improves the fundamentals of industry's competitive position in the Australian economy. Depreciation of the Australian dollar has improved the international competitiveness of Australia's export-and import-competing industries. However, by supporting full indexation of wages to the consumer price index, the Government will ensure that the benefits of depreciation for these industries will be frittered away as the price rises brought about by the depreciation enter the cost structure and, hence, the inflation rate. In other words, whilst the Government preaches about the need to improve international competitiveness its actions belie its words. There is no evidence that the Government understands, let alone has even had the courage to face up to, the real problems facing Australian industry. I recall a most apt quotation from Senator Button, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, on the World Today program on 28 October 1983. He said: We have to look at everything which affects the capacity of Australian industry to employ people and to get Australian industry re-established and vigorous and competitive. If this Bill is an indication of re-establishing vigour and competition, I hate to think how this Government will handle far more pressing decisions which are soon to be made on the political agenda. These include assistance for the textiles, clothing and footwear, heavy commercial vehicles, chemicals and plastics and a host of other industries. Senator Button told us that the Government was going to look at everything which affects the capacity of Australian industry. But despite his pious rhetoric the record is at least patchy. Whilst he has addressed the problems of the motor vehicle and steel industries, the Government has failed to address the wider problems to which I have referred today. In particular, despite the close relationship between the ACTU and this Government, no effort has been made to break down the rigidities in the labour market-a system which for too long has failed utterly to take account of the capacity of an industry or even a firm within an industry to pay. Moreover, this is despite the fact that there is now a considerable body of evidence to suggest that the countries which have the most flexible labour markets have done relatively well with respect to employment growth. For example, a former Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has pointed out: With roughly similar investment trends in North America and Europe during the past decade, employment growth in North America was more than ten times as great. Even when aggregate investment was not particularly high, greater labour mobility, more flexible real and relative wages, and perhaps other factors relating to the freedom for entrepreneurial initiatives 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. In recent days the ACTU has been prepared to acknowledge that under current economic circumstances there is an argument against a wages policy based on so-called comparative wage justice, but not a word have we heard from the Government in this House or elsewhere, in support of this proposition. While much has been made of deregulation in the financial sector, there has been no move from this Government to deregulate the Australian labour market, despite or because of its cosy relationship with the ACTU. Recent years have seen a substantial growth in labour on-costs including workers compensation for which premiums have increased by 152 per cent and claims by 252 per cent since 1979. Since the introduction by a previous Labor government of a 17 1/2 per cent holiday loading, Australia must be the only country in the world which believes it is necessary to subsidise directly the holidays of its work force and in fact pays its workers more to go on leave than to work. Further, when one considers that businesses must pay not only for annual holidays but also for about five and a half days sick leave per employee per year, as well as public holidays and long service leave, people are in effect being paid to work for 52 weeks when in fact they do not work for about eight weeks or two months in every twelve. It is now estimated that the on-costs of employing every unit of labour, depending on the industry, are at least 50 per cent of wage costs and yet in this Bill the Government is asking the Australian taxpayer to subsidise the sole producer, Battenfeld (Australia) Pty Ltd, to the extent of roughly $25,000 for each of the 80 people it employs to produce roughly 30 machines per year for the domestic market, which also imports an additional 180 machines manufactured under very different circumstances. If this Government were committed to assisting the survival of Australian manufacturing industry and improving job prospects, it would review labour practices, insist that the States amend their unrealistic and anti-business regulations, set about reducing the level of Federal and State governmental charges on business and remove the substantial amount of unnecessary governmental regulation which permeates into virtually every area of commercial endeavour. It is ironic that this legislation should come up at a time when the Government is fumbling with the problem of future wage indexation. The reality is, as ACTU officials constantly point out, that Australia is the only OECD country which still has full wage indexation. The company involved in this legislation is the very type of company which would have benefited from real wage restraint. The fact is that in a centralised wage fixing system manufacturing is loaded with the same costs as service industries. Yet it is manufacturing industry which is fully exposed to the cold winds of international competition. What chance does this give manufacturing? The Government's view is expressed in its submission to the national wage case: In any economic circumstances marginal firms or industries will experience economic difficulties. This is part of the normal process of growth and re-adjustment within the economy. It would also recognise that protecting and subsidising industries does not guarantee employment. This is true not only of the injection moulding machines industry but of manufacturing generally. The evidence for Australia is clear: The most highly assisted manufacturing industries have the worst employment record; employment in those industries declined much more than the manufacturing average over the past decade. It should also be remembered that protecting manufacturing by tariffs and quotas taxes workers in other industries. In fact, protection is the single biggest tax on goods, excluding, of course, the crude oil levy. The consumer tax equivalent of protection has been estimated to be in excess of $10 billion annually. As the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) reminded us in his speech to the North-South seminar, this tax is regressive. It is therefore curious to observe those members of the Australian Labor Party, particularly those on the Left, who are so vehemently opposed to expanding the tax base to include more goods on the ground that this would be regressive, at the same time supporting more protection. The Government would also recognise that industries which owe their employment to protection or assistance do so at the expense of employment in other industries. The bounties to be paid under the legislation now before this House could well be used to employ people elsewhere in the Australian economy. Surely it is time for this Government to face up to the reality that its own statutory authorities, such as Telecom Australia, Australia Post, the Australian National Railways Commission, the Australian National Line and Trans Australia Airlines and, in fact, its entire civil aviation policy, should be not only reviewed but reviewed in such a way as to ensure that the direct and indirect costs to industry for which they are responsible can be effectively reduced. This can be achieved, we believe, only through the Government withdrawing from those areas of commercial service which can be more efficiently managed using the principles of private sector management and in a manner which gives employees of such authorities a financial stake in the success of the venture and the wider community the opportunity to also be shareholders and reap the benefits of a more cost-efficient service. I must reiterate that the Opposition supports the important initiative that the Government has taken in regard to the deregulation of the financial sector. We also support the Government's decision to initiate a three-year review with the private sector of undue government regulation, but it should be noted that it took our policy at the last election to spur the Government into action in this most important area. I believe, however, that the Government has missed an excellent opportunity in this new Parliament to establish a committee for regulatory review which could commence the task of removing outdated or unnecessary regulations and require government departments to justify to Parliament which regulations are necessary for existing and new legislation. The Opposition has already announced that in government we will establish such a committee as an integral part of our deregulation program. If the Government does show the courage to follow through with sustainable deregulatory policies, we confidently believe that more good will be done to Australian manufacturing industry than any amount of taxpayer-funded direct or indirect assistance. The Government has made a commitment to industry restructuring but, with the exception of the motor car and steel industries, we still wait in expectation for an acknowledgment from the Government that industry policy is more than just ad hoc, piecemeal assistance to those who claim to be in need. In contrast, the coalition's policies are designed to address all of these issues to which I have referred. We are determined to provide a more open environment, less influenced by unnecessary governmental regulation, high taxation and excessive government charges. This will encourage Australian entrepreneurs with vision, courage and the spirit of innovation to take the opportunities which this country undoubtedly has in full measure. The position is now so serious for Australian manufacturing industry that, unless confidence is renewed and governments, both State and Federal, are prepared to work together to create a medium to long term environment in which managers can make investment decisions, we will proceed inexorably to the point where we are, in the context of the Pacific Basin, little more than hewers of wood, drawers of water and a quarry for the world. Need I remind honourable members that manufacturing, which amounted to almost 30 per cent of total output by the end of the 1950s, has now fallen to about 20 per cent. In past years a measure such as this would have passed through this chamber with barely a murmur. Today we have chosen this Bill to indicate the direction the coalition believes industrial policy should take. As I said earlier, we are not opposing this measure, but the Government should not take our continuing support for granted unless it acts to overcome the problems I have identified. The Australian people have given the Hawke Government a second mandate to take the necessary decisions which will influence, for good or ill, the future generations of our people. Clearly the Government must act with resolution and it must act decisively. Provided the Government meets its policy commitment to 'get Australian industry re-established and to make it vigorous and competitive'-a promise it made to the Australian people-the Opposition will continue to give its support in these matters. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.25) —It is important to understand that the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has cast his net very wide on economic matters and industrial policy. I think that is sensible, because it is important that these measures fall within that arrangement of a comprehensive industrial policy. It is important also to emphasise to the honourable member for Bradfield and to those speakers on his side of the House who will follow that the record of their joint parties is indeed a very sorry record. I do not want to simply talk about the past, but if honourable members opposite talk about creating an economic climate in which industry can be vigorous and competitive, they must remember that the record of the Fraser Government in the last couple of years left a lot to be desired. I do not think they can escape that. I accept that there is a lot of sense in the pleas of honourable members opposite for a more rational arrangement of the economic management of this country, which we would endorse on this side of the House. The Opposition has the problem of convincing its colleagues in the National Party-the agrarian socialists-that it is possible to restructure the economy sensibly. It is on the public record that the attempts by the previous Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), to introduce modernisation into the financial system foundered on the rocks of the agrarian socialists in the then government. It was not possible to get that through because there were people who had very strong vested interests. Let us not deny that they have vested interests, but we ought not to come into this place and say that those vested interests have not distorted the structure of this economy, because clearly they have. The honourable member for Bradfield has identified correctly that there are strong competing interests in the trade union movement, the rural sector, the manufacturing industry and so on. We have to say, in the context of this debate, that all purity does not lie on the side of the Opposition. The Australian community knows when it reflects on the recent record of the Opposition that its record was not altogether attractive. But I do not want to go through that arrangement and try to cast doubt completely on the Opposition. I say to those speakers on the Opposition side who will follow that the Australian public have not forgotten that the Opposition parties participated in a massive destruction of the Australian economy. The Australian public have not forgotten also that those members of the National Party who will participate in this debate are responsible for some of the major structural problems in the Australian economy. Honourable members opposite cannot escape that. I know that those speakers would have already written their speeches, so they will probably miss the substance of what the honourable member for Bradfield said and what I am saying. But they cannot come into this place and say that the economy should be arranged in a very clear and rational way, because they are always preaching to that enormous lobby they represent. That is what I would term agrarian socialism in Australia. So let us not miss that point. The historical experience is that the Opposition has been successful at that in political terms, because it has been in office and has been able to do so, but it does not avoid the fact that it has done an enormous disservice to the rational structure of the Australian economy. We have cost problems, structural problems and subsidy problems, and they have to be recognised as being historical problems that have resulted from government policy. I think we should get the record straight on those matters. If we look at the list of speakers who will follow, it is evident that what John Kenneth Galbraith has called the strident voice of agrarian socialism will come into this place and say: 'We want our nest feathered'. It is interesting that two weeks ago I listened to a number of concerned farmers in Western Australia talking about their cost position, which is an issue of concern to many of us. The only problem was that they kept saying: 'We want you to reduce taxes, but for goodness sake, keep our subsidies going'. They cannot have it both ways. I say to those members of the National Party, who clearly have issues that they wish to represent, that this cannot be done; they cannot have it both ways. Whilst we may wish to hear the pleas of the farmers, they have their subsidies. They cannot have reduced taxes if they wish also to keep their subsidies. I suggest to those honourable members who will follow me in this debate that they work out which way they want to go. We have mapped out our course clearly, and I will talk about that in a moment. Honourable members opposite have to address themselves to that issue. This Bill, as the honourable member for Bradfield has said, is about manufacturing industry in this country. The legislation concerns one component of manufacturing industry, namely, injection-moulding equipment. For the benefit of those who are listening to this debate, I should state that injection moulding is one of several commonly used methods of plastic processing. I will say more about that in a minute. It involves the shaping of plastic articles by injecting heated material into a mould. Injection moulding machines are used to produce a wide range of moulded plastic articles such as containers for food and for other items, parts of motor vehicles and medical apparatus. In the context of the remarks of the honourable member for Bradfield, the plastics industry has been one of the more successful post-war industries in Australia. That is something we ought to point to. Clearly, in looking at the way industry should be structured, this industry did have some advantages. It had an expanding market. It had the capacity to use more up to date technology. So we were not inheriting an industrial museum in the case of the plastics industry. Unfortunately, very often in the case of other manufacturing industries there has been an historical experience. It is interesting that the Kaldor thesis on the decline of the British economy states that because the Industrial Revolution occurred very much earlier than in countries with comparative economies, such as Japan and West Germany, many of Britain's manufacturing industries are out of date. The problem for post-war governments in Britain has been to bring the economy up to date. Very clearly, we have this problem. When we talk about restructuring, which I hope honourable members opposite will talk about, it is a joint problem for honourable members opposite and members of the Government. We have to address ourselves realistically to the question of how we should go about restructuring the Australian economy without causing an enormous loss of jobs and enormous economic damage. On the question of loss of jobs and damage to the Australian economy, the Stone approach very clearly did not work. The economic record was not very good. The level of bankruptcies was high. Inflation was very high and economic growth was stifled. There was not an effective wages policy. The issue of a wages policy that the honourable member for Bradfield spoke out is one that honourable members on his side of the House must have a good look at. The Opposition has attacked the question of centralised wage fixation. I argue that for a number of reasons centralised wage fixation has been an effective method of establishing a wages policy. The principal reason is that it implies a degree of co-operation between employers and the union movement in establishing a sensible system of wage arrangements in this country. That is what it is about. Incidentally, the pay-off has been a remarkable reduction in industrial disputes. Essentially, in this life, the business world consists of a series of bargaining relationships and one does not get all that one wants but aims for an optimal situation. Our wages policy has produced a remarkable reduction in inflation and an even more remarkable reduction in industrial disputes. So, on the face of it, it is an effective wages policy. I know that honourable members opposite are having difficulty in developing a wages policy. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) was clearly a supporter of the centralised wage fixing system. Pressure has come from some members of his Party and of the National Party to move away from the centralised wage fixing system. In our view the system of wage indexation and consultation at the national level is clearly an effective way to develop wages policy. One item that I wish to talk about with respect to the plastics industry has enormous implications for this country at the moment. Honourable members in this chamber would be aware, as would the general Australian community, that at the moment we are facing quite a crisis with respect to an industrial disease called repetition strain injury. Research shows very clearly that repetition strain injury results from a number of factors in the working environment, such as the amount and nature of work being done, the nature of the people in the work place-I refer to their degree of training-and the sorts of furniture that they are using. Clearly the evidence shows that if we have what is known as ergonomically designed furniture, that is furniture that suits the needs of the user, or user-friendly furniture, the chances of getting repetitive strain injury are reduced dramatically. I might add that the furniture in the House of Representatives does not quite meet those criteria, but I can see that the furniture provided for some of our most hard-working people, the Clerk of the House and the assistants, is ergonomically designed and it is remarkably different in appearance. Mr John Brown —They are old. Not the chairs, the Clerks. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The Minister suggests that it might be an age factor. I think it is also a work load factor. Being in this chamber, I know that the Clerks have an enormous work load and I am pleased to see that we are up to date in providing the appropriate furniture. Incidentally, it is very clear that the furniture that has been designed for us members to sit on has more of an historical flavour. It is designed rather like a church-more for its appearance than for its function. I suggest that both the Government and the Opposition should be looking at the question of providing specific tax advantages for Australian companies that are manufacturing ergonomically designed furniture. The evidence one gets from discussions in the field suggests that some of the furniture we get in this country is imported and some of it is not the latest design. In fact, some people have suggested to me that some furniture is even being dumped in this country. Clearly there is a case to be made for saying that we need furniture that suits the Australian physique and also suits Australian industrial needs. We should provide an incentive for those industries that wish to manufacture such furniture. These will be mainly plastics manufacturers. We should think of offering them a tax advantage. One might say: 'Is that not costing the taxpayer money?' I would argue that in the long term we will save an enormous amount through reductions in lost time in the work place and in workers compensation. Clearly there is a case for tax advantages for those Australian manufacturers who move into ergonomically designed furniture. There should also be a tax incentive for those industries which seek to use ergonomically designed furniture. If we say that there is a benefit to be gained from using furniture that is appropriate to the work place, we should then say that we are prepared to provide an initial incentive for industry to do that. I do not believe that the responsibility lies solely with the private sector. I believe that government departments should take a lead here, and I am pleased to see that the House of Representatives has taken such a lead. Government departments should be model employers and should be the first to use the ergonomically designed furniture. If we do not get on top of this issue and do not have furniture that is suitable for the user, we will reap an enormous cost in terms of the industrial disease, repetitive strain injury. There is a lot of debate at the moment about RSI. It is said that many people imagine that it is happening. I do not think that we could convince 175 out of 350 operators in Telecom in Perth that they just have a psychological problem. Clearly, discussions with physiotherapists and other practitioners indicate that there is a substantial problem. One does not rule out the fact that there might be attitudinal problems occasionally when people translate their feelings about the work place into a feeling that they have something wrong with them. That happens in many cases when one examines the incidence of work injury. However, there is a core of a problem here and we, as a government, and as a community, should address the problem through the appropriate fiscal measures. Such fiscal measures should be designed to encourage manufacture and thereby the creation of jobs. They should also encourage the private sector to use this furniture. I believe the benefits to be gained by the community generally will be enormous. We must get away from the situation in which we always simply react to events. Let us get ahead for once. Let us do the right thing and try to ensure that we head off what is a rapidly increasing problem for industry. I take the point of the honourable member for Bradfield, who talked about workers compensation. We accept fully that industry carries an enormous bill for workers compensation in Australia. The big problem the Parliament has is convincing those vested interests who want to keep the current system going that there is some merit in moving to another system of workers compensation. That is the issue we face as a Parliament in looking at all the vested interests in both legal and industrial circles, who seem to think that there is some benefit in continuing with the current common law actions. Clearly there is not, because there has been no incentive for industry to reduce industrial accidents and premiums, so there has to be a better way. I share the view of the honourable member for Bradfield that we have to look at a more effective system. New Zealand has one approach and Queensland has another. Various State governments are exploring a number of avenues with respect to workers compensation. If we could, in the next five years, mount a major attack upon a reduction in premiums for workers compensation, and obviously upon a reduction in the accident rate in industry, we would do a great service to Australian industry. I believe that is the responsibility of all of us in this place. I hope we can continue to have debates about these issues because I think there are some substantial vested interests out there who are acting against the best interests of industry generally. So I fully take on board the comments made by the honourable member for Bradfield. There are a couple of other issues that were addressed that I wish to refer to in this debate. We have talked about creating a modern industrial structure. I believe we have begun to go down that path with deregulation of the financial system. I have spoken about what I think is one of the constraints upon the previous Treasurer in introducing that. I am sympathetic to why he had that problem and I would say again to those honourable members who are going to rise shortly: Please do not come into this debate and talk endlessly about subsidies. Let us talk about modernising our economy and not about protecting members' own vested interests because all that will do in the long term is result in a reduction in the equality of the Australian economy. The honourable member for Bradfield asked: 'What about this measure? Is not this an interim measure which runs against the whole question of restructuring?' What I am suggesting in this debate is that, with respect to issues such as steel industry policy and motor vehicle industry policy, we are trying to provide a broader framework. At the moment I believe we have to ensure that we do not immediately jettison industries. So, whether the Opposition is in government or we are in government, we are stuck with some industries in a very severe competitive position. We recognise that, but it does not help to come into this place and simply write off an industry, as I believe did happen in the last couple of years of the former Government when it saw a substantial loss of jobs. I believe we have to look at setting up a framework within which those industries can become more competitive and can grow. Floating the dollar has clearly helped. It is all right to come now and talk about what has happened with our currency in relation to other currencies but I think we have to ask, in relation to those clear competitive issues that have developed in recent times, what it would have been like had we tried to prop up the dollar. I go back to the issue that, if the people who are going to speak in this debate want to get down the track of intervention, by all means they should do it, but they had better convince the Australian taxpayers that the money and the methods they would be using will be effective. Historical experience is very clearly against them. The Opposition has a very sorry record indeed; so its members must not come in here and get too excited and too cocky because the Australian community will remember that the Opposition's performance in government left a lot to be desired. We can easily talk about bankruptcies, record inflation, high interest rates, record industrial disputes-a shambles of an economy. We can do it very quickly because the Australian community is so aware of it. So please, do not get up here and try to say: 'We can put the world right because we have wisdom and purity'. We know that the Opposition is not wise and that it is not pure, so please do not do that. What I would say-going back to the remarks made by the honourable member for Bradfield-is that the industrial structure of this country is a major issue that we have to address. I believe deregulation is one of the paths we must proceed down with a degree of vigour. Sadly, one of the biggest problems is in fact in local government. I am sure that if honourable members talk with business they will be told that it is in an absolute mess. We have to mount a major attack upon local government regulation. I have talked to many building companies and so on that simply cannot get things under way because of the strangling effects of local government. That is an issue we have to address. It is very different to talk about health and safety issues, but when we are talking about regulation for its own sake, which has no community benefit, we have a joint interest in this place in getting rid of those regulations. I fully endorse that view. I think the issue of deregulation is a major issue that we have to take on board. If we are clear about it, if we do not indulge ourselves simply in point-scoring-I take the remarks of the honourable member for Bradfield in the best possible light, but I am not sure about those who will follow him-and if we are looking towards establishing a sincere debate, I believe over the next few years we have a chance to establish a more competitive and more effective industrial economy. The groundwork that has been laid in the last two years in terms of cost effectiveness and reduced industrial disputes is a very good groundwork. I believe that we have ahead of us a very promising industrial structure provided we are prepared to take the hard decisions. In concluding my remarks on this debate, Parliament has before it a number of issues and if we do not address those issues properly we will not have the sort of economy that we seek. Clearly the Australian community has indicated that it seeks a modern, competitive industrial economy. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.45) —The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) said that they have a good chance in the years ahead to establish a good, strong and competitive economy but nothing is surer than that this Government is on the path towards blowing that chance. I think the honourable member will find in 12 months time, when he looks at what he has just said, that the picture will be very different. He made a number of disparaging remarks about my colleagues in the National Party of Australia. I do not think he has caught up with things in that area, but they are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, as they will do shortly in this debate. Referring to the honourable member's disparaging comments on the previous Government, I remind him that in 1981 the level of unemployment stood at around 5.5 per cent. I challenge him to say whether in the next few years under his Government the level of unemployment will get down to anything like that sort of level. The down trend in unemployment has already turned. It is following an upward course and is hovering around the 9 per cent level. We have heard all this talk about restoration following the so-called 'shambles', to quote his words, in 1983. What brought about the reduction in inflation in 1983? It was the wages pause implemented by the previous Government that primarily brought about that reduction. Incidentally, that measure, introduced by the previous Government, was supported by State governments of all colours-National, Liberal and Labor-by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, by all tribunals and by the whole Australian community. It was opposed only by the then Australian Labor Party Opposition in this place. That is what led to reduced inflation. This Government got a reduction in inflation not because of its accord but in spite of it. A lot of accompanying expansion of activity and employment resulted from the breaking of the drought and the overseas recovery. It was in fact a matter of rising from a cyclical low and getting back on to a trend. If we look back to three years ago we will see that employment is up only about one to 1 1/2 per cent on the then figure. I will come back to that in a moment. I want to mention one other aspect of the previous Government's record that has been disparaged by honourable members on the other side. It relates to the Bill before this House, the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill, in terms of containing levels of protection. It is perhaps worth putting it on the record that from January 1978 to 1982, 110 Industries Assistance Commission reports were submitted to and considered by the then Government, recommending for the most part reductions in protection. Of those 110, 66 were fully accepted by the Government, and in 33 of the other 44 reports arrangements proposed by the Commission were modified only to provide for the phasing in of recommended tariff cuts. In fact, it was recommended that the injection-moulding equipment industry itself have a significant cut in protection. The prevailing rate up to 1978 was 55 per cent and the IAC recommended a long term rate of 15 per cent-a very significant reduction indeed. It also recommended that in view of the size of the reduction there be a phasing down bounty paid to facilitate further restructuring in the industry and to mitigate the adverse consequences of so large a tariff reduction. The position is that from an effective rate of protection in the order of 70 per cent in 1978, assistance is currently in the order of 35 per cent. The 15 per cent tariff rate itself represents effective protection in the order of 10 to 15 percentage points. But still, as the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) pointed out, only one manufacturer-Battenfeld (Aust) Pty Ltd of Albury-remains. The assistance proposed in this Bill, which is as recommended by the Commission, is for a further period of phasing bounty assistance and will represent initially assistance in the order of some 30 per cent. I am somewhat pessimistic about the long term survival of this operation at the tariff rate of 15 per cent. My judgment is derived not only from the circumstances of the particular industry but also from the whole gamut of the Hawke Government's policies, particularly in the wages and industrial relations area. Of course, the industry will get some assistance from the recent devaluation of the dollar provided the Government takes the necessary action to make that stick. That seems doubtful at this time. Nevertheless, as the honourable member for Bradfield said, the Commission has made this recommendation and the Government's policy is to implement the recommendations of the Commission. I believe that that is the right approach unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. I take this opportunity to suggest that the whole situation would be different if we were operating in the context of the co-ordinated implementation of the Opposition's policies, in government, as we will be after the next election. I said 'the Opposition's policies', and honourable members should note the plural. 'The blend of policies' is the phrase used in our policy statement. It refers to the fostering of a vigorous, internationally competitive, export-oriented manufacturing industry. That is our objective. I quote from the document headed 'Policy on Industry and Commerce'. It says: The policies required will involve a blend of those related to wages and industrial relations, taxation, productivity and manpower, education and training, research and development, defence support industry and programs, government purchasing and offsets generally, as well as trade and transport, economic and currency management. That embraces a whole range of co-ordinated policies. The last one refers to a sound growth-oriented macro-economic policy. The policy goes on to say: We shall include in that blend an orderly program of clearly stated and understandable phased reductions in Australia's trade barriers, particularly those barriers which are conducive to industrial inefficiency, distortion, or inequity, but-- I stress this- at the same time we shall fearlessly use such measures as are necessary to protect Australia from the damaging effects of dumping, improper transfer pricing and other unfair destabilising trading actions by other nations. Mr Cadman —It is a good policy. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —As my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell says, it is a good policy. We will pursue, as our policy says, a steady reduction in tariffs but will balance that by, where necessary, to quote our policy again, 'strenuously defending our country against the unfair trading practices of others'. If I were to single out as the most important one of the policies in the blend I have just referred to it would be the reform of the outdated, over-centralised, inflexible, market insensitive wages and industrial relations systems. There are other policies-my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield and the honourable member for Stirling referred to them-such as removing unnecessary government regulation. That is of quite critical importance. The veritable profusion of regulations restraining competition and stifling enterprise almost defies description. Reform of depreciation schedules and business taxation procedures and changes in institutional and individual attitudes are important as are research and development and technological progress in industry. Because of limitations on time I come back to the importance of the wages and industrial relations system. It is a system which gives us the worst of all worlds. The formal conciliation and arbitration wage fixing machinery determines not only minimum wages but also holiday pay loadings, termination pay-the lot. On top of that, we have a tier, in effect, of collective bargaining. Lately, the second element has become more significant. Australian average weekly earnings figures for the December quarter amply illustrate that. They indicate an 8.4 increase in average weekly earnings over the year to December, albeit there has been no national wage increase since April last year until the recent 2.6 per cent increase, indicating that people are taking higher wages outside the formal wage fixing machinery in over-award payments and the like. Yet, it is the restraint of wages outside the system which the much vaunted accord is supposed to deliver as the centrepiece of the Government's economic strategy. Only the day before yesterday, the Age editorialised on the case of the building workers at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Mr Cadman —What a disgrace that is! Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It is an extraordinary disgrace, as my colleague has said. I will just quote a little from that editorial: It seems extraordinary that in a country where more than 630,000 people are looking for jobs, some have to be bribed to work. Not content with being offered a good job and not ungenerous award wages for it, about 100 members of 10 building unions have just settled for over-award payments of $84 a week-- The Age further states: The MCG deal is one of the more blatant examples of the abuse of union power. That is one case. There are others. This sort of thing is happening outside the formal machinery. Then within the machinery, under the so-called accord, there are to be across the board national wage increases like the current 2.6 per cent and other imposts such as larger job termination payments, a spread of superannuation agreements and so on which have been stated as explicit objectives for industrial action by the Australian Council of Trade Unions this year. These measures are imposed from the centre on large and small firms, and profitable and unprofitable firms, alike-to come back to the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill which is before the House, on Johns Consolidated Ltd which was forced into liquidation last year and on the sole surviving firm Battenfeld (Aust) Pty Ltd of Albury. It is a major thrust of the coalition's 'industry policy'-what we are really talking about is our overall policy for the economy and for increasing employment-that the wages and industrial relations system has to be reformed. The tendency is for the over-award area to get up steam in prosperity and for the award system to be lifted to match it. The rigidity of the award structure obstructs any retreat from that in recession, or in particular firms and industries facing difficulties. All this calls for radical change. No one has any illusions that that will be easy or that it will not be acheived without great pain. Mr Cadman —The Premier of Queensland is doing quite well. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —As my colleague has said, the Premier of Queensland is doing quite well; we should witness that turmoil in Queensland which is very relevant and important in this connection. I suggest to the Government that it might begin to take that situation a bit more seriously and take some relevant action. I conclude by pointing to the situation in the United States of America. Mr Cleeland —The union situation there is different. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I agree with the honourable member that the union situation is different in the United States. That is why we must have change. Over the three years to the end of May 1984, some eight million new jobs were generated in the United States. It is true that the United States has the dynamics of a very large market. It is also a country where in the order of 2.7 per cent of its vast GDP goes into research and development, science and technology. But even more importantly, it has a flexible, market sensitive and market responsive wages system which was able to respond to the impact of the oil price hike of the 1970s and other factors putting pressure on Western living standards with an actual fall in real average hourly rates of some 11 per cent over the decade 1973 to 1982. That set the stage for the strong economic performance of the past two to three years in that country which, as I have said, has seen some eight million new jobs generated. That represents a similar-8 per cent-increase in the work force. In contrast, in less flexible, less dynamic Europe, with an equivalent population, the number of new jobs generated over that three-year period was nil and the number of new jobs generated in this country was about one per cent to 1 1/2 per cent. I believe that those figures speak for themselves. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Before I call the next speaker, I point out to the House that certain latitude has been allowed this morning in the debate on this Bill because of the use of the words 'and for related purposes'. I would appreciate it if honourable members who are intending to speak from now on would make the content of their remarks somewhat relevant to the Bill. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(11.02) —The Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill 1985 is a finite and important Bill with an inbuilt sunset clause. As I am a qualified free trader, if we are to apply labels, I have no hesitation in supporting this Bill. We must start somewhere to help our industrial potential achieve competitiveness to benefit the whole nation. The preferred method is finite assistance. Whilst I agree that we must reduce trade barriers with other nations, at the same time we cannot turn our backs overnight on local industries that are struggling to compete with cheap labour costs, low raw material costs and even greater government financial assistance as is seen in other countries. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), in his contribution to this debate, suggested that the National Party of Australia was locked into a case of subsidy for subsidy's sake, that it had not in any way matured from attitudes belonging in the past, in terms of its approach to the economy of this great country. I assure the House that the honourable member for Stirling has not caught up with modern events. He has not caught up with the new wave of Nationals who entered this Parliament in the class of '84 which stands for a far more realistic and a far more economically rational approach in terms of not only approaching macroeconomic issues but also dealing on an industry by industry basis with questions of assistance and questions relating to tariffs and bounties. Indeed, I submit to the House that the National Party has a constituency and a lobby which, in themselves, have changed remarkably in recent years. The business of supporting a subsidy for subsidy's sake belongs fairly and squarely in the past. The National Farmers Federation and many other organisations long ago rejected the approach of subsidy for subsidy's sake. They have questioned the real return on the use of a subsidy as a weapon in dealing with problems in the economy. I do not believe for a moment that subsidies solve problems and I will continue to approach my work as the member for Farrer in the Federal Parliament on that basis. Injection-moulding machines are used to produce a wide range of moulded plastic items, such as food and other containers, component parts for motor vehicles and medical apparatus. Battenfeld (Aust) Pty Ltd, located in Albury in my electorate, is the sole local producer of injection-moulding equipment. It produces large and specialised machines for Australian industry. Without some form of government assistance this local firm would not be able to be viable in such a highly competitive area. Over the last 10 years the industry of injection moulding has been under scrutiny and it has sought protection by way of tariffs and bounties. The main reason the industry gives for the need for protection is that the imported machines have the benefit of cheap labour and cheap raw material costs. The firm in question does import much of the material used to produce these machines, but does not receive a bounty on those imported costs. Indeed, a bounty relates merely to the add-on factor associated with the production by Battenfeld at Albury. For this reason, the bounty, which allows 20 per cent added value on the goods manufactured, actually becomes 5 per cent on the finished machine. So this measure is a very finite and specific measure, conferring a reasonable degree, but a fairly small degree, of protection in this case. Battenfeld's goal is to become and remain price competitive with imported materials geared mainly to increased productivity through more use of its machine shop capacity, which also does not receive any financial assistance under this bounty legislation. In keeping with this aim to be efficient, the firm states it is as cost-effective as any other firm in the world, allowing for the Australian domestic economic structure. Technology used in specification and design of injection moulding machines manufactured by Battenfeld is up to the highest standard world wide, and in many respects Battenfeld's technology leads the world. Having inspected the manufacturing plant in Albury, I am assured of the firm's efficiency and ability to produce internationally high standard goods. With the assistance of the related parent company, Battenfeld can produce machines comparable to any other world wide. Two of the firm's main customers in Australia are Ford Australia and Nylex Corporation Ltd, which manufactures for Mitsubishi. At present the company is building the largest machines ever to be made in Australia. When completed, this particular 1,000-tonne injection moulding machine will be the third largest machine to operate in this country. The firm aims to increase the size and range of machines manufactured in Australia and so offer the Australian industry an even greater service. I should reiterate that it is necessary to maintain an injection-moulding machine factory in Australia to ensure users access to parts and service for the existing machines, as well as to produce machines for specific local industries. It should be noted that Battenfeld has the ability to customise its orders for local industry. The machine for Ford Australia, for example, has been designed to specifications relating especially to Australian goods, a feat virtually impossible, or certainly made more difficult, with imported machines. Battenfeld's continued manufacture of injection-moulding equipment is, therefore, a necessity not only for this reason, but also because of the need for Australia to maintain a capability in injection moulding for defence reasons. The future demand for these machines depends mainly on the state of the economy. With the devaluation of the dollar, Battenfeld has been able to offer for market machines at a slightly reduced price than that of imports. There has been an upturn in orders in recent months. This Federal Parliament is very much getting behind a going concern with this legislation. The firm has already undergone a considerable restructuring to improve efficiency of manufacturing. It has implemented fully computerised planning, control and costing procedures to lift its overall efficiency. As well, it has diversified into areas such as extruder machines, parts for existing machines, and a greater use of its machine shop, all of which are not eligible under this bounty but represent a flow-on benefit. Battenfeld's profitability has been low-less than one-fifth of the average industrial rate. The management claims that prices and profit margins have been suppressed by import competition. With the added bounty for four years only, the firm will be able to further rationalise its plant and move to international competitiveness. It is necessary to note that short term or temporary assistance, such as this bounty allows, is far better in the long term than open-ended financial assistance, such as tariffs and bounties, without legislation and without any sunset clauses. This bounty will take the industry through to 1988, after which the existing long term duty of 15 per cent will be the only government assistance. I am advised that that is a low average level of assistance. The existing 15 per cent tariff on these goods is broadly consistent with both the level and form of long term assistance applying to a large range of equipment manufactured in Australia. The industry believes that, with the additional assistance of this bounty legislation, it will have the opportunity to re-structure its operations and so further reduce price differences between its local machines and those imported and, in the process, protect 70 to 80 jobs, perhaps even more, in Albury-Wodonga, which is, after all, the national growth centre. Battenfeld is certain it can become competitive with the long term assistance after 1988. Because of this inbuilt sunset clause, and the fact that Battenfeld is moving towards price competitiveness already, the firm's future as a profitable Australian industry is vastly improved. The bounty is intended not to prop up the Battenfeld company in one sense, but to give it a chance to strengthen its hold on the injection-moulding equipment market and build for the future in a competitive situation where it will have to stand proper and fair competition from overseas. In closing, I would like to draw an interesting analogy between this bounty legislation which applies to Battenfeld and the Commonwealth employment program. The bounty will cost the Australian public a finite $2m over four years. At the moment this supplies some 69 jobs at Battenfeld, which works out at approximately $28,000 per job over the period or $7,000 per job per year. In its first year the Commonwealth employment program will cost the Australian public some $728m for 8,674 projects. The total number of jobs generated, most on a short term basis, will be an estimated 52,324. This represents approximately $13,000 per job in its first year. Whilst statistics can be odious and comparisons from utilising statistics of this nature can lead to misinterpretation, it does point to the fact that this legislation provides job creation in one sense a good deal cheaper and with less use of taxpayers' money per job than does the CEP program. In one case we are strengthening an increasingly efficient and expanding local manufacturing industry. In the other we are creating some short term assistance for 52,000-odd unemployed, most of whom will be unemployed again after their project is completed. On the one hand the Battenfeld bounty legislation is costing some $7,000 per job per year, and on the other the CEP program is costing some $13,000 per job per year. I ask: Which is the more beneficial to our nation? It is especially because of the sunset clause in this Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill that I have no hesitation in supporting the measure before the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(11.13) —I welcome the opportunity to say a few words during the debate on the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill because I wish to put a question to the Government, particularly in view of the remarks made by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards). He makes a plea for a broad, statesmanlike approach in industry restructuring in this country and says nothing about why the Government is spending $2m in propping up a company, four of whose competitors have gone to the wall in the last few years. We are spending $2m of taxpayers' money in what seems to me a fairly futile exercise to save 80 jobs that are probably going to go anyway. Mr John Brown —Are you opposing this? Mr WHITE —Yes. I thought I had made that pretty clear. An article in the Australian Financial Review of 16 April states: Federal Cabinet has agreed to the establishment of a ministerial task force to review Australia's longer-term economic growth. This may lead to a Government position paper on industry reconstruction with a special emphasis on employment creation. What we are getting is a plea for the restructuring of industry, yet at the same time spending money propping up a business that is probably not going to be viable in the long run. I understand very well my colleague's approach to this, and it is a sensible one in terms of its being finite assistance. That is a view which is entirely respectable, and I understand it very well. What I am talking about, in the broader sense, is how much longer we are going to go on talking about the restructuring of industry and yet doing nothing about it. I find the views of the honourable member for Stirling quite incomprehensible. In looking through the recent history of the tariff protection and subsidy debate, the only good thing I can see is simply that we have reduced tariffs in this area from 55 per cent to 15 per cent. That must be a step in the right direction. A suggestion as to why this aid should be given was that it was related to defence purposes. But, on examining it more closely, the Defence Department has withdrawn its plea and I understand that the company also has withdrawn the argument that it is essential for defence purposes. Thus that argument cannot be made. Mr Cobb —Desirable. Mr WHITE —It is desirable but not essential. I quote from the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority of 3 March: In the Authority's opinion temporary assistance should not be used to offset problems arising from unsuccessful investment decisions or management deficiencies. . . . The Authority considers there is no evidence of serious injury to this firm arising from increased import competition. We seem to be going down the same old track of talking about restructuring industry but doing nothing about it. It is not a new problem. Protectionism has bedevilled this country since Federation and is still causing problems. I accept the need for some industry protection and I certainly accept that we cannot suddenly abolish all protection overnight; that would be absolutely disastrous. But there is no doubt that over the years protectionism has been one of the causes of the decline in our manufacturing industry. It makes it uncompetitive and eventually, when the protection is reduced or removed, it cannot compete. Another problem is the rigidity of the labour market in Australia, which is a very important issue. Protection damages our export industry. As we are an exporting country, it is vital that we remove that protection. Tariffs force up prices, which forces up the costs of production and therefore forces up the costs of our exports. It is estimated that in the rural sector tariffs cost each enterprise about $4,000 extra per annum. In car manufacturing, tariffs are forcing up the costs of cars, which is forcing up the cost of living, which, of course, forces up wages; and we keep going around in the same old circle. The great argument about protection is that it preserves Australian jobs. That is a very fragile argument indeed. Certainly, it may save some jobs, for a limited time, in those industries which are being protected. But it does nothing to increase-in fact it probably decreases-jobs in other industries which become uncompetitive because of the high protection. In 1982 the Industries Assistance Commission estimated that, if all tariffs were reduced to 20 per cent over 10 years, only 71,000 jobs would be lost. That is not a significant number when talking about natural wastage in manufacturing industry. But how many jobs would have been created in other industries which would have become competitive if we had reduced this excessive protection? As an exporting country, it is essential for our future that we encourage our exports. But we cannot do it while we decrease the number of jobs and our competitive position by these tariffs. In June 1983 the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) said that protection had wiped out about 20 per cent of the purchasing power of the poorest 4 per cent of Australian families. When this Government and the Australian Labor Party are continually telling us how concerned they are for the poor, I find their attitude to this Bill entirely incomprehensible. Mr Hayden went on to say that industries with the highest protection had generated higher profits by cutting back their work force. That is exactly what I have been saying. We all recognise the need for significant structural change in Australian industry. No one here needs to be told that our manufacturing industries in this country are in dire straits. But I do not believe they will be helped by any artificial protection. We must look at the level of protection in this country. We must also look at our centralised and highly rigid labour market system, at the unrealistic wage levels of juniors in this country and, particularly, at the excessive union power that has bedevilled this country over the last 40 years. On that matter, I just add that what is happening in Queensland, while it is highly controversial, in my view is the only thing that can possibly be done. While we are on the subject of structural change in industry, let me say that the central issue of what is happening in Queensland, leaving out some of the detail, is that Queenslanders and Australians are fed up with the abuse by the unions of the power that they have wielded in this country for over 40 years. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I draw to the attention of the honourable gentleman the fact that we are not debating the Queensland issue at the moment. We are debating the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill. Mr WHITE —But, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have been talking about manufacturing industry and protection. What is happening in Queensland is vital to the future of manufacturing industry in this country. If the unions are allowed to run on as they have been allowed to over the last few years, without anyone stepping in and saying 'This is enough', what sort of future will manufacturing industry have in this country? I put on record, because I have not had a chance to do so before now, that the Queensland Government has my full and unequivocal support in this matter, as it has-- Mr Hand —I take a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Queensland Government's gaoling of priests is not relevant to this Bill. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr WHITE —It is very interesting that in the debate yesterday and again today the Australian Labor Party has invoked the power of priests; but when Government members line up for a swearing-in ceremony such as happened not so long ago, it is also of some interest to see how many of them swear on the Bible and how many make an affirmation. It is entirely their business whether they want to make an affirmation or take an oath-- Mr Robert Brown —I take a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Reflecting on members of the Parliament, of which the honourable gentleman is a member, in that way is most unfortunate, and I believe unparliamentary. Very quickly, I say that there are committed Christians in this chamber who, for reasons of their own, have chosen and preferred to make an affirmation rather than to swear on the Bible. Honourable members should respect their position. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr WHITE —I accept that point. It is not a case of reflecting on individuals. But it is very interesting that yesterday and again today the church has been invoked constantly in political debate in this place. One wonders just how many of the people who are invoking the church really believe in it. Where I stand on the matter of protection is quite clear. As this debate goes on in the next few months, and before the next election whenever that might be, it will be quite clear where the Opposition stands on the question of winding back protection in this country. I conclude with a quotation from Maximilian Walsh, dated 19 August, which I think sums it up: For a country deeply concerned about declining growth, falling real wages and high and continuing inflation, it's about time we looked at our recent experience of lower protection, our high degree of industrial and regional mobility and began questioning the claims of the protection racket. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that we are debating a Bill for an Act to amend the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Act 1979 and for related purposes. I once again ask speakers to be relevant to the Bill. Mr COBB(Parkes)(11.25) —The Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill 1985 is concerned with extending bounty assistance to Battenfeld (Aust.) Pty Ltd, which is located at Albury and produces injection-moulding machines for the production of plastic goods and parts. The company already receives a long term tariff duty rate of 15 per cent, which is twice the level of assistance received by the agricultural industry. In addition, it has been receiving assistance in the form of a bounty of 20 per cent. This bounty was initially put on in 1979 as a temporary measure and was due to be stopped last year. The Government now wants this bounty assistance to continue until 1988 at an additional cost to the taxpayer of $2m. I must congratulate the Government for recommending that the assistance continue in the form of a bounty. If assistance is to be given, it is better that it be given in this form rather than as another form of assistance such as tariff, quota, local content scheme or offset manufacturing. At least when given in the form of a bounty, assistance is spread over all taxpayers and the cost of it is visible to us all. The company to receive this assistance is Battenfeld, which is not an Australian-owned but a German-owned company. At present, it employs 68 persons with something less than half of these being engaged in production activities. If we divide the $2m grant by the 68 employees, the assistance given works out at $29,412 per worker-by any standards, quite a substantial amount of assistance. A number of companies were involved in injection-moulding a few years ago. However, more efficient production overseas gradually reduced the number to two companies in the early 1980s. The last company to go to the wall was Johns Consolidated Ltd. At its peak I understand that it employed about 650 people. Before it went into liquidation in May 1983, it employed close to 200 people, despite the millions of dollars of assistance which had been poured into it. So we have gone from having a number of companies with many workers to the situation we have now whereby, despite assistance, there is only one company, Battenfeld, which has only 68 workers. As an exercise in preserving industries and jobs, the millions of dollars of assistance given has been a spectacular failure. In the face of all this evidence, perhaps we should question whether further assistance is the answer for Battenfeld's problems. History would suggest that it is not. The reason for this, of course, is that assistance, though helpful in the short term, is the kiss of death in the medium to long term. When assistance is first granted, naturally it has a beneficial effect on the industry receiving it. However, it soon gets built into the costs of the industry receiving it via higher wages and other inefficiencies. This has the effect of making the industry uncompetitive on world markets; that is, its sales become confined to the local domestic market, a mere 15 million people. The industry has virtually no sales on world markets. The implication of that is that we are now struck with low production runs compared with those of our overseas competitors. If we have low production runs, it follows that our costs per unit will be greater, which means that we have a poor economy of scale and that the cost per article produced is not only high but also must remain high, especially compared with the cost per article in overseas countries. As overseas countries get more efficient, as they surely do, Australian companies become less efficient by comparison until, eventually, overseas products come into Australia in increasing numbers anyhow because they are often better products as well as being cheaper. This story has recurred in Australia time and again. We have seen it with the car industry. We have seen it with the textile, clothing and footwear industries. We are now seeing it again with the injection-moulding industry. I must say, though, that I am delighted to see a sunset clause included in this Bill. Usually when one sees so-called temporary assistance being extended, one becomes suspicious that it is to become permanent assistance. If this bounty is truly to be cut off in 1988 and not to be extended yet again, there is some hope for Battenfeld. Nevertheless, it would not surprise me if this company ceased operating in the injection-moulding area in the next few years. When extra assistance or an extension of assistance is asked for, it usually means that profitability is low and that the company concerned is in some sort of difficulty. Even if we concede the point that giving $2m of taxpayers' money to this company will protect the 68 workers' jobs-goodness knows, an injection of almost $150 a week for each worker for the next four years, as well as the tariff protection that already exists, should have some success in that direction-we surely have a duty to look at the other side of the story. What I mean by that is, if we look at the beneficial side of this $2m grant, namely, the preservation of jobs at Battenfeld, we also have a duty to look at the detrimental side. I refer to the jobs destroyed because an extra $2m of taxpayers' money has to be collected. Where will this $2m come from? Obviously, it will be collected from other sections of the Australian economy, from other industries that are more efficient than Battenfeld. In effect, it largely amounts to a transfer from an efficient sector of the Australian economy to a less efficient sector. So while this transfer benefits the less efficient sector, at least in the short term, it is obviously detrimental to efficient industry in both the short term and the long term. Let us look at that proposition in terms of jobs. Clearly, the $2m gift to Battenfeld will save some jobs. But, by the same reasoning, it will destroy other jobs in efficient industries-$2m worth of jobs will be destroyed. In fact, this bounty will destroy at least as many jobs as it preserves or creates. We are transferring not only $2m worth of capital from one area of the economy to another, which ultimately will lead to a lower standard of living for us all, but also we are transferring jobs from efficient areas to a less efficient area. It is easy to see the 68 or, more correctly, a part of the 68, jobs that will be preserved, at Battenfeld. The short term benefits of assistance are always visible. We can see the Battenfeld workers getting up in the morning, turning on their lights, having breakfast and driving off to the factory. On the other hand, the detrimental effects of the assistance are all but invisible. However, just because these effects are hard to see it does not mean that they do not exist. If we assume that about $40,000 is needed to set up a job in Australia, allowing for wages plus capital investment, then the plucking of $2m out of the economy will cost about 50 jobs. There will be a loss of two jobs in an industry here, one in an industry there, perhaps three somewhere else, spread throughout industry right across Australia. For these people there will be no getting up, having breakfast and driving off to work. The job losses will be hard to pinpoint; nevertheless they will occur. That has been shown time and again in studies done on other industries overseas as well as in Australia. An example was a study done on the United States of America steel industry which examined what the job consequences would be if the requested protection was provided to that industry. It was found that 30,000-odd jobs would be saved in the steel industry if the protection were granted. In Australia that would be a compelling reason for granting it. However, the Yanks went further. They looked at the other side-the jobs that would be lost in downstream and other industries as a result of the extra protection. They found that 90,000-odd jobs would be lost. In other words, for every job saved, some three jobs would be lost; hardly an exciting proposition for a Government looking to save jobs. A recent study in Australia has shown that for every 100 jobs the Government can create in job creation programs, between 123 and 165 jobs are lost elsewhere. On top of this, jobs were merely being transferred from efficient sectors of the economy to Mickey Mouse areas. It is heartening to see that both sides of the question are now being looked at in some instances. There has to be a realisation that the Government cannot create jobs overall with taxpayers' money, or even maintain jobs overall with taxpayers' money. I ask honourable members on both sides of this chamber to look at both sides of this Battenfeld equation. Unfortunately, I fear that the Government and the Opposition will be praised for the gains, but not castigated for the losses. It is a bit like a football match where a set plan is followed, resulting in the team being beaten by 20 points to 10, and then the whole publicity praises the team because the set plan resulted in the scoring of 10 points, while no mention is made of the loss overall. I believe it is time to stop taking the easy way out, to stop looking just at the good effects of government assistance and to start looking at all the effects so that an overall effect can be determined. If we take from an area of the economy which the Government judges can afford it to give to another area of the economy that the Government judges needs it, we have merely taken from one area and given to another. By definition and by logic we have taken from a relatively efficient area of the economy and given to a relatively inefficient area. Let us ask ourselves: Can transferring money from an efficient area to a relatively inefficient area be good for the country? For some reason that is obscure to me, the coalition has decided to support the Government's proposition to grant this bounty assistance to this particular company. Australian industry as a whole should be put on notice that the day is fast approaching when the protection game will be up and those privileged sectors of our economy will have to stop being a burden on the rest of industry and learn to stand on their own feet like the rest of us as part of the world economy. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(11.38) —I join my colleagues in expressing some reservations about the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill, in particular some of the comments made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb). I do not wish to take up the time of the House by covering ground already covered fully by my colleagues, but I say from the outset that the injection-moulding equipment industry has been the subject of seven separate reports over the last 10 years; very nearly one report every year. Since 1979 the industry has received a total of more than $5m in government assistance through the bounty scheme alone and now it is going to get an injection of a further $2m through that bounty. It also has the additional benefit of assistance by way of a 15 per cent tariff on imports of injection-moulding equipment. Despite all of this assistance, it is an industry which has seen its total local employment drop from 349 people in 1980 to 82 people in February 1984. I understand total employment has declined even since then. In 10 years the industry has contracted from four manufacturers to just one-Battenfeld (Australia) Pty Ltd. It is an industry which in recent years has seen a very substantial increase in import penetration. The simple fact is that the domestic industry has failed to compete and failed to perform. In spite of this record, the Government, through this Bill, is asking the Parliament-and, of course, the people of Australia-to extend the assistance still further. Let us hope that this investment by the Australian community will, at least on this occasion, be fruitful. Towards the conclusion of its 1984 report, the Industries Assistance Commission stated: . . . the company-- that is, of course, Battenfeld- will have to meet or better the prices of imported machines and thus buy its market share. The recommendation for a four year bounty is intended to help the company achieve that condition by passing the bounty on to users. It is not intended to be a means of allowing the company to make larger profits, subsidised by Australian taxpayers. That sentiment of the Industries Assistance Commission is exactly right. The bounty should not be used just to prop up profits; it should be used by the company to invest and build itself up. The Commission report goes on to emphasise that if the company does use the bounty to improve its market share, the company is likely to see an overall increase in employment, a reduction in costs and, ultimately, the ability to operate with the recommended long term assistance only. It is to be hoped that the IAC's optimism that this may happen will be confirmed over the next four years, but, even if it is not, under no circumstances should the bounty be extended beyond 1989. The community should not be forced to continue to prop up a company, or an industry in general, which is not efficient. Certainly, Battenfeld, the sole beneficiary of this assistance, has expressed the view that it can perform more effectively, and its commitment is quoted at some length in the IAC report. I note with some concern, however, that Battenfeld believes that it could reduce production costs through the introduction of the latest technology, but apparently its capacity is limited. Its competitors overseas have a sound record on introducing new technology, and that is one of the reasons they have done so well at the expense of Battenfeld in Australia. Experience within Australia, and of course overseas, shows that those companies and industries which are able to adapt to new technologies, which are able to plan and incorporate new methods, are the companies which will continue to show growth and expansion. Battenfeld has stated in its submission to the IAC that it has not made great use of the latest technology, and it made exactly the same point in 1983 in the Temporary Assistance Authority inquiry. I would strongly urge Battenfeld to utilise the next four years, with the help of the bounty assistance, to become familiar with the latest technologies in its industry and to incorporate them into the production process. Battenfeld has stated its objectives. The IAC has supported those objectives and believes they are achievable. At considerable expense to the taxpayers, the Government has also decided to back the firm. I want to make it perfectly clear, however, that this assistance-I include in that the tariff assistance-should not be regarded as something which is indefinite. If Battenfeld cannot restructure and revitalise over the next four years, the taxpayers cannot be expected to support a lame duck. If Battenfeld does perform in that period, as the taxpayers no doubt hope it will, I look forward to seeing it make a contribution to the community without assistance for the rest of this century. Battenfeld's capacity to succeed, of course, will be inhibited by the Government's highly regulated labour market and its passion for the economically irrational concept of full wage indexation. It will be inhibited by the excessive burden of Federal and State taxation and charges, by high transport costs born out of an anachronistic system of monopolies and by that web of government red tape and regulations which adds so substantially to business costs. From the rhetoric of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, we have been led to believe that he understands these inhibitions. But let us stop for a minute and look at the reality. The reality is that the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce has a record in a number of areas of what could only be described as very substantial inefficiency. One example of this inefficiency which is relevant to Australia's sole manufacturer of injection-moulding machines is in the field of anti-dumping measures. In 1983 the Government revised the anti-dumping Act with a view in particular to accelerating anti-dumping procedures, and that was a general concept which I supported. We now learn from industry that these changes have complicated the anti-dumping procedures considerably, thereby hindering any form of assistance that anti-dumping should provide to industry. The evidence required from companies for Customs officers to act on dumping complaints is Kafkaesque in its complexity. Profit and loss accounts for every division of the plaintiff company and profit and cost analyses of every order received are required. Where companies are selling through a distribution network of different companies, full details of pricing at each level of distribution are required for each contract. Other voluminous information on forward orders, stocks, returns on investments, market shares, ability to raise capital, and so the list goes on, dating back 18 months, is also required. All this information has to be provided to the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce within 45 days. The fact is that if a company such as Battenfeld is threatened by dumped products, and honourable members know only too well that the practice of dumping has grown almost exponentially in recent years, it has to wade through quantities of paperwork which can only be described as staggering. It is alarming that the Government, for all its rhetoric, has complicated and not simplified the anti-dumping procedures. It has done so to such an extent that 80 per cent of anti-dumping applications are now rejected; yet two years ago only 30 per cent were rejected. It is clear that the reason for this is the growth of bureaucratic obfuscation and not a decline in dumping practices on world markets because all the evidence shows that dumping is increasing and not declining. This sort of incoherence in government policy is becoming increasingly apparent throughout the area of industry policy. The Government, in this field as in so many other fields, has lost any sense of direction. It has also done so in the area of temporary assistance. All honourable members will recall that in 1983 the injection-moulding industry was the subject of a Temporary Assistance Authority inquiry. I hope temporary assistance will not be sought again in this industry because as it is, it is getting enough help from the taxpayers. If assistance is sought the industry will face substantial bureaucratic delays. As with anti-dumping provisions, the Government modified the processes and criteria for receiving temporary assistance, yet instead of making the process more efficient it has become bogged down again in bureaucracy. One company, a manufacturer of empty gelatine capsules called Ely-Lilly, lodged an application for temporary assistance on 10 November 1983. The reference was not sent to the Industries Assistance Commission until 25 October 1984, nearly a year later. It had languished in the bureaucracy for 11 1/2 months. The IAC acted expeditiously and reported on 7 December of that year. Subsequently, the Department considered the report and was about to submit it to Cabinet when the company involved-Ely-Lilly-said it could no longer sustain production and announced the closure of its operations. That occurred over a year after it had applied for temporary assistance. If there is a better example of bureaucratic inefficiency, I would like to hear about it. That is an example of how the Government is making all the more difficult the development of industry policy and the growth of industries in Australia in a very difficult international environment where there is a great deal of dumping. There are many other examples of this sort of delay and those sorts of problems. These issues are not minor; they are central to the administration of Australian industry policy. At present, that policy is being administered slowly and inefficiently, with no sensitivity for the problems of the private sector. It is in this environment that the injection-moulding industry has to try to thrive. I very much hope that it can, particularly without the indefinite continuation of bounty and tariff assistance which is imposing such a substantial cost on the community. Dr WATSON(Forde)(11.49) —I realise that time is running out and the Government wishes to pass the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill; so I will make my remarks very brief. I wish to speak on this Bill because I am concerned that this Government is falling into the same trap that previous governments have fallen into. It is looking for short-run political gains and is falling into the trap of not really concentrating on the long-run basic problems facing Australian industry. I wish also to remind honourable members that this Bill not only continues to provide for the 15 per cent tariff already enjoyed by this industry but also adds a 20 per cent bounty. Since this Bill has been introduced the value of the Australian dollar has fallen by another 10 to 15 per cent. Mr McVeigh —How much? Mr Smith —By 20 per cent. Dr WATSON —Maybe even 20 per cent. The point is that if this industry cannot compete when it is receiving a 15 per cent tariff, a 20 per cent bounty and we have had a further depreciation of the Australian dollar, it certainly does not deserve to survive in the longer term. I wish to make a plea to the Government to consider the long-run problems of Australian industry. I believe that Australian industry is capable of competing internationally. We have demonstrated that where we have highly efficient production of specialised items, using Australian design and engineering skills, we can compete on an international basis. I believe that the Government has to start to address those kinds of issues. It has to provide the incentives for investment to go in that direction. The problem is that there are a number of pressures within Australia which are increasing the cost of production for a vast majority of industries. We have seen this. It has been referred to by previous speakers such as the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb). Yesterday, it was referred to by the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in the debate on the Australian dollar and on the question of non-discounting in the wages process for the effects of the depreciation of the Australian dollar. It should be obvious to the Government that the mere fact of introducing this Bill is a recognition that there are industries in Australia that are not capable of competing. It seems to me to be totally inconceivable, given that recognition and acknowledgement by the Government that it is helping an industry which simply cannot compete, that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) refuse to acknowledge that the effects of the depreciation of the Australian dollar should be discounted in wages. What they want to do is to impose additional costs on an industry which cannot compete-this is the purpose of the Bill-but it is not the only industry in Australia which will be affected. It is time for us to realise that this kind of Bill and this kind of attitude on the part of the Government is forcing Australia into a lowering of its living standards. It is forcing a small minority of Australians, particularly the young and the unemployed, to bear the costs. The people who will bear the costs of this policy and the costs of an inefficient Australian industry are those who are unemployed and the younger people in our country who deserve to have jobs. Because of the limitations on time, I finish again with a plea to the Government to get on with restructuring Australian industry, by providing incentives to those industries which are efficient and to stop making short-run political gains. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(11.54) —I will also make some very brief comments regarding the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill. As many speakers have pointed out, this Bill basically concerns one manufacturer, that is Battenfeld (Aust) Pty Ltd in Albury. It should be noted that Battenfeld (Aust) Pty Ltd has increased the number of people employed from 81 to 93 since the granting of temporary assistance. In my mind, there is no doubt that the assistance recommended will lead to an increase in employment activity in that firm's operations in Albury. The simple fact is that without the level of assistance which is being recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission, manufacturing operations of that firm in Albury would most certainly cease. That would mean a consequent loss of at least 43 jobs and a reduction in administration, sales and distribution. The IAC, in its recent report, concluded that Battenfeld could eventually be competitive with tariff-only assistance at a level of 15 per cent. If we compare that with the general rate of tariff assistance to Australian industry, we see that it is relatively low. The Commission also concluded that further assistance was justified to facilitate that adjustment to the longer term. There has been some discussion about the use of bounty. The Government would say that bounty is the preferred method for providing adjustment assistance in this case, for three reasons: Firstly, because there is only one firm that can supply only a limited part of the market; secondly, it does not directly increase the price of imported or locally produced machines; and, thirdly, the provision of assistance by way of tariff as an alternative would affect the competitive position of user and plastics industries, in which there is a current employment of about 12,000 people. I do not think there is any doubt that the assistance proposed will improve the price competitiveness of locally produced machines and will assist the firm's efforts to raise its current market shares. In other words, the assistance provided today is essential to the future viability of this industry. It is also essential for a number of obvious defence and strategic reasons, namely, that it is important that Australia should retain a design and manufacturing capability so that in times of emergency those machines can be quickly adapted. This has been a very interesting and illuminating debate. It has indicated very clearly indeed that there is a major split in the Opposition ranks over attitudes towards Australian manufacturing industry. Nowhere has that split been more obvious than in this debate today. We must ask the question: Does the Opposition in any sense at all support a continued maintenance and expansion of manufacturing industry in Australia, or is it prepared-as it seems to be from the attitudes expressed here today-to close down this firm in Albury? That is what a number of speakers have suggested. It is rather interesting to refer to a recent article in Business Review Weekly of 5 April, which I am sure many honourable members will have seen. That article says: During the parliament's Easter break, Opposition Leader Andrew Peacock will be pondering the implications of the first direct clash in his ranks between the economic policy factions. The so-called 'dries' made their first specific stand at last week's coalition parties meeting on a minor bounty bill, which will dispense about $2m to one manufacturer of injection moulding equipment. That is Battenfeld in Albury. The article continues: Not a big deal by any standards of protection, but the first in the new parliament and it brought immediately, strong opposition from a group of dries headed by NSW Liberal Jim Carlton and, interestingly, the new Victorian MP Julian Beale . . . The article goes on to say that the Opposition took the soft option in terms of the dries and that pragmatic politics won the day. But what we have heard in the majority of Opposition speeches today is an attitude which purveys the continuing destruction of manufacturing industry in Australia. Some nice, glib, glossy terms have been used by Opposition speakers. They have said that they would like to see a more competitive manufacturing industry in Australia. Let us look at the record on competitive factors in Australian manufacturing industry. The Opposition has been the government for more than 20 of the last 25 years. If any political party is responsible for the problems of manufacturing industry today it is the Opposition parties because they formed the government for 20 out of 25 years. Let us look at competition and what this Government has achieved in the space of just over two years. Let us look at the things that affect firms, particularly those competing against imports or exporting. We have seen the inflation rate halved from more than 10 per cent to 5 per cent. We have seen industrial disputes in Australia reduced to their lowest level for 17 years. Importantly, in terms of restoring competitiveness to Australian industry, we have seen direct labour unit costs reduced to their lowest level for 14 years. All of those things have been brought about by the policies of this Government because this Government has a policy which is quite distinct from and quite opposite to that pursued by the Opposition when in government. Our policy is to maintain and strengthen manufacturing industry in Australia. Many of those who are listening to the debate in the House or to the broadcast might wonder what the Opposition's policy is in relation to a number of other crucial Australian industries. Let us look at the steel industry. When we came to government that industry was decimated. We put in place the new steel industry plan and, because the policies pursued by this Government are effective and cost competitive, we are now seeing record profit and employment levels in that industry. What did the Opposition do to the steel industry? It decimated it and brought it to its knees. Let us look at the footwear, clothing and textile industry. There is an IAC review on that area at the moment. Our Government acknowledges the need for industry to be more competitive, but some of the remarks made today by Opposition speakers indicate that there is no doubt that there is a significant and growing element in the Opposition ranks which would see all protection removed from that industry and 10 per cent of manufacturing employment cast to the winds. There would be no other jobs, no other prospects, and no future for that industry. That is what the Opposition means when it talks about cutting protection entirely. I am aware that time is short, but I want to reiterate that our Government has restored and will continue to take every initiative to restore competitiveness to Australian industry. We have halved inflation, we have brought industrial disputes down to their lowest level for 17 years, we have seen real labour unit costs at their lowest level for 14 years, company profits have been restored, and exports are starting to increase again. Those are the results of positive policies, not the knee-jerk reactions that have been expressed today by the Opposition which, if it had its way, would close down industry throughout Australia. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(12.03) —It falls to me to wind up this debate. It has been a mixed episode-sometimes colourful and sometimes quite boring. I was rather pleased to hear the contributions from the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) and the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb). Insofar as they critically analysed the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill they are to be congratulated. From some of the earlier speakers, particularly those who hold more senior positions in the Opposition, we heard the same boring, repetitious nonsense we have heard for 31 of the past 36 years during which they have been in government and people of their ilk have occupied the treasury bench. It was pleasing to find that some of the new members of the House have a new view about the restructuring of industry which their predecessors did not in any way attempt during that long period in government. I found some quiet amusement in the contribution of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). Obviously he is an agrarian socialist because he is sitting with the National Party. He is a self-proclaimed free trader who found himself today espousing the policies of vested interests because Battenfeld happens to be in his electorate. I guess for that reason he did not have much choice, but I must say that his contribution was sound and in line with the Government's thinking about restructuring of this industry. I thank him for that contribution. Mr McVeigh —It won't do him any good in the electorate if he is aligned with you fellows. Mr JOHN BROWN —I thought that he might get the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) to come and campaign for him in the next election. Having heard the two speeches one after the other, I believe that would be the kiss of death. The honourable member for McPherson took the most abstruse, radical and severe view. He would be quite happy to close down most manufacturing industry in Australia, very little of which could compete without some form of Government assistance. I will not say too much about the speeches of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) and the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) because they both gave us the same old rhetoric that we have been hearing for the last quarter of a century. It does not impress anybody. The new member for Forde (Dr Watson) made a reasoned contribution. He spoke in deep philosophical and intellectual terms about the restructuring of industry, for which I thank him. The contributions from the Government side included one from the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), who gave us the usual reasoned, well thought out and statesman- like approach that we have come to expect from him on these subjects. We also heard from the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), who made a rousing appraisal of the obvious shortcomings in the Opposition's contributions and a rather illuminating expose of the deep division that exists on the Opposition side in these matters. The decision to extend the bounty to Battenfeld by a further four years was essentially based on the Industries Assistance Commission's recommendations. So I presume that all of those members of the Opposition who are railing so severely against this are, by implication, railing against the IAC, which happens to be one of their creations when in government and something which they supported very strongly. They have now taken an entirely different slant and obviously the recommendations of the IAC mean nothing to them. The bounty is not intended as an employment subsidy, although employment in a regional area is something which must be considered very seriously by the IAC, and it was obviously a deep consideration in this case. The bounty is intended to maintain a high technology industry which shows prospects of being competitive in the long term under a low tariff rate of 15 per cent. As I will point out in another second or two, that is in fact happening. The industry had advised, at the time of the IAC inquiry, that given the market situation as it existed, it would cease local manufacture if the bounty was phased out as scheduled. So the Government's choice was simple, as was pointed out quite clearly by the honourable member for Bendigo. We could either send another industry to the wall or adopt the recommendations of the IAC that the industry would have some long term viability if some assistance were granted; and that was done. I doubt that any member of this House, throwing aside political considerations, would want this industry to go to the wall because, as the honourable member for Bendigo pointed out, the injection-moulding industry has a very serious defence component and we need to maintain it, even in its present rather weakened condition. The bounty recommended by the IAC is designed to assist the company in its restructuring. That obviously is the Government's policy with regard to manufacturing industry. We had to break out of the strictures of the past. Manufacturing industry in Australia has to become competitive. I am glad that the honourable member for Bendigo pointed out two instances which stand greatly to the credit of this Government, particularly the steel industry, which is now not only competitive and viable but growing in employment prospects, providing profitability to Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd in the steel section for the first time. Because of agreements with the unions productivity has increased to the extent where the Government did not have to apply the bounty that was promised. The $70m did not have to be paid in the first year and, I have no doubt, will not have to be paid in any of the five years that are traversed by the steel industry plan. That was a perfect example of how, by using reasonable methods and by employing proper industrial relations and dragging all sections of an industry together, we made the steel industry viable again. I return to Battenfeld for one minute. The bounty was aimed at, amongst other things, resuming exports. I think everybody would applaud that, even the most free-trader on the Opposition side. It was aimed at capturing a market share of about 40 per cent by 1989, which was considered as being capable of enabling the industry to be competitive with tariff only assistance. I must say at this stage that that is right on target. The bounty, at reducing rates and with annual upper limits, is also designed to not insulate the industry from competitive pressures, and that will be the case. We do not intend to featherbed this industry and relieve it from the pressure of imports. It must stand on its feet, and that is why the sunset clause is very highly tied into this piece of legislation. As part and parcel of the Government's decision, it is intended that the industry's situation be monitored to ensure that the policy objectives are achieved. Recent inquiry by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce indicates that developments are exactly in the right direction. The main reason for giving this additional assistance in the form of a bounty is to avoid an increase in costs to the wide range of users of the products of this industry. Finally, I point out a few things that have happened since the IAC inquiry. Battenfeld has invested to upgrade its factory at Albury, New South Wales, which was pointed out very strongly by the local member. It has rationalised its machine range to include larger capacity machines, at the same time dropping the very small machines, which was something it put to the IAC as a proposition towards restructuring and which it has honoured. Generally speaking, it has increased its market share and is continuing to do so. As the honourable member for Bendigo pointed out, employment has increased from 81 to 92 and the firm has improved its return on the funds employed. I would like to think, on a dispassionate view on what the Government has done to implement the recommendations of the IAC, that we have done the right thing, not just by this industry but by Australia's manufacturing industry generally. I am rather surprised that even one member of the Opposition has indicated his desire to vote against this measure. I think that is an indication, firstly, of a limited capacity to think, and secondly, of a blinkered view towards the restructuring of manufacturing industry in Australia which we, as a government, take so seriously. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Debate resumed from 27 March, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Andrew) — I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with order of the day No. 4? There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(12.13) —In speaking for the Opposition on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1984-85 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1984-85 I must say that it is rather a sad day to be debating them when the government of the day is doing not a thing to stop the economic blockade tomorrow of a State of this nation. If ever there was a time when leadership should be shown by a government, and one which claims to have a unique relationship with the unions, now is the occasion. In discussing the Appropriation Bills we are talking about large sums of money that are taken from the taxpayers of Australia to support a wide range of services provided by government, yet that Government will do nothing tomorrow to ensure those services are delivered to a very significant proportion of Queenslanders. It is no wonder that there is not much support for the Australian Labor Party in Queensland. Look at its representation here-nine members! There are 15 coalition members from Queensland in this House and they can tell honourable members opposite what the economic consequences of the blockade tomorrow will be. Millions of dollars will be lost to private enterprise but that would not worry the Government. What would worry it is that millions will be lost to revenue forever. That will help the Budget deficit along no end! Where are the real guts and determination that we hear so much about? The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) says 'I am in control of the situation', and everyone blinks and blanches. Those days are well and truly gone forever. Even the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) smiles. He knows that is a factual statement. Who in the Government is going to stand up and admit that the taxpayers, whose money is being appropriated under these Bills, are paying for services in Queensland that will not be delivered? The people who normally provide these services will do no work, but they will be paid. Yet the Government sits back and does nothing about it. It is a thorough disgrace. This Government sits back and does nothing about it. As a result, in the next Federal election only about three Labor members will be returned in Queensland, not nine. Even that would be only because of the way certain boundaries are drawn. If we work at it we might do better than that. Honourable members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It really ought not to be necessary for the Chair to rise to get the attention of the House. I ask the honourable member for Ryan to return to the thrust of the debate. Mr MOORE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought it was appropriate in a debate on a Bill such as this to draw attention to the loss of revenue occasioned by the Government's inactions. In speaking about appropriations today we need to look at the massive reduction that has taken place in the value of the Australian dollar and why its value has taken such a course. The floating of the exchange rate in Australia was a significant financial development, one welcomed by the Opposition and the business community. That action places a large degree of discipline upon the whole of the economy, a discipline that would not be welcomed by many on the Government side. It brings with it a real drive to ensure that the Government's policies are within manageable limits and that policy objectives are clearly defined and worked out. Confidence is a vital ingredient in the stability of exchange rates; it is a vital ingredient in the whole operation of the business community. Once confidence goes, the ability to hold our position in the market place will rapidly evaporate or disintegrate. Since the beginning of this year we have seen the Australian dollar slide, to the extent that last night overseas it was worth 63c against the American dollar. More significantly, its fall against the European currencies is even more dramatic. Because of that it is worth while considering what has occurred. There is no doubt that the breaking point came when the great Prime Minister went on one of his overseas jaunts-most of which have been highly disastrous-and came up with the MX missile decision. That decision was taken while he was holed up in a hotel in Washington, trying to find the numbers men. When the announcement broke the judgment made by the Wall Street holders of Australian currency was that this Government was showing the first signs of running out of credibility. So they turned to being sellers of Australian holdings. As a consequence, there has been a steady fall in the off-shore holding of Australian dollars. Those holdings have been transferred into other currencies. That judgment was made by those who have to deal in the market place and thus have to protect their assets against actions taken by the government of the day as a result of its policies. That fall has continued. This fall is not totally associated with the missile debacle; it is also associated with commodity prices and other workings of the international trade cycle. But there is no doubt that the commodity price factor, which has worked against Australia very markedly in the last 12 months, is a factor which could have been controlled and lived with if the confidence factor of the floating exchange rate had not been allowed to disintegrate totally. Honourable members will be interested in some of the figures that relate to this matter. At the end of November 1984, the Australian dollar was worth 85.9c against the American dollar; today it is down to 63c. The trade weighted index in November 1984 was 83.5; as at 16 April this year it was down to 65. The cumulative change in the trade weighted index has been a fall of 21 per cent. The cumulative change in the Australian dollar-American dollar relationship has been a fall in the same period of 22.6 per cent. That is a fairly dramatic fall for any country. It is worth reading a couple of quotes that allude to this fall. Lloyd's Economic Report of March 1985 states: The gains from a depreciating dollar should be seen as a once-off phenomena and if there are to be sustained, improved performances, then such gains must be immediately accomplished by the containment of costs of production and in particular holding wage increases to reasonable and responsible levels. If full wage indexation is proceeded with for the next 12 months and other employment costs also rise then costs and inflation will be pushed higher and the gain to our export and domestic manufacturing industries brought about by the decline in our currency will prove to be shortlived. The Syntec organisation, another responsible commentator on the consequences of the fall in the dollar, has stated: Under a full wage indexation regime, deferral of the productivity case alone will not be sufficient to keep an inflationary spiral from devaluing at bay, but would delay the impact. Unless there is more direct action to hold wage costs, the Hawke Government's reliance on the accord as a basic policy will, within 18 months, turn out to have been a strategy for the gradual encroachment of disaster. They are two frank warnings of the consequences for Australian industry of devaluation. So what can we do in terms of containing costs in this nation? How will the Government approach the wage case? Will it allow, under the accord, the full flow on of the cost of devaluation? If it does, it is gearing itself for an inflation rate of some magnitude. If it discounts the cost of the exchange rate within the wage structure and within the cost of production, this nation may benefit from a more competitive cost structure which would lead it out of some of the difficulties inherent in the balance of payments. I turn to that because I have always believed that the balance of payments is an enormously useful guide to the real position of a nation. The March 1985 balance of payments figures demonstrate dramatically that the Australian economy is not competitive with the rest of the world, bearing in mind what I have just said in relation to wage costs. Despite the depreciation of the Australian dollar, the current account is still heading towards an $11m deficit this financial year. That is nearly 50 per cent above the target announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the August 1984 Budget. The trade account figures provide abundant evidence of Australia's fundamental lack of competitiveness. The trade deficit so far this financial year has almost reached $1,700m compared with a trade surplus of $163m for the same period last year. Anybody would recognise the enormous turnaround that has occurred in Australia's trade figures. From a surplus of $163m we have moved, within the course of a year, to a deficit of $1,700m. This means that imports are increasing at a much faster rate than exports. Imports have increased by almost 27 per cent over the comparable period last year. The Treasurer's Budget estimate was 9 per cent. Exports, however, rose by only 16 per cent while domestic industrial production actually fell by 2.7 per cent in the December 1984 quarter, being down to 1983 levels. There is no clearer sign of our lack of competitiveness, despite the euphoric assurances of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The initial depreciation of the Australian dollar reflects a central issue. As a consequence of the continuing trend in the figures and the worsening of the balance of payments, it is no wonder that such a judgment on the Australian dollar has been made. There are others overseas who speak in the Australian context, not just the Prime Minister or the Treasurer when they are in Wall Street, New York or somewhere else overseas. Many people in Australia have access to these people. The judgments given and promoted in Australia as representing the wisdom of our principal investors are not those that have been given to me in my associations with these people. One of the consequences of our falling exchange rate and the problems in the balance of payments is reflected in interest rates. Real interest rates in Australia, that is, interest rates adjusted for the effect of inflation, are at present the highest they have been since the Great Depression in the 1930s. There is little prospect of any relief from the situation in the immediate future. It is worth repeating that real interest rates in Australia have never been higher since the 1930s. So much for all the chitchat. The inflation rate has been brought down substantially. Interest rates have remained high; indeed, they have gone up by 2 per cent over the last two months. The best lender point for commercial banks is 16 1/2 to 17 per cent for loans over $100,000. Those are high nominal rates; the highest real interest rates since the 1930s. We heard all this talk from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister during the election that interest rates would go down in 1985. What has happened? They have gone up. Mr Gear —It's only April. Mr MOORE —It might only be April but we do not have to be fools to know that they have gone as high as they are. They certainly will recede after the crunch period in April but there is no reason to believe that the base rate will go below 13 per cent for the entirety of this year. I think it is deplorable that people in Australia have been so misled in relation to interest rates. Despite the promises made by both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer before the last election that interest rates would fall in 1985, in the light of interest rate hikes which have occurred across the board over the past few weeks, Australians are entitled to feel grossly deceived by the reckless predictions made at the last election. Real interest rates for housing loans have increased more than sixfold since the Australian Labor Party was elected in 1983. Real housing interest rates were about one per cent in March 1983 and they are now about 6 1/2 per cent. As a result, new home buyers and people with mortgages are now paying more in real terms on their loans than they have in 50 years. That is quite a record. The increase in real interest rates is due partly to the reduction in inflation over the past 18 months. However, the fact remains that, with the fall in inflation, nominal interest rates are now as high as they were in 1983. In countries such as America and Japan there have been falls in both nominal and real rates over the same period. The present high level of interest rates is due to a number of factors, including the high Federal Budget deficit and the excessive public sector borrowing requirement. Furthermore, the recent suspension of monetary targeting unsettled the financial markets and was a contributing domestic cause to the recent slump in the value of the Australian dollar. For those who may not have followed it, in August last year, the Treasurer predicted that money targets would be met by the March quarter. Come the December quarter, what has happened to the monetary target figures? We have suspended them. We have just wiped them out. We have said: 'We will not count that'. But those who bothered to go on counting will know now that the rate is somewhere around 13 to 14 per cent against the Budget expectations of 9 or 10 per cent. So this fudging at the corners goes on in all respects in these areas. There are two other pointers that I think are worth recording just to show the general pattern that is developing within the economy. We heard a lot about retail sales. The Treasurer got up in this House, beat the drum and said: 'Things are great'. The Prime Minister did the same thing. What was the real occurrence? The latest retail sales figures were disappointing. They are not as they have been put forward. They continue the run of bad economic news for the Government. Retail sales for February 1985 fell by 1.2 per cent in seasonally adjusted terms compared with the January figures. Mr Cadman —But they stayed up in Queensland. Mr MOORE —They will not be staying up tomorrow. They give the lie to the Treasurer's wild statement concerning the January figures. The second area of concern must be the area of unemployment. We have heard from the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party that jobs have to be the main priority. We have heard the great statement that the deflated and falling Australian dollar will all of a sudden pop out of the hat another 100,000 jobs. The author of that statement is the Prime Minister. This is a modern form of economics I suppose that people have to grasp at straws in desperate situations. But what about unemployment? The March 1985 unemployment figures demonstrate that all is not well within the Australian economy. They sit at odds with the Prime Minister's assurances only a couple of nights ago that the economy is under control. He said that he is in control and that all will be well if we just trust him. We heard that we should trust Bob at the last election. In February 1985, the last month of the Fraser Government, unemployment stood at 9.6 per cent. In March 1986 the figure was 8.8 per cent. In other words, the Hawke Government has made no substantial inroads into Australia's totally unacceptable level of unemployment. This is despite the ending of the drought, one of the great contributing factors to the performance of this Government, the pick up in the world economy, which accompanied the arrival of the Hawke Government and what the Prime Minister described as the greatest economic recovery in recent Australian history. We have the three leaders: The drought broke, the world economy picked up and this just happened to be all the blessed work of the Prime Minister. The author of that statement was none other than the Prime Minister. The March 1985 figures are dramatically at odds with the assurances of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) only last month that Australia's unemployment problem was solved. I do not think the Minister would be the only person claiming such great miracles; I have heard them from others. They also contradict the Prime Minister's claim in Parliament on 20 March that the Government is ahead of its job creation target. This Government cannot claim that there has been a rapid and tremendous improvement in employment in Australia when the facts show that it has really not even been improved by one percentage point in the entire time of the Hawke Government. Unemployment stood at 9.6 per cent in 1983 and it now stands at 8.8 per cent. We have all the rhetoric. Where is all the action? Where is the delivery? It is not there. This Government will be found wanting. I think that is a pretty fair judgment on what the Government has done to date. I think that is borne out when we look around at the capital investment in Australia and we see that not one major project is going on in Australia today. Mr Gear —North West Shelf gas. Mr MOORE —That is largely for field contracts. Not one major project is going on in Australia today. With the completion of the Kidston gold mine in Queensland not one project is going today. As a consequence, engineering firms throughout the nation are in some difficulty. Those that supply major steel projects, or any suppliers to the major development contracts, are winding down their operations. If honourable members do not believe me they should look at the share values of all those companies listed as engineers or those companies associated with the fabricating industry. This is endemic to the problems of the Government. It has been unable to sustain the luck that it has had. Because of that, investment in Australia has really been rearranging the decks investment in terms of inventories, mergers or corporate acquisitions. This is because it is cheaper to buy existing assets, to eliminate some and to sell off others, than to go ahead and construct or participate in the very substantial and private investment that is required if one is to expand one's operations within this nation. Why is this? It is because Australia has become uncompetitive, and that is borne out by the balance of payments. Why would entrepreneurs put money into a nation or into an economy which shows no competitive edge and no ability to make the profits that are necessary to sustain the growth we require? They then look at the performance of the Government and find a government that is jittery, unsure of itself, known to have made monumental blunders this year in relation to overseas events, the missile affair, and in the handling of its own domestic problems and factions within the Australian Labor Party leading up to the coming tax summit. This is going to be the great thing. We are going to achieve tax reform. The author is the Prime Minister. What is really happening? He is preparing to get the parachute on for himself. He is going to leave the Treasurer, who is well committed to tax reform, in this area leading up to the tax summit later in the year. If the Prime Minister cannot get consensus-as he has said: 'I am not going to hang if I cannot get it'-he is quite prepared, and has signalled it, to walk away from it. That is the sort of atmosphere in which the business community now finds itself. It is no wonder that more and more people are saying: 'We have just about had it. We thought the Government was doing a good job in 1983 and 1984, but things are not what they used to be'. Now we have the question of the tax summit. We can see how dicey that is. There are articles and leaks in relation to the preparation of the Budget. In addition, Senator Walsh talks about tightness in money and a $6 billion deficit, which is still far too high, and he is trying to achieve it. Shot No. 1 was to reintroduce tertiary education fees, but that was mown down in the Caucus. So much for leadership. Moving to the question of cutting back substantially on Commonwealth funding to the States by courtesy of the Grants Commission, that is a battle the Government has yet to win. We will see how it stands up to that one. There are also propositions of substantial cutbacks in payments to the Northern Territory, such as freight subsidies and other rural subsidies. I am told there are to be savings of many hundreds of millions of dollars in areas of government support within the rural sector. That will do a lot for the nerves of the nervous nellies on the back benches of the ALP who hold rural seats. Then we have the rumours of major changes to family and dependent spouse allowances. These, of course, underscore the anti-family nature of the ALP, which has been very evident for some considerable time. I wind up on the note that I find the Government has had a remarkable two-year period with the Australian economy. The drought broke, the international scene turned around, and the Australian economy had a remarkable growth within itself. I give the Government credit for it. It does not deserve it, but it gets it. The scene has changed. The dollar has been judged to be worth about 25 per cent of what it was only a matter of four months ago. The balance of payments is going towards an $11 billion deficit. The Government is drawing up a Budget in which it is hopeful of achieving a $6 billion deficit. It is talking about redistribution of wealth. The citizens of this nation have a lot to be concerned about. There is nothing but deficits and bad news. The people of Australia will be required once again to shoulder the burden of government ineptitude and mismanagement in the financial sector. Mr GEAR(Canning)(12.40) —It is always amazing when members of the Opposition in debates on Appropriation Bills, or on any Bills concerning money or the economy, get up here and, having brought this country to its knees, lecture this Government, a government that has really started to put Australia back on the tracks of economic recovery. I should like to take up a couple of points made by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) before I move on to the substance of my debate. Firstly, he talked about the Queensland dispute, and of course we all know what a fiasco that is. The Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, has plummeted that State into its worst industrial chaos in many years. The honourable member for Ryan talked about the Queensland industrial situation and called on this Government to do something about it. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has offered, time and time again, and he offered again yesterday, to sit down with the Queensland Government and the trade unions to solve this dispute. As the Prime Minister rightly pointed out, sooner or later they have got to get together and talk about it. That is the only way we are going to resolve this dispute. It is always fascinating when members of the Opposition talk about this Government intervening in something, because they are the greatest States righters when it suits them. That is demonstrated in my State of Western Australia in particular. People such as Sir Charles Court and members of his Party always talk about States rights, except when something goes wrong, and then they come straight to Canberra and ask for Federal Government intervention. The honourable member for Ryan also had the gall to talk about electoral boundaries in Queensland. Queensland's boundaries must be the biggest and the sickest joke in Australia, except for Western Australia, where we have the most undemocratic House in the world in the Legislative Council. He talked about the floating of the dollar and said he welcomed that. Honourable members will notice that members of the Opposition always welcome it when they are in opposition but they never do anything about it when they are in government. We can take the contribution of the honourable member for Ryan with a pinch of salt. Members of the Opposition espouse great things when they are in opposition and do absolutely nothing when they are in government. That was demonstrated by the fact that the people threw them out, rightly, in March 1983 and rejected them again in 1984. I shall confine my comments today to the taxation system. When we are talking about the appropriation Bills, we are talking about the raising of taxes. If one went out into any street in Australia and asked any citizen whether he thought our taxation system today was fair, I guarantee that 99 out of 100 would say that it was not fair. In fact we have a taxation system that is becoming worse, and it is becoming worse because it is relying on the contributions of ordinary wage and salary earners. There is a great need to change the taxation system. I think the Australian public realise that. As was pointed out earlier today, the Opposition parties have been in government for the greater majority of the period since the last war and have done nothing about tax reform. They are content just to sit on their hands and see the system grow progressively worse. Let us consider as an example the marginal rate, the top tax rate a person has to pay. The marginal rate is the tax paid on the last dollar earned. Back in the 1950s, before a person reached the top of the tax rate-it was around 70c in today's terms-he had to earn 17 times average weekly earnings. Today it is only 1.6 times average weekly earnings. To express that in today's dollar terms, in the 1950s the equivalent amount of income a person would have had to earn before he got into the top tax rate was $400,000. Today it is only $35,000. The pay-as-you-earn tax system has been compressed into what has become a very unfair system. As I will show a little later, the burden has fallen on the ordinary pay as you earn taxpayer to finance the Government's revenues. Along with the compression of the rate, we see the lurks and perks for executives. By and large, executives and people on really top incomes can get out of paying tax quite easily. All they have to do is not take income in a cash form but take it as lurks and perks. They can take the company car and the company house, they can send their kids to private schools, all on the company's account. Mr Rocher —You are drinking from the well. Mr GEAR —The honourable member would know all about that because he has been in the business. I could name many lurks and perks but I just cannot think of them at the moment. The examples I have mentioned are very prominent. This all goes to show that it is quite easy to get out of paying income tax. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 12.45 p.m. the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, when the honourable member for Canning will have leave to continue his remarks. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(12.45) —The Australian Council of Trade Unions has announced its intention to introduce a new wage relativity argument into the debate on centralised wage fixing in this country. Given the antipathy of elements in the trade union movement to our great and wonderful allies in the United States, it is both interesting and a little intriguing to note that this new relativity concept has American origins. It is known as 'comparative or comparable worth'. It was in February of this year that the ACTU announced its intention to ask the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to agree to a transplant of this American concept as part of our wage fixing doctrine. Although the nursing profession is to be singled out in the test case to be mounted-no doubt because the high respect in which nurses are held by the community is likely to engender emotive support-it will be followed by similar claims on behalf of female workers in the textile and food processing industries, service areas, as well as clerks. Whilst very good grounds may exist for increased pay for women employees in any or all of these categories, the comparative worth concept should remain irrelevant because it is both illogical and outside wage indexation guidelines. Re-evaluation of women's traditional work in Australia was argued in the 1983 national wage case. The Commission ruled then that the case did not conform to the current principles of centralised wage fixing. With wage fixing guidelines due to be renegotiated by the ACTU and this Government in the near future, comparative worth now becomes part of a two-pronged attack to obtain government-union acceptance as well as the imprimatur of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Initially, the ACTU intends to compare such duties and abilities as know-how, problem solving, accountability and conditions in work done between nurses and 'a basket of occupations including ambulance officers, fishermen, aircraft ground engineers and metal fitters'. Why comparison between the work of the nurses is limited to those and maybe some other occupations is not immediately clear, nor is the rationale behind it. Although the comparison is apparently to be done by establishing a points score assessment of the value of these duties and responsibilities, in some of the functions carried out by workers in different occupations, we have not been told who the scorer will be. Presumably it will be in the first instance the ACTU and the Commission will score the scorers. Mr Cadman —And Mr Willis will back it. Mr ROCHER —Indeed, he would go along with anything the ACTU said. Presumably we will see the scorer there acting like the judges at a gymnastics or diving competition holding up the cards to award the points. The mind boggles, because to make comparisons by allocating a points score for each of know-how, problem solving, accountability and working conditions, someone must make arbitrary judgments about, presumably, the maximum score for each. Those judgments will not only be arbitrary; they will also lack any scientific basis. Comparative worth arguments in Australia are to be predicated on a rather dicey expectation that this sort of assessment of wage difference between classifications of jobs predominantly filled by females and those predominantly filled by males will somehow demonstrate no apparent justification for wage differentials. The new dimension for wage fixing in Australia which would flow from that-although it is largely unexplored-invites the basic assumption that although the equal pay case evened up remuneration within occupations, it somehow failed in equity because there was no evaluation carried out in 1972 of the comparative worth of work done by those predominantly in female jobs. That is true, of course, but it is not exclusive to work done by females. It is also the case with different occupations regardless of their male-female composition. Comparative worth purports to be anti-discriminatory. Its basic premise is that there is a so-called wage gap, and it must be said that all statistics of average male and female wages indicate the existence of one in Australia. But it is essential to remember that this wage gap does not exist because women are paid less than men for doing identical work, that differential having been eliminated in Australia by arrangements phased in over three years culminating in equal pay for equal work in 1975. It is interesting to note that the United States Equal Pay Act of 1963 requires the sexes to be paid the same wage 'for equal work done on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions'. Complications in America and here arise out of claims that in comparing two jobs, even though they are vastly different, it is nevertheless feasible for some third party to award points which evaluate completely different functions. That having been achieved, of course, employers must then accept the points allotted in this way regardless of the dictates of the market or their own judgments based on experience. Although there are some consulting firms in the United States making a very good living out of the unproven assertion that the value of each function performed by each employee can be measured scientifically to enable comparison, there is little evidence to support such a proposition. Conversely, the impracticality of evaluating disparate work functions may be demonstrated by briefly citing a well published United States experience. The City of San Jose was forced to accept the conclusion that its painters did work of approximately the same value as that of its secretaries. That case is very well documented indeed. The end result of it was that a successful claim for a hefty pay increase was concluded by comparing the different functions of those two occupations and on the basis of someone's idea of the intrinsic value of two incomparable occupations. If the City of San Jose was unfair to its secretaries, it is not hard to imagine 'unfairness' as being established by applying the same criteria to other occupations regardless of the traditional predominance of either men or women in those other occupations. Following the San Jose case, the potential cost and effect clearly inspired a United States conference of mayors. A former labour leader and Mayor of Detroit, Coleman Young, said: Any time a city gets hung up on an abstract study that makes arbitrary comparisons of jobs, but does not take into account the impact on society and its capacity to pay, that's dealing in anarchy and inviting bankruptcy and the collapse of local government. In that same response, Coleman Young added: If a painter makes more than a secretary, then let more women be painters. In all reality, comparative worth is a wage relativity argument, although ostensibly, at least for the time being, it is being touted merely to obtain pay increases for women. Wage relativities in the United States are not accepted there as they are here. Comparative worth will create entirely new ground for flow-ons and leapfrogging between awards. With about 1,624,100 women in the Australian work force full time, the cost to our economy of increasing their pay to the statistical median for men would be at least $6 billion a year, or, if we accept a figure quoted by a spokeswoman for the ACTU, nearly $11 billion per year. Even partial measures, as presently envisaged, would have an enormous impact. A close study of the American experience shows conclusively that 'comparative or comparable worth' is a farce, and it is increasingly recognised as such by many in the United States, including economists and labour leaders. Australian businessmen and businesswomen, governments and citizens should become as familiar as possible with the ACTU proposal as it will have profound effects if accepted in Australia. In Australia, where government spending is rampant at Commonwealth, State and local level, our treasurers and town clerks might like to re-examine what so far passes for their complacency towards 'comparative worth'. So might our business leaders. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(12.55) —Today I wish to highlight the economic mismanagement of the Queensland National Party Government. It has failed to ensure that Queenslanders share in the improved economic conditions created in the rest of Australia. That Government's total incompetence is dragging down the rest of Australia, as my colleague Senator Walsh pointed out yesterday. We need to go no further than a survey by the National Australia Bank and the Australian Chamber of Commerce to see the depths of despair into which the Queensland National Party Government has plunged my State. That survey showed that 74 per cent of Australian businesses said that they had good or satisfactory trading in the December quarter of 1984. In Queensland a mere 48 per cent of businesses reported similar trading conditions. For the March quarter of 1985, 72 per cent of Australian businesses surveyed said that they expected good or satisfactory results in the March quarter. In Queensland not one single business said it expected a good March quarter, and only 36 per cent expected satisfactory trading in that period. There is no more telling indictment of the miserable economic record of Bjelke-Petersen Government than that. The business sector in Queensland showed it had no confidence in the convocation of incompetents who make up the Queensland National Party Government. Yesterday, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) pointed out some revealing statistics about the Queensland economy. I now wish to take up just one of those-namely, the building industry. In Australia there was a 9.5 per cent increase in building approvals in the three months to the end of January 1985. In Queensland the number of new dwelling approvals increased by only a miserable 1.7 per cent over the same period. This low level confirms the stagnant nature of the building industry in my State of Queensland. In contrast, the rest of Australia has experienced a building boom. I now turn to the value of building approvals. In the three months to the end of January 1985, the value of all other building approvals throughout Australia was $1,688.8m. This was 67.4 per cent higher than the value for the three-month period to the end of January 1984. In Queensland, however, the value of other building approvals increased by only 36.8 per cent over the same period, from $264m to $361m. These figures show that Queensland is still, again, lagging well behind the rest of the nation in industrial and commercial building approvals. The number of actual dwelling commencements is preferred as a forward indicator of activity in the housing industry. Again, Queensland compares poorly with the rest of Australia. The number of dwelling commencements throughout Australia in the September quarter of 1984 was 40,300. This was 8,600 more than the figure for the September quarter of 1983, representing a substantial increase of 27.1 per cent. In Queensland, however, the percentage increase in commencements during this period was much lower. In the September quarter of 1984 there were 8,200 dwelling commencements in Queensland, 1,000 more than a year earlier. This represented an increase of only 13.9 per cent-significantly below the national figure. I have just informed the House of the litany of failure of the Queensland National Party Government in the housing sector. The only positive move for the building industry in Queensland has come from the Federal Labor Government. The first home owners scheme has injected massive new funds into the housing industry in my electorate. From 1 October 1983 to 11 April 1985 23,400 applications have been approved for the first home owners scheme in Queensland. This was an injection of $71m in benefits paid and $115m in the amount of benefits approved. Let us now look at the performance of the Queensland National Party Government in the housing industry in the public sector. The States can nominate up to the full amount of their Loan Council ceiling for public housing at a very attractive interest rate of 4 1/2 per cent. The Queensland National Party Government nominated only $30m this year under that concessional arrangement and an abysmal $10m in 1983-84 under the Loan Council arrangements for public housing. Those sums can be compared with those nominated by some of the States ruled by my colleagues in the Australian Labor Party. For example, in South Australia $136m was allocated, and in Western Australia $96m. In other words, the Bjelke-Petersen Government is deliberately retarding the housing industry in my State of Queensland. Its housing policies are depriving the needy of any form of home ownership. In my own electorate, there are many hundreds of people on Housing Commission waiting lists in the suburbs of Inala, Carole Park and Logan City. The Queensland National Party Government is ignoring them. At 31 January 1985 there were 9,522 people on the waiting list for a Queensland Housing Commission home, with a waiting period ranging from four months to a disgraceful 36 months. It is easy to see that the appalling performance of the Bjelke-Petersen Government is being hidden behind the deliberately provocative industrial confrontation that it has inspired. The Premier himself is the Treasurer of Queensland. The various hangers-on who make up the Cabinet in Queensland are not there because of any innate ability. In fact, never were words in the English language as mismatched as the word 'ability' and the words 'Queensland Cabinet'. The Premier alone decides the direction that the Queensland economy will take. Single-handedly, not only has he taken the Queensland economy on a course where it lags behind the rest of Australia, but in some cases he has thrown the economy of Queensland into a reverse direction. At a time when Queenslanders should be united in a common purpose to overcome these economic difficulties, the Bjelke-Petersen Government has created open division. It has abandoned any pretext of honouring such democratic ideals as freedom of assembly and freedom to organise. It is now embarking on a calculated plan to destroy freedom of speech. It has subpoenaed journalists from the Courier-Mail and the Daily Sun for merely reporting events. However, the most desperate act to date was reserved for Dr Runcie, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Yesterday the Queensland Premier horrified many by telling this eminent man to go back to London and to work to fill his churches. The only provocation that this man of the church gave was to urge conciliation in the Queensland power dispute. Honourable members must ask where this will all stop. The Bjelke-Petersen Government has no tolerance whatsoever for people who dare to speak out against it-even if they are the Archbishop of Canterbury. I would have expected all the great Christians from the National Party to leap to the defence of this archbishop. Instead, they are to be condemned for their silence. As I said earlier, I believe that this is part of a calculated effort to trample democratic institutions. I believe that the final chapter will come with the Queensland redistribution. I have been informed by people close to the National Party that its members intend once more to rig the boundaries in Queensland. There will be an outcry, but it will die down within a few weeks. That is the plan. It is designed to entrench the Nationals at the expense of the Australian Labor Party, but also at the expense of the Liberal Party. I say to all honourable members that because of the economic mess that the Bjelke-Petersen Government has created in Queensland, it will resort to desperate measures to save itself from the will of the people. The members of the Queensland Government are a band of democratic hill-billies determined to lay waste the very institutions that many of us in this House hold dear. I say to all Queenslanders: Wake up before it is too late. I am reminded of the quotation which says: 'All dictatorships look good until the last 10 minutes'. Queenslanders need to act now. They need to write to their National Party members and say that they are fed up with the economic mismanagement, fed up with the division, fed up with tolerance, and, as I would say, fed up with the Bjelke-Petersen Government. Mr BURR(Lyons)(1.04) —Today I want to raise in the House the growing practice of genetic engineering, which I think is possibly a term that many people in this chamber and throughout the community of Australia would not be familiar with. It is one of those scientific titles that really raise the eyebrows but go over the head of most people in the community. Perhaps some of the more clamorous results of genetic engineering, such as in vitro fertilisation and the frozen embryo techniques, are those glamorous types of experiments that attract media attention and people in the community are familiar with them. But I doubt very much whether some of the other practices of genetic engineering are brought to the attention of the community, and it is in that vein that I speak today. I have no doubt the community would be aware of some of the practices that were pursued by doctors and medical researchers in nazi Germany during the Second World War, when in fact they used Jewish people as guinea-pigs in live experiments. I have no doubt that people in this chamber, along with other civilised people throughout the world, were absolutely revolted by the practices that came to light at the end of the Second World War and what had been going on in nazi Germany. But I wonder how many people in Australia are aware that such experiments are taking place in Australia at the moment, involving the use of human live tissue in medical experiments. That, I think, is a fact of which very few people would be aware. It is an unfortunate practice that has built up, not only in this country but in others. The human live tissue is obtained from the foetuses of aborted children. In talking about this subject, we need to clearly distinguish between the abortion issue, as it is debated in this and other countries, and the practice of medical experimenters and doctors using live tissue from the aborted foetus for medical experimentation. They are two entirely different issues. I, for one, have voted in this chamber, and would vote in the future, to give people the right to exercise their own moral and ethical standards as to whether they choose to obtain an abortion. I would continue to vote in that way. But I draw a great distinction between that and what happens to that foetus after the abortion is performed, and that is the subject of my speech here today. What is happening in an increasing number of cases is that the live foetus that is the product of the abortion is being used for medical experimentation. I believe that everyone in this chamber and throughout the community of Australia should be absolutely revolted by this practice. This practice has been building up increasingly over a number of years in Australia. Not only has it been building up, but it has been supported by Commonwealth governments by the granting of moneys for that research to continue. In fact, over the period 1974 to 1983 the Howard Florey Institute, which is one of the main research institutes conducting these experiments, received $15.7m of Commonwealth aid. The community, I believe, has not made a moral or ethical judgment on this matter. It is only the medical experimenters themselves who have made any moral or ethical judgment. That judgment has been exercised by the National Health and Medical Research Council. When I talk about tissue being used from the foetuses of aborted children, I do not mean just simply a scraping of skin. What is being used is not just a slight piece of skin tissue; it is also the organs that are coming from these live foetuses, and, in fact, the medical researchers are using such things as liver, lungs, kidneys, brains, breast, pancreas, bone marrow, spleen-they are using all these organs in their various medical researches. Not only that, but they have now also perfected a technique of being able to maintain those organs in a live state for future experiments. I think that that is a practice that we, as civilised Australians, should be absolutely revolted by. Professor J. R. Turtle and Dr B. E. Tuch, of Sydney University, have perfected a system whereby the tissue from the pancreas of a foetus 20 weeks old has been kept alive in in-vitro form for transplantation into human beings, and the scientists agree that human foetal pancreata were obtained following therapeutic termination of pregnancies of between 14 and 20 weeks gestation, and that the organs were diced into one millimetre explants and incubated at 37* centigrade for a period of up to three months. So they have now perfected a technique of being able to maintain and sustain these live organs for future experiments. As I said, the only moral and ethical guidelines that have been introduced so far have been brought in by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Those guidelines are as follows. The Council justifies the process because it claims that the ethical justification, while allowing for dissent, should also allow for conscientious objection by those researchers who have a conscience about these things. But the Council points out that the following conditions should be observed-not must be observed, but should be observed. The Council also says that the conditions are not mandatory but that these guidelines should be observed: The foetus should be available for research only. Dissection of the foetus should not be carried out while a heart-beat is apparent or there are other signs of life. So at least the Council draws a distinction that the foetus must not have a heart-beat. The guidelines continue: Those involved with the research using the tissue from a foetus should have no connection with the mother. Research must only be conducted in institutions that have ethic committees. The consent of the mother, but not necessarily the father, should be obtained before research takes place on the aborted child. There should be no element of commerce involved in the transfer of human foetal tissue. Those who conscientiously object to such research projects should not be forced to take part. The Council states that those holding positions within the institute should not be jeopardised because of their conscientious objection. I think that we should be revolted by the practices that are taking place. I remind the House that not only are these experiments taking place, but the experimenters themselves are now building up a bank of human tissues, foetuses and organs for future experiments. It has gone to the point where Sylvia Lawler could write an article called 'The Conception and Development of a Foetal Tissue Bank'. The next thing we will know is that there is a commercial trade in the aborted foetuses. I think that that is the point that we will be reaching in this country. It has happened in other countries, and unless Australia makes a moral and ethical judgment on this matter, it will happen in Australia, too. I remind the House of something that happened earlier this year. It may not have filtered too far into this part of the world, but those in Britain and Europe were absolutely horrified by the crash of a truck in England. That truck was loaded with aborted foetuses from an abortion clinic in Britain that was taking its consignment to a French cosmetic factory. A consignment of aborted children from England was being sent to a French cosmetic factory for unknown purposes when, unfortunately, it was involved in an accident and its whole sorry load was exposed to the world. This is what is happening in other parts of the world. A trade is building up in aborted foetuses, and these aborted foetuses, while still in a live state, are being used for medical experimentation. Whether or not the people of Australia, from their own point of view, agree with the process of abortion, I think that all of them should be absolutely horrified and disgusted at this practice of using live foetuses for medical experimentation. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(1.14) —During the four and a half years in which I have been a member of this House, I have not found it necessary to comment on the administration of the States of our Commonwealth, except perhaps for the occasional remark about the exciting improvements in the economic and social conditions of the State of Victoria resulting from three years of the Cain Labor Government. However, the present deterioration in the democratic rights of Queenslanders is so serious that I am taking the opportunity today to call on the Federal Government to take all possible measures to prevent the Queensland State Government from continuing its headlong rush towards totalitarianism. As is often the case when authoritarian rule is exercised, dislike of the system becomes personified in dislike of one person, in this case the Premier of the State. But the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, cannot govern the State alone. Behind him are the ranks of National Party members who have won their seats as a result of a gerrymandered voting system which would be the envy of many Third World dictators. To be able to win government with only 39 per cent of the popular vote-bearing in mind that it is a compulsory vote-makes nonsense of the democratic concept of one vote, one value. Having achieved dictatorial government, the Queensland National Party is now spreading its totalitarian tentacles by attempting to destroy another of the cherished freedoms of the people-the rights of workers to organise to protect their wages and working conditions. It is important to appreciate that the strategy which is being employed by the Bjelke-Petersen National totalitarian Government is the strategy which began with the hiring of private contractors to work with the South-East Queensland Electricity Board. With typical diabolical native cunning, the aim of Premier Bjelke-Petersen was to cause provocation to the unionists employed by the Electricity Board whilst at the same time privatising a public enterprise board. The destruction of public enterprise for private gain is an important aspect of the National Party philosophy, provided that rural industry continues to receive its subsidies from the public purse. The main thrust of the strategy, however, is the hiring of non-union contract labour to undercut industrial award conditions and pay rates. The unions covering their members in the public enterprise concerned, in this case the South-East Queensland Electricity Board, were then forced to call their members out on strike, to defend their wages and conditions. The Queensland Government retaliated by sacking the striking workers and replacing them with non-union and contract scab labour. The Queensland Government, with a total disregard of normal industrial arbitration practices, also ignored the decision of the Queensland Industrial Commission that the sacked workers should be reinstated as part of a negotiation process. At this point it should be appreciated that the key to the Queensland Government's strategy is to isolate the workers it attacks. So far, apart from the State Opposition Labor parliamentarians, the power workers have been isolated. But at last, Federal parliamentarians and the Australian Council of Trade Unions have begun to act in solidarity with the sacked workers. Laws which deny basic human rights must be defied, and the Queensland Government has introduced five Acts of Parliament which represent a denial of the basic rights won by trade unionists over a 90-year period of struggle, during which unionists have suffered many brutal acts of intimidation by the authorities. I come to those five Acts of Parliament. The first covers the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1961-1981 Amendment Act, which, amongst other things, prohibits a union or individual from inciting, advising or encouraging action to the prejudice of an employee who has refused or failed to participate in a strike, the onus of proof being on the union or individual to disprove any allegation of encouragement of action to participate in a strike, with a maximum fine of $10,000. Secondly, there is the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act 1985, which establishes an Electricity Commissioner exercising powers previously held by the Queensland Industrial Commission, including the additional right to direct any person to carry out necessary work to provide, maintain or restore the electricity supply, and introducing individual contracts of employment with no-strike clauses and an increased working week, from 36 1/2 hours to 38 hours. Thirdly, the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Amendment Act 1985 gives police the power to arrest any person found to be, or suspected to be, harassing or interfering with persons involved in supply of electricity in Queensland, and requiring personal details of any person accompanying a suspected offender. Fourthly, there is the Electricity Authorities Industrial Causes Act 1985, which specifies inciting, counselling or abetting a strike, which is regarded as illegal by the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, as an illegal act, with penalties which include suspension of employment and summary dismissal. Finally, there is the Industrial Commercial Practices Amendment Act 1985, which outlaws secondary boycotts and primary strike action in relation to demarcation disputes, wildcat strikes and preferences to unionists, with extremely heavy penalties of $50,000 for individuals and $250,000 for unions, with the option of actions for damages against unions, which can be even more excessive. The combined effect of these five iniquitous pieces of legislation not only is highly provocative but indicates a savage use of naked power in a bid to crush the union movement. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen has been likened to Adolf Hitler, and there is no doubt that the statements and actions of him and his Government Ministers are very reminiscent-- Mr Hand —Gaoling priests. Mr MILTON —That is correct. They are very reminiscent of the political situation in fascist Germany of the 1930s. Mr Hand —Gaoling church leaders. Mr MILTON —The honourable member has got it right. The Premier has, for example, publicly declared that he will brutally punish individual unionists and bludgeon their unions into submission. He has so implanted fear into the hearts of Queenslanders that they are afraid to speak against him. While watching a live television news program from Brisbane the other night, I was appalled when the wife of one of the sacked electricity workers declined to comment to the television reporter about the Premier 'because', said her husband, 'she was afraid of the repercussions against her if she spoke against Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen'. So much for freedom of speech in the State of Queensland. But the five Acts of Parliament go much further than restricting freedom of speech. If a television news reporter had reported that the woman interviewed had said: 'Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen is a fascist', then the fact that the reporter had made the statement would be enough for the courts to accept that statement as conclusive proof. In fact, the onus of proof has been reversed under the new legislation and it is not the police who have to prove that the law has been broken but the accused who have to prove that their actions are not breaking the anti-strike laws. Such open-ended legislation is particularly disturbing, with the arrest of the journalists covering a picket deemed illegal under the new laws. Another serious aspect of the legislation is the power of the new Electricity Commissioner to direct any person to provide the supply of electricity. Apart from the undesirable effect of such draconian power being held by the Commissioner, the question has to be asked: Will such direction involve workers who are not suitably qualified? I suggest that it will. I could continue to relate the brutal effect that these laws are having on the social, political and economic climate of Queensland. With the arrest of newspaper reporters and Federal and State parliamentarians, one wonders where these police state powers will end. Let us not forget that this appalling attack on unions by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen began with electricity workers employed by the South-East Queensland Electricity Board fighting for security of employment, which was threatened by the introduction of private contractors. The Queensland Government is presently attacking the electricity power industry, but the attacks will not rest there. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and his National Party Ministers have made no secret of the fact that they are proposing to smash the whole union movement. At the same time, they have passed laws which prevent people from taking part in peaceful demonstrations. There is also the new electoral redistribution in the offing, which will further increase the gerrymander which gives country people three times the voting strength of city people. It is time that the Federal Government intervened in these matters because the loss of civil liberties which is occurring in Queensland will not stop at the Queensland border unless decisive action is taken now. Already the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) have indicated their enthusiastic support for the totalitarian methods adopted by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's National Government. National Party members in this House have also expressed their enthusiastic support, despite the record of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen of 10.9 per cent unemployment-the highest in any Australian State. Make no mistake about it. The escalation of this vicious campaign against the union movement, highlighted by the Queensland police thuggery, which we all saw on national television last night, is only a blatant attempt by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen to divert attention away from the appalling economic record of his National Party Government. The Commonwealth Parliament has the power to make laws in respect of breaches of international conventions, as the Franklin dam decision made very clear. The anti-union laws enacted by the Queensland State Government are clearly in breach of the international covenants on civil and political rights and are also in breach of International Labor Organisation conventions to which Australia is a signatory. I call on the Government to re-examine this option. Apart from the external powers, however, there are financial measures which can be adopted against the Queensland Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(1.24) —The radio broadcast of this grievance debate gives a wonderful opportunity of speaking to ordinary Australians about events in Queensland today-events which have been exaggerated by the media, including the Press, as has been evidenced by the speech of the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), a member of the Government, who preceded me. There have been deliberate misrepresentations of the whole situation. Only this morning, a priest who participated in the picket yesterday said that it was a moral matter and if his presence and arrest gave publicity to the activities of the Electrical Trades Union, then it was worthwhile. What I ask is this: What gives that priest the moral right to pass judgment when, by his previous inaction, he allowed the ETU to ignore the rulings of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission five times and allowed the electricity to be turned off. Have priests or journalists who are themselves employees the capacity to understand the position and frustrations of an employer who cannot fire an employee and who is now under the dictates of a union Caesar as to who can be employed? Can they appreciate the position of an employer who is compulsorily forced to employ and register union labour only at the threat of a total black ban on his or her business? Can they appreciate the position of a housewife who pays electricity and telephone bills but does not get the services that she has paid for? This dispute is not against workers. It is against the little Caesars of the unions, who are protected in their jobs irrespective of the strike action they enforce, irrespective of the loss to the employers, and irrespective of the massive disruptions they promote, which are causing losses of hundreds of millions of dollars. In the case of the ETU, it is against union bosses who acted arrogantly, ignorantly and unlawfully against every industrial principle. Tomorrow will be regarded in Queensland in the years ahead as 'Black Friday'-a day on which the Federal Government turned its back, like Pilate, on the Queensland people, and refused to accept its responsibilities and exercise its constitutional powers. People of Australia have the right to ask right now: Why did the Prime Minister and his Government fail to act, and why is the Government now so strong in its condemnation of everything 'Queensland'. Would the Press and the journalists and those of some of the churches recognise that the issue is the right of a constitutionally-elected government to govern? That is the choice. Is the Queensland Government allowed to govern? Is it allowed to employ private contractors? Has it the right to allow the conciliation and arbitration system to work, or does it abrogate all that to the power and direction of the unelected Australian Council of Trade Unions, as does the Federal Government? This Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and this Government have clearly demonstrated that he and it are simply puppets dancing to the dictates of the ACTU. Never before have I seen a Prime Minister become such an apologist for another body. The patronage extended to the ACTU by this Labor Government is unprecedented. Over the past few years we have seen the Prime Minister use selective statistics to denigrate the Queensland Government and to hide his own inadequacies and lack of performance. Let us look at some of the facts: What is the State of Australia that has had the greatest population increase in the past three years? Queensland-and they came from Victoria. Which State balances its Budget while the Commonwealth Labor Government incurs record deficits? Queensland again. Which State acts in the interests of its people to protect the supply of electricity service while the Commonwealth uses cream-puff methods with its bans by its Public Service? Again, Queensland. Mr Hand —What about the gaoling of priests in Queensland? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I point out to the honourable member for Melbourne that he is out of order in interjecting when he is not in his own seat. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that that was not taken from my time. At a time when the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mrs Margaret Thatcher, acted positively in the interests of all Britons and broke the illegal and unlawful miners strike, this Prime Minister of ours and this Labor Government have demonstrated a noticeable lack of guts and integrity in handling the present situation. Let me place before the House simply the issues involved in this dispute and the legislation enacted to protect the system and the service. Firstly, the ETU refused five times orders of the Industrial Commission to return to work. The ETU leaders were given four days to have their men report to work, and some of the linesman did so return. The Municipal Officers Association members reneged on their arrangement to supply full power in return for their 2.5 per cent loading and 38-hour week granted to them several years ago. The Government enacted legislation in the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act to outlaw lightning strikes and demarcation disputes and to prevent harassment of power industry employees. This legislation applies only to the electricity power industry-no others. The Industrial and Commercial Practices Act, which mirrors the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act, was widened so that the Electricity Commissioner could maintain the Queensland power supply-rather a laudable objective. Certainly in the light of the actions by the ETU leaders and the limits of the legislation, these do not warrant the sensationalism of the Press and the media, the calls for anarchy, the claims of draconian practices, which this Federal Government and the picketers are so fond of mouthing. Again, in its proper perspective, one has only to read the editorial in the Canberra Times of Tuesday 16 April, and the results of the poll conducted by the Courier-Mail printed yesterday, to appreciate that 60 per cent of Queenslanders prefer electricity to strikes, and the main issue is-and I believe it is secretly supported by every other Australian Premier. Does an elected government govern or do Australians continue down the economic and industrial slide, as has been in evidence in Australia in the last decade? So, this is the question that all who are listening must ask: Why does not the Prime Minister act and support Queensland which is under threat from ACTU anarchists? Let us go back to the famous prices and income accord, that de facto marriage which gave legitimacy to the ACTU in its control of the Federal Government, an accord to which only the union hierarchy and the ALP Government were signatories. Like the old 'u' in 'Labour', the ordinary Australian-the worker, the employer, the self-employed, the housewife and the aged-were also left out. Let us look at the domination by the ACTU of government through this accord in the last two years of Labor government. It has provided indexation automatically. Australia is the only country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development where this now applies. There have been the extra costs through redundancy provisions of over $6,000 for each employee to an already struggling private sector employer. The Builders Labourers Federation deferred payments of $11 per week per employee where no-strike provisions were not abided by. There is no control over the Commonwealth Public Service where Telecom refused to send telegrams and Australia Post refused to deliver letters during the time of the strike. There has been the repeal of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act. There has been the acceptance of ACTU tax policies by this Government; there is more to come. The deregistration proceedings against the BLF have been terminated. There has been the cave in on uranium mining and discriminatory applications on that slipshod policy. There has been the cave in on the MX missile, which has turned Australia's back on all its allies. There has been the back-down on taxation of fringe benefits because some of the ACTU personnel felt as though they would be hit. They tried to repeal sections 45D and 80 of the Trade Practices Act. There has been the refusal of the Government to use its powers under that Act and under the Constitution to stop this intended and illegal blockade. There has been the letter written to the Premier, but apparently none written to the ACTU or the unions. This Government does not want to acknowledge its failures-its failure to curb the unions, its failure to stop the downward spiral of our economy, its failure to recognise the stupidity of the ETU in Queensland, and, above all, the absolute failure of the ALP in Queensland, which in the past 12 months has lost a State by-election in a Brisbane seat and lost seats in the Federal election, and we had that glorious win by the Liberals in the Brisbane local council elections of 30 March. The Prime Minister wants to take his and his Party's failure in government and in Queensland out from the limelight, but I want to expose to this House the results to all Australians of the excesses and the abuse of union power and the inadequacies of our elected leaders in Canberra to cope with the situation. Today, out of selected OECD countries, Australia has slipped from second to sixteenth as far as the standard of living of its citizens is concerned. The competitive edge has been stripped away on the markets in which we compete. We have gone from third to twenty-second as far as world trading nations are concerned. We now trade equally with Japan whereas seven years ago Australia had a three to one advantage over Japan. Today, of course, under a record low on international markets, we have the new Bob Hawke dollar, which has been devalued to 60c. A dollar two years ago; 60c today. I table that evidence-60c. Also, the whole aspect of the international situation of our economy is deplorable. We will have a record international debt of $50 billion by June 1985, which requires about 9 per cent of all Commonwealth expenditures for interest. The people of Australia now ask: Mr Prime Minister, what will you be doing to protect those companies which will be facing ACTU sanctions because of their support for democratic principles and the right of governments to govern? Will you again turn your back like Pontius Pilate, give in to the Caesars, and fiddle like Nero while these companies are forced out of business and shed even more employees into the ranks of the unemployed? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(1.34) —Father Morgan Howe, Parish Priest of Indooroopilly, wrote in the Catholic Leader of 14 April 1985 of the origin of legal trade unionism by recalling that on 24 February 1834 six farm employee-labourers in Tolpuddle, a small village in Dorset, England, were arrested on a charge of conspiring to withhold their labour unless they received a rise in wages from the local landlords. They were sentenced to seven years penal servitude as convicts in Australia. They have come to be known as 'the Tolpuddle Martyrs'. Through the actions of these six labourers emerged the right of trade unionists to withhold their labour or strike. The Catholic Church for decades has always asserted the right to form and join trade unions. The Church has defended the right to strike. It is said that the Catholic Church describes these rights as natural rights; that is to say, that these rights are inherently and intrinsically among the rights of man. In support of his defence of the right to strike, Father Howe relied on the authoritative Catholic Church statement contained in a Second Vatican Council document. I quote: Among the basic rights of the human person is to be numbered the right of freely founding unions for working people . . . included is the right of freely taking part in the activity of these unions without risk of reprisal . . . When, however, socio-economic disputes arise, efforts must be made to come to a peaceful settlement. Although recourse must always be had first to a sincere dialogue between the parties, a strike, nevertheless, can remain even in present day circumstances a necessary, though ultimate, aid of the defence of the workers' own rights and the fulfilment of their just desires. As soon as possible, however, ways should be sought to resume negotiation and the discussion of reconciliation. The statement simply reasserts the teachings of the Catholic Church that people have the right to form and join trade unions and such like and the right to withhold labour or strike. The anti-worker legislation passed by the Bjelke-Petersen Government is the antithesis of the teaching of the Catholic Church on the right to strike, and to that extent the Queensland legislation must be denounced as bad law. The legislation ominously highlights the fears of many thousands of serious thinking Queenslanders as to the conduct of the Bjelke-Petersen Government and its long history of confrontation, division and destructive assaults on civil liberties. The Rev. Doug McKenzie of the Uniting Church, in an article reprinted in the Townsville Bulletin of 13 April 1985, claimed that in his opinion Queensland cannot be politically run by the Bjelke-Petersen Government without an enemy being identified. He stated that over the years a succession of enemies have been designated by the Bjelke-Petersen Government. Attacks have been made by the Bjelke-Petersen Government on the Roman Catholic and Anglican archbishops in Queensland, who were described as communists when they criticised Queensland's street march laws. The Premier branded a former Miss Australia as a 'crow' when she questioned him on the same issue. In 1978 leading medical practitioners in Queensland were abused by the Bjelke-Petersen Government for refusing to endorse the fake cures for cancer of Milan Brych. The arbitration and conciliation courts are regular targets of criticism. It is not that long ago that the Bjelke-Petersen Government attempted to interfere in the Queensland Supreme Court by politicising the appointment of the new Chief Justice. Teachers have been attacked; railwaymen, public servants, journalists-some of whom are now being arrested-have been abused and denounced by the Bjelke-Petersen Government. A police commissioner was dismissed for ordering an inquiry into the bashing of a young girl by a burly police officer wielding a baton. Premier Bjelke-Petersen not only sacked this commissioner but halted the commissioner's inquiry into the affair, even though the assault was screened on national television. In 1977 a group of clergymen protesting against the street march legislation were arrested and thrown into a police vehicle for singing Christian hymns of peace in an empty park on a Sunday afternoon. Not long before that, the Bjelke-Petersen Government had found no objection to an organisation staging a yodelling contest in the same park. The Rev. McKenzie also observed that the Bjelke-Petersen Government has a high verbal profile without any kind of matching reality. For example, almost every principal economic indicator of the economic performance of Queensland clearly shows that the Queensland economy is in tatters. Employment opportunities are down. Queensland dole queues grow longer. Registration numbers of new motor vehicles have dived. The value of building approvals and dwelling commencements is almost half that of other States in Australia. Whilst there has been a decline in industrial disputes throughout the rest of Australia, Queensland's industrial disputations are raging. The economic horrors of the Fraser Government are revisited in Queensland. Whilst there has been a decline of bankruptcies throughout the rest of Australia, the number of bankruptcies in Queensland has plunged hundreds of Queensland families into economic ruin and heartbreak. Even more alarming to serious thinking Australians is the obvious lack of respect by the Bjelke-Petersen Government for reconciliation. The Rev. McKenzie claims that in the power strike, for example, apart from the question of who was right or wrong, the promulgation of the state of emergency had the effect of nullifying the conciliation process. The Queensland Government has a winner-loser syndrome. It tends to brutalise our culture. The message from the Bjelke-Petersen Government seems to be: 'It is okay to fight, but only if you let me win'. The precepts of love, care and reconciliation which Christian churches not only exemplify but whose message they evangelise, find no response in a government hell-bent on establishing an industrial system based on a 'Knock 'em down, drag 'em out' model. There is no room for compassion in such a society. Father Morgan Howe eloquently testifies further in the same article. He says: There are some industries and services so important to the wellbeing of the overall society-so-called 'essential services'-that obviously there should be required a graver than ordinary reason to justify strike action. For any strike at all to be justifiable it must always be a last resort, (all available peaceful means of arbitration/conciliation having been exhausted); there must be due proportion between the issue at stake and the disruption and social cost caused by the strike; there must be a reasonable hope of success . . . Where, because of the essential nature of the industry or service, the right to strike is limited, the members concerned must be compensated in direct proportion to such limitation. The compensation may take the form of higher wages, better working conditions, shorter hours, longer holidays, and the like. Notwithstanding what has been said about the limitation of the use of the right to strike, one thing must remain clear: the right itself cannot be denied or taken away; nor can it be surrendered . . . A piece of legislation, then, that contains an essential condition for employment in an industry, a 'provision that such employee shall not take part in any strike', is an unjust piece of legislation. It is bad law. Bad laws carry no moral obligation. They bring good laws into contempt; they are destructive of a common good; and they are divisive of the community. The right to withhold one's labour under certain conditions is a fundamental natural right of every worker in any free society. Australia is a member of the family of nations conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. The events in Queensland are now testing whether this nation, so conceived and dedicated, can long defend and uphold the great principles of a Christian democracy. Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was, 'I am a Roman citizen'. Today let all Australians claim, as their proudest boast, 'We are Australian citizens'. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(1.43) —My purpose in putting my name down to speak today was not to rise and speak in relation to the Queensland situation. However, we have had several speakers on that already during this grievance debate and I just make two notes. I wait in vain, with all the words that are pouring from the Government side, with Government members quoting the Queensland Industrial Commission, for some indication that they are aware that it was the disregarding by the power strikers of a direction by the Industrial Commission that started this whole mess in the first place. Secondly, during the speech of the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) I waited in vain while he quoted from certain priests who have views printed in the Catholic Leader, for an indication of how he saw those views fitting into the views of His Holiness the Pope on the subject of essential services. However, that is not the subject on which I have risen to speak today. I have risen to inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), has misled Parliament on a matter which has been raised in this place on a number of occasions. On 11 October 1984 the Foreign Minister gave the following answer to a question on notice from the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) relating to the removal of the crown from the Australian passport: The Royal Crown has been removed from the cover of the Australian passport in the light of expert heraldic advice that the Australian coat of arms displayed on the cover should not be depicted below (i.e. in a position inferior to) any other heraldic symbol, and in the absence of proof that formal permission was originally given for the use of the Crown on the Australian passport. The decision was made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in accordance with sub-section 7 (2) of the Passports Act 1938 . . . On 10 October 1984 I had addressed a question to the then Attorney-General, in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Senate, on the same subject. On that occasion, Senator Gareth Evans, in his usual rude fashion, said that he did not know the answer to the question, but he said: I will find out from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who has much more recent experience than I of that situation, and give the honourable senator advice accordingly. The next day, Senator Evans conveyed that advice from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Senate. This is what Senator Evans said: On the recommendation of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking conducted by Mr Justice Stewart a passports committee was formed in 1983 to supervise matters relating to the security of Australian passports and visas. As part of its initial examination of the then current passport the Committee noted a number of deficiencies in respect of non-observance of the usages and requirements of protocol and the rules of heraldry. One of the deficiencies was the superimposition of the Royal Crown of St Edward above the coat of arms of Australia on the cover of the passport. This was an incorrect depiction of these two heraldic symbols. In addition, there was no record that royal approval had ever been obtained for the use of the Royal Crown of St Edward on Australian passports. So that is the advice the Minister for Foreign Affairs gave to the then Attorney-General to pass on to Parliament, and it appears in the Senate Hansard. So, in summary, the three reasons the Foreign Minister and Government have been given for the removal of the crown from the passport were: firstly, royal approval was not given for the use of the Crown of St Edward; secondly, that the protocol of heraldry meant that the Royal Arms, that is, St Edward's Crown, should be removed from the cover of the passport; and thirdly, that the Passports Committee had noted these deficiencies. I would like to say that, whilst it does not appear in the Hansard, the Minister for Foreign Affairs had said in letters on this subject to members of parliament that the Passports Committee actually recommended the removal of the crown from the passport. All of these three reasons are statements of untruth. I have received information this week, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, which shows that they are quite untrue. The first and, probably, the critical point on which the Foreign Minister has been hanging his hat on the subject of this action in relation to the removal of the crown was that royal approval had never been sought or obtained. Mr Deputy Speaker, I inform the House that on 6 July 1959 the then Acting Prime Minister wrote to the then Acting Minister for Immigration as follows: My Dear Minister, I refer to the proposal by the Minister for Immigration to introduce a new type of Australian Passport which would include the Crown on the cover. I have now received word from His Excellency the Governor-General that Her Majesty the Queen has been pleased to approve the use of the Crown on the cover of the Australian Passport in accordance with the draft cover submitted by the Minister. The second point is that relating to heraldic requirements. In all the matters relating to heraldic requirements and protocol, there is a book called the Style Manual. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has actually referred to that manual in letters to members of parliament on the subject of the protocol requirements on heraldry as it relates to the crown on the passport. I shall quote from the Style Manual the relevant extracts. In relation to the use of the Royal Arms, it says this: The Arms should appear only at the head of the page or other printing, should not be used in an undignified way and should not appear subsidiary to other devices in the same work. On the subject of the Commonwealth Arms, that is, the coat of arms, it says this: The normal practice is to place the Commonwealth Arms at the head of any printed matter with no wording above it. It may be placed in other positions provided that the juxtaposition of the Arms with other printed matter does not detract from its dignity. In other words, the Style Manual, on which the Government and the Foreign Minister rest their case-on the basis of removal of the crown because the Commonwealth arms also appears on the cover of the passport-says that the Commonwealth arms does not have to appear at the head; it may have other things above it, provided that the juxtaposition of the Arms with other printed matter does not detract from its dignity. The Style Manual makes the point that it is the Royal Arms that cannot have anything above it on the cover of the passport. Along the line, the Government and the Foreign Minister have been applying the requirements of the Royal Arms to the Commonwealth arms, and saying that the requirements for the royal arms are those that apply for the coat of arms-and they do not. Far from detracting from the dignity of the Commonwealth Arms, I believe that there are many people who would think that its dignity was enhanced by having the Royal Arms above it on the passport. In fact, on the subject of protocol, the Government is in gross breach of protocol. I quote from a memorandum from the Secretary of the Department of Immigration to the Minister for Immigration on 6 March 1959 on the subject of the Government's intention to request Her Majesty the Queen for permission to use the Royal Arms on the passport. He makes this point: One point for serious consideration, is that once the Queen gives permission to use a reproduction of the Crown for this purpose, we would be committed to its use and could hardly refrain from using it if we wished to after seeing the proof copy of the passport. So, in fact, we are committed to using the royal crown on the passport, and the Government, because of the Minister's decision, is in flagrant breach of protocol in its decision to take the crown off the passport. The third point is, of course, the matter of the Passports Committee. This information has come to me because of a request under the Freedom of Information Act for access to all records and minutes of the Passports Committee and a list of the files searched on behalf of the Committee relevant to the decision to remove the Crown of St Edward from the cover of the Australian passport. Time will not permit me to quote at any length from these, but I have here the only copy of minutes, supplied by the Department of Foreign Affairs, of the Passports Committee, minutes of 18 December 1982 which, in their reference to the cover of the passport, make no reference whatsoever to the Royal Arms. In fact, documents provided under the Freedom of Information Act show that the Passports Committee never considered the question of the crown on the passport cover, let alone making a recommendation to the Minister. I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, to table those minutes of the Passports Committee. Leave granted. Mrs SULLIVAN —The records that I have also show that, whilst the Passports Committee paid no attention to the subject of whether or not the crown ought to be on the passport, there were two public servants who were very active on this subject and who paid very close attention to it. They are one Mr C. N. D. D'Arcy, who comes from the National Royal Symbols Section of the Honours Secretariat of the Department of Administrative Services, and one Mr K. S. Grey, Director of the Passport Policy Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, to have incorporated in Hansard an extract from a minute dated 25 November 1981 from one Mr Reay to a Mr McCarthy and Mr Grey, in which the views of Mr D'Arcy are confirmed and on which Mr Grey has annotated certain notes in relation to Mr D'Arcy's views. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I remind the honourable member that it is customary for only tables to be incorporated in Hansard. Mrs SULLIVAN —Time will not permit me to read these sections into Hansard. They were only extracts that are relevant. They are not tables. They are, in fact, about three paragraphs out of a very long document that I was going to refer to. I will say in summary just this, then. Mr D'Arcy and Mr Grey were very actively of the view, firstly, that the crown did not have 'any present relevance' on the passport and, secondly, that it is 'wrong these days', and that the use of the crown ought to be investigated-and I quote from this minute-'with a view to its deletion'. That is the view of Mr D'Arcy and Mr Grey. The conclusion, then, is that the Foreign Minister and Senator Gareth Evans representing him in the Senate have misled Parliament. Secondly, I remind the Parliament of the memorandum of Mr Heyes, that having obtained royal approval to use the crown on the passport, the Government is obliged to reinstate it on to the Australian passport forthwith. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(1.53) —We have moved from the sublime heights of a discussion of genetic engineering, to the royal coat of arms, and to the ridiculous Premier of Queensland. I am going to descend even lower than that and discuss a more basic issue. This is called a grievance debate and I believe it is most appropriate that here I express the grief of those people in this country of ours, the so-called lucky country, who are deprived of what should be an essential in this day and age-sewerage. I referred to this subject in my maiden speech and said that I would attempt to elaborate at a later date on some of the problems suffered by people who are without that basic facility. Never in this House have I heard anyone-I have been a member for only a short time, admittedly-mention the word 'sewerage'. That is fair enough, I guess, because I suppose there is not one member of this House who does not live in sewered premises. But, out there, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are without sewerage. I know that it would be quite ridiculous to try to extend sewerage to isolated farmhouses and things of that nature. But what I am urging is that this Government and this Parliament give serious attention to those people who live in urban areas where there are quite dense population gatherings and who are totally without any sewerage. What does it mean if one does not have sewerage? It means this: One has to make do with a pan service, or one has to have a septic system on one's premises. The costs of this are quite tragic. The simple fact of the matter is that, in financial terms alone, there are pensioners who are paying quite extravagant costs for a pan service; and then if people try to put in a decent septic system, they spend up to $7,000 or $8,000 in some cases because of the nature of the soil. That is just an incredible expense and, of course, it is an unfair imposition. Also, we should consider the cost as far as health is concerned. Honourable members will understand the diseases which emanate from those places which are without sewerage. I believe that all of us here would recognise that the lack of sewerage is a problem. I mentioned in my maiden speech where the responsibility lies. I am glad that some Opposition members recognise the problem. For years and years some people have been without sewerage-then, for one brief moment, they had a period of hope. That was when the national sewerage scheme was introduced. But now, of course, that has gone by the wayside. There is some Commonwealth funding provided for sewerage, but it goes straight to the States and it is nowhere near enough. We must face the fact that local governments cannot be responsible for the provision of sewerage because they do not have the finances. The State governments do not have sufficient finance. So it must be recognised that the responsibility for sewerage extension resides with the Commonwealth Parliament. I have talked about the disgraceful performance of the Fraser Government in torpedoing a national sewerage program, but I cannot be very proud of the performance of this Government, really, because it seems that sewerage is a dead issue; and it should not be a dead issue. Mr Cunningham —It is on the nose. Mr FITZGIBBON —That is it. When one gets up in the Parliament and talks about a national disgrace, a national problem, it is a great area for people to develop jokes about. But when people call one out to their premises when there has been rain about and one has to lift the legs of one's trousers to walk around in transpiration areas, it is not a very delightful exercise. It is something to which somebody in this Parliament should give his attention. In the remaining time available to me, I make the suggestion that some thought be given to spending unemployment grants on the extension of sewerage facilities. I know that sewerage extensions would involve a fair amount of money on material content. That is true. But there is also a heavy labour content in the provision of sewerage, and rather than spend all our unemployment grants on some things which have no permanence and no real value in a lasting sense, we would be far better off bringing sewerage to those urban areas which lack that essential facility. Another matter to which this Parliament should give its attention is this: The fact is that villages in urban areas which are situated inside water board areas are disadvantaged. In New South Wales, for instance, if a town is without sewerage, all it has to do is get its name on the list and wait for, say, a maximum of seven years, and then the State Government's sewerage assistance scheme comes to its aid and that little town is sewered. What is happening, of course, is that small villages in country areas are being sewered-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer him to an answer the Prime Minister gave to a question based on the premise that, for the Queensland industrial dispute to be resolved, there would need to be a change in the Queensland legislation. The Prime Minister answered: No that assumption is not necessarily correct because the matter I believe could be resolved without the repeal of the laws. I mean you can have legislation on the statute book which is not implemented. I ask the Minister whether he believes that laws properly instituted and on the statute books should not be enforced against the trade union movement thereby placing the trade union movement above the law. Mr WILLIS —The question of the enforcement of law is a matter not just for the Government but for other persons. I take it that this question is directed to the Trade Practices Act. Certainly there have been many threats flying around that the use of the Trade Practices Act-- Mr Peacock —He said that the Queensland legislation does not have to be repealed. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Peacock —The Queensland legislation does not have to be repealed. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr WILLIS —There have been many threats flying around about the use of the Trade Practices Act by-- Mr Peacock —It is the Queensland legislation, not the Trade Practices Act. Mr WILLIS —Mr Speaker, are you going to let-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Peacock —My goodness! I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. In terms of relevance of answers, the Minister said: 'I make the assumption that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Trade Practices Act'. I was thereby entitled to respond to the assumption that he had given voice to by saying that the assumption was wrong. I ask you to withdraw your warning. Mr SPEAKER —Order! No, it is not a ruling. The Leader of the Opposition has been warned. He asked his question. The Minister has the call to be heard by the House and he should do so without interruption. Mr Peacock —Are you not withdrawing the warning? Mr SPEAKER —No, I am not withdrawing the warning. I call the Minister. Mr WILLIS —The question was very broadly based and capable of varying interpretations. I cannot read the honourable member's mind. I repeat that the Trade Practices Act is open to those affected by secondary boycotts to take action under the law. The law is there and can be used by them. But I think it would inflame the situation enormously if that were to take place. It has certainly not been the Government's policy to support the use of the Trade Practices Act. The Government has sought to amend the Trade Practices Act to take out section 45D. We believe that that would be in the interests of better industrial relations in this country. But, nevertheless, while the law is there it is open to employers to use it; regrettably, that is still the case. Let me say that, with respect to the Queensland legislation, as the Prime Minister has said, it is not necessary to have that amended to settle the dispute in terms of preventing industrial action. The basic issues which would prevent the extension of industrial action do not involve the amendment of the legislation, desirable though that may be. The absolutely basic issue in this dispute is the re-instatement of the sacked South East Queensland Electricity Board employees. I believe that that issue can be addressed separately from the issue of the legislation. I believe that, if that issue were addressed directly by the Queensland Government in consultation with the trade union movement, which would have been possible in the format that we proposed to the Queensland Government, resolution of this whole matter would be achieved. There would be no blockade and no industrial action and there would be resolution of the dispute at least to the point where rational discussion could then go on about the Queensland legislation. But the rejection of that means that there is no possibility of that occurring and we face a blockade which apparently is desired by the Queensland Government. Mr CROSS —I address my question on the same subject to the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister: Does the Government see any prospect of settlement of the Queensland power dispute short of the repeal of the anti-union legislation recently pushed through the Queensland Parliament? Mr HAWKE —The question from the honourable member for Brisbane is indeed extremely appropriate following the question that was directed by the Leader of the Opposition to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. What was the essence of the approach by the Leader of the Opposition and the interjections from those opposite? It is that we have a case in Queensland where the law must be obeyed, where there is a majesty about the law; it must be obeyed, and, if a party to the dispute is not obeying the law, that party is to be condemned. It is about time that the rank hypocrisy and the double standards of the Premier of Queensland in this matter were exposed. Here is the alleged standard of the Premier of Queensland. I will read from the Queensland Daily Sun of 12 April. What is his standard when he talks about obeying the law here? He said: If the blockade goes ahead it will contravene existing Federal law and the Constitution itself . . . Those were his words on 12 April 1985. He said: 'You must not take this action because if you do it will contravene the Federal law and the Constitution'. Let us examine the standards of this man. Let us find out whether he is a hypocrite. I take the House to a former stand by this same gentleman, the Queensland Premier. Let us see what he had to say about adhering to the law and to the Constitution. I quote from the Australian of 7 February 1984. It makes very interesting reading because the question then related to whether the Queensland Government would abide by the Federal law in respect of Medicare deductions. But let us remember what he said this month: If the blockade goes ahead it will contravene existing Federal law and the Constitution itself. But what did he say in February 1984? He is reported in the Australian as follows: 'We know the ramifications, we know the background', he said. 'We're thinking about how we can scuttle the Medicare ship. He was unconcerned if Queensland's refusal to levy the 1 per cent Medicare charge was illegal or unconstitutional. There we have it. This is a defender of the law and the Constitution. This Premier has said: 'You cannot go ahead with this blockade because it will be illegal and unconstitutional'. Yet this same man, one year ago, said that he would deliberately set about scuttling something set up under Federal legislation and he did not care whether it was illegal or unconstitutional. Surely the time has come when the people of Australia have had enough of this rank hypocrisy from this man who has tried to divert attention from his own economic incompetence. I will repeat the offer that I have made before on behalf of this Government which was elected on the basis essentially of wanting to bring into industrial relations the processes of conciliation, consensus and dialogue and of trying to get disputes settled by discussion. What sticks in the throats of those opposite is that this process has worked. They know that we have a better industrial relations situation in Australia than we have had for 17 years. The time has come for an end to the hypocrisy of the Premier of Queensland. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot in February of 1984 say: 'I do not care if I break the law, if I break the Constitution' and then 12 months later come along and be a defender of the law and of the Constitution. We have had enough of those double standards. The time has come for the Queensland Premier to accept the reasonable offer put on behalf of the Federal Government. Everyone knows that, if we sit down and negotiate with the two governments and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the dispute can be resolved. It will never be resolved while the Premier goes ahead with this confrontationist hypocrisy. Mr SHACK —Has the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations consulted with the 51 companies on the Australian Council of Trade Unions hit list? Has he discussed with those companies how the Government may best protect them against the ACTU guerrilla campaign, or does he believe that companies going about their business do not need protection against the destructive behaviour of his former employer-or is it current boss-the ACTU? Mr WILLIS —I have spoken to some of the leaders of companies which are involved in the ACTU list of companies to be attacked with industrial action. I must say that I did not find a great deal of support for the Opposition's attitude in this whole matter in what they had to say to me. Mr Howard —Tell us which ones. Mr WILLIS —I will not tell the honourable member which ones. I will not breach confidences by saying what companies or whom I spoke to. I just say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as a matter of fact that that is the situation. I think there is great concern amongst the companies involved about the actions of the Queensland Premier. The Opposition ought to be doing a bit of talking to these companies. The honourable member for Tangney in particular ought to be doing a bit of talking and finding out a bit about industrial relations. I believe that business leaders in this country are greatly concerned about the actions of the Queensland Government. They know, as everyone in this House knows, that the Queensland Premier was given almost everything by the trade union movement in terms of an offer of what it would agree to so long as there was reinstatement of the South East Queensland Electricity Board linesmen. That is the case. The Premier had about 95 per cent of a deal. If the Premier of Queensland simply wanted to have restoration of sound electricity supply in Queensland he had all of that offered to him. All he had to do was to re-employ the sacked linesmen. That was the basic point. The Premier has rejected a deal which gave him 95 per cent of what he was after. If he wants 100 per cent, obviously there will be a tremendous amount of difficulty in getting it. However, presumably that is what he wants. I would think that any operator in industrial relations would say that the deal that the Queensland Premier could have achieved in terms of guaranteeing electricity supply and having a system of industrial relations operating in his electricity authorities in Queensland was extremely good. The union movement was prepared to bend over backwards to make concessions to him so long as the sacked employees were re-employed. That has not been the Premier's position. He wants a total, complete victory, one in which he demonstrates total authority and in which he refuses to re-employ people who have lost their jobs. I believe that is a matter of enormous concern. The maniacal desire for a complete victory on the part of the Queensland Premier is causing great concern among business leaders throughout this country, as it is to this Government. If the Opposition were to spend more time talking to business leaders and if it were to use its influence on the Queensland Premier to get him to see reason it would realise, as I suggested yesterday, that perhaps it would be doing the best thing on behalf of business leaders in this country. Mr LEE —Can the Treasurer advise the House whether the latest national accounts figures produced by the Australian Statistician support the Opposition's claim that the Australian economic recovery is stalling? Mr KEATING —I am very happy to be able to report that the figures do anything but support the Opposition's claims about the economy stalling. In fact, they confirm the underlying strength of the domestic recovery, which included a growth in the calendar year of 1984 for non-farm gross domestic product of 5.1 per cent, compared with a growth in non-farm gross domestic product in 1983 of 2.6 per cent and, in 1982 of 0.9 per cent. So there has been a very healthy change from 0.9 per cent to 2.6 per cent to 5.1 per cent for a non-farm gross domestic product. Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —Mr Speaker, do I get some protection against those clowns over there? Mr SPEAKER —Order! Not only are the interjections too persistent but also the level of conversation is too high. Mr KEATING —So growth last year for non-farm GDP was 5.1 per cent. In respect of the December quarter the non-farm figure was 1.4 per cent and for GDP it was a strong 1.2 per cent. Of course, if we were comparing those figures-we often see the American figures published for quarters, they call their flash figure-there would be a figure of 5.6 per cent for non-farm growth for the December quarter. I might add that I was very gratified to see the Deputy Leader of the Opposition today acknowledge the very good economic news contained in the national accounts for December. I note, though, that during the election campaign-these figures are a record of the period of the election campaign-both he and his Leader were saying that both the Prime Minister and I were beating up the news-- Mr Howard —You certainly were on interest rates, weren't you? Mr KEATING —When we were saying that the Budget forecasts-- Mr Howard —You certainly were on interest rates. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr KEATING —For growth would be achieved-- Mr Howard —Well, if he is engaging in dialogue, I can reply. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr KEATING —What we found today is that, in fact, we were not beating up any news. The December quarter accounts confirm-- Mr Howard —You were beating up interest rates. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr KEATING —The December quarter accounts confirm the strength of the economy, which the Prime Minister and I both pointed to. We also find in today's accounts that the underlying rate of inflation is down. The GDP implicit price deflator records a figure of 0.7 per cent. The consumption deflator records a figure of 1.1 per cent, which is the lowest since the December quarter of 1972. Private consumption is running strongly at 1.1 per cent. Of course, the recovery is showing every sign of broadening into the private sector. In regard to the fundamental question of real unit labour costs, the accounts record an index figure of 101.6, which is now akin to the average figure which obtained between 1966 and 1967, and 1972 and 1973, which is a long way down from the figure of 108.4 which obtained in the six months to December 1982 under the former Government. I mention also in respect of profits that in the six months to December 1984 the figure as a share of GDP was 15 per cent, up from 12.2 per cent in the six months to 1982. So the developments in the economy obviously support the Government's budgetary stance for 1984-85. The Budget policy mix for 1984-85 has again been vindicated. The partial indicators we have already for the March quarter for retail sales, new motor vehicles, and private business investment expectation all point not only to a good outcome in respect of 1984-85 in line with the Budget forecast but also to a very healthy 1985 situation. Mr MOORE —I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to the Prime Minister's letter to the Queensland Premier of 13 April in which he stated that the actions taken by the Queensland Government would be 'likely to seriously undermine our international standing with overseas investors and trading partners'. I ask the Minister: What impact will the Australian Council of Trade Unions organised blockade and hit list have on-to quote the Prime Minister's words-'our international standing with overseas investors and trading partners'? Mr KEATING —It is quite obvious that the behaviour of the Queensland Government can have no good effect on the Australian economy in the eyes of international investors. Members of the Opposition kid themselves if they think the business community is in any way duped by the behaviour of the Queensland Government or the Opposition's stupid behaviour in this House in trying to imply that the business community is in sympathy with Queensland on the confrontation which is being mounted against the trade union movement. The business community is quite aware of the fact that Queensland is dragging its feet in terms of the economic recovery of Australia and it is quite aware of the fact that the coal mining industry, which is part of the backbone of Queensland, has been taxed almost out of competition in markets by the Queensland rail levies and freight levies. The Opposition should not get starry eyed about the business community having sympathy for the Queensland Premier or his Government; it does not. The business community has no respect for the Opposition's attitude to industrial relations. It looks at the rest of the nation's results in output, growth, investment, industrial relations and industrial peace, which are the things that matter. It will not help Australia's position abroad to have the Queensland Premier and his Government behaving in this way. I am sure that investors have already noted the behaviour of conservative governments in Australia, including the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory's confiscation policy in the Northern Territory and the industrial vandalism by the Queensland Government. It is earning them no respect at all. If the Opposition wants to play a decent and constructive role in this Parliament, I suggest it does as the Prime Minister enjoins it to do, and that is to exercise pressure on the Queensland Premier to get this dispute resolved so that we do not suffer in the eyes of international investors. Mr CLEELAND —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of claims that improvements in the Australian labour market are largely attributable to the expansion of the public sector? Can he inform the House whether the final labour force figures for February throw any light on this issue? Mr WILLIS —It is a fact that figures published today for employment on an industry basis for the month of February show that there has been a very strong growth in employment in the private sector over the year to February. Honourable members opposite, and others, have been claiming that employment growth has been substantially in the public sector. Those claims have been refuted by these figures. Growth in industries in the public sector-that is, electricity, gas, water, communications, public administration, defence and community services-has accounted for 53,000 jobs out of a growth of 210,000. A growth of 25 per cent in employment over the year to February has been in those public sector dominated industries. Accordingly, 75 per cent of the employment growth has been in industries which are overwhelmingly private sector. In the construction industry there was a growth of 57,000, or 13.7 per cent; in the wholesale and retail trades there was a growth of 48,000; and in recreational, personal and other services there was a growth of 24,500. The manufacturing industry, which has been through very tough times and suffered a substantial decline in employment in the last couple of years of the previous Government, has now recovered. In the last 12 months it has shown a growth of 24,500, or 2.2 per cent. Certainly that is below the other sectors, but at last it is showing an employment growth. We are very encouraged by the fact that the Government's objective of ensuring that the economic recovery spreads to the private sector has been clearly seen to be the case. The national accounts figures show that; the employment figures show that; and we now have the picture that employment growth between the public and private sectors is moving in line with their proportions of total employment. There is not bias towards the public sector in the employment growth. It is moving simply in line with its proportion of overall employment-about one-quarter-and the same goes for the private sector. I am sure that as the economy continues to recover and we move into the phase of strong private investment, we will continue to see strong employment growth in the private sector. Mr IAN CAMERON —I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to his statement yesterday that if the Queensland Government changes its course 'there would be no so-called company hit list and there would be no blockade'. I ask the Minister: Why is the dependence of his Government on the Australian Council of Trade Unions so absolute that he is driven to attack the attempts of a democratically elected government- Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr IAN CAMERON —I must say, I have never been so proud to be a Queenslander. At long last we have a Premier who will stand up to the bully boys in this country. Why does the Minister attack the attempts of a democratically elected government to protect the rights of citizens to essential services? That includes the citizens of Maranoa. Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I appreciate that the honourable member for Maranoa has been subject to considerable interruption. I invite him now to complete his question. Mr IAN CAMERON —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased that you are on my side for a change and not against me as usual. Mr SPEAKER —I would suggest to the honourable member for Maranoa that he withdraw that reflection on the Chair. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I withdraw. Why does the Minister defend union lawlessness, union blockades and union power? Is this due to the accord, is it due to the ACTU's financial contribution to the Australian Labor Party, or is it that this Government just does not know right from wrong? Mr WILLIS —The basic assumption of the honourable member's question, that there is a democratically elected government in Queensland, is on the face of it quite ridiculous. Not only has the Queensland Government pursued a gerrymander for years, but it has just pursued a further one. In the dying stages of the session of Parliament the Government put through a further gerrymander of the electorates in that State to try to ensure that it is re-elected next time. The question of democratic rights, which the honourable member raised in his question, is very much at issue in this whole matter. The democratic rights of the people of Queensland to elect the government of their choice are denied by the Queensland Government in refusing to allow them to have their boundaries on which they might make such a democratic choice. The rights of the people of Queensland to undertake peaceful protest have for years been subject to unfair limitation, and that has been greatly exacerbated in recent days by the laws in regard to picketing. The actions in relation to the trade union movement are so horrendous as to constitute a total offence against a number of international conventions and covenants. I believe that the question of democracy in Queensland is a very important issue indeed. We would make a great start in getting democracy in Queensland if we had a democratic government in that State. I hope that in the near future it will achieve one, but it certainly will not be one led by the present Premier. Mr BILNEY —My question, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, relates to the issue of sporting contacts with South Africa. Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the Government's attitude towards the decision recently taken by the New Zealand Rugby Union to go ahead with an All Blacks rugby tour of South Africa? Mr HAWKE —As I said at a Press conference yesterday, I applauded the valiant attempts of the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr Lange, to dissuade the New Zealand Rugby Union from going ahead with the proposed visit to South Africa. I regret very much indeed-- Mr Ian Cameron —What about Queensland? Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Maranoa. Mr Ian Cameron —Well, he cannot go to Queensland. Mr SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for Maranoa. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the honourable member for Maranoa be suspended from the service of the House. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.34) —Mr Speaker, in the light of the proceedings this afternoon and the two warnings you gave, I suggest that it might be appropriate if the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) were given a chance to withdraw the remarks. I believe that the nature of the proceedings is getting to the point where the Opposition is most concerned. Two warnings have been given to an honourable member on this side of the House, with very little notice, and none to the Government, and we are most concerned at the conduct of proceedings. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party knows that the traditional procedure is to ask that a member cease to interject, then to warn him, then to name him. Members on both sides of the House have been asked to cease interjecting. I have shown the honourable member for Maranoa considerable tolerance not only today but on other days. I cannot withdraw the naming. Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There can be no point of order on this question. A division having been called for and the bells being rung- Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Speaker, may I ask a question with your indulgence? Are you under instructions from the Prime Minister? Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member wishes to reflect on the Chair in that manner, he will be dealt with after this matter is dealt with. The House divided. Question put. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Child, J. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C. Darling, E. E. Macphee, I. M.Jones, Barry McGauran, P. J.Hurford, C. J. Dobie, J. D. M.Bowen, Lionel Carlton, J. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Maranoa is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. The honourable member for Maranoa thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr HAWKE —I was saying on behalf of the Australian Government how much we regret the decision of the New Zealand Rugby Union to go ahead with the tour to South Africa. We express that regret because we are particularly conscious at this time of the outrageous violence against black funeral marchers and protesters in South Africa. The New Zealand Rugby Union can only give comfort to an obnoxious regime, to the supporters of apartheid, and it will exacerbate racial tensions in South Africa. The tour can lead only to further violence. In that context I wish to make an observation about the proposal, or suggestion, that there might be a tour by some Australian cricketers to South Africa. I would hope that, having been made aware of the Government's firm and principled position on this matter, having been made aware of the position of the Australian Cricket Board, and perhaps having themselves thought more deeply about the issue, any Australian cricketers who are in the position of having signed a contract will have second thoughts about it. I make this undertaking, which might be of some help to those people in that position: If they have signed a contract and are now having second thoughts about it, the Government will be ready to assist, should there be any suggestion of legal action against them for the breaking of such contracts. Mr SLIPPER —My question understandably is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. As a Queensland member, I ask the Minister to advise the House of the effect of the illegal Australian Council of Trade Union blockade, condoned by the Labor Government, on the functioning of Commonwealth instrumentalities and the services they provide to the people of Queensland? What action has the Government taken to minimise the impact of this illegal blockade on the functioning of its own instrumentalities and the services they provide to Queenslanders? Mr WILLIS —Let us get this point straight. In contradiction of the point made by the honourable member in his question, it is not the case that we have condoned the industrial action. In fact, I have said in this House several times this week that we do not condone the industrial action that is being taken. Regarding the specific part of the honourable member's question, I am not aware at this stage what action, if any, is proposed by Commonwealth Government employees. If any such action is undertaken, we will pursue that matter in the ordinary way. That is, when we understand what the industrial action is we will deal with it by the normal processes of dealing with an industrial dispute. At this stage I am not aware of any proposed stoppages by Commonwealth Government employees. Mr GEAR —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of claims being made that Medicare does not pay benefits to women treated under the in vitro fertilisation program but does pay benefits for legal termination of pregnancy? In view of these statements, can the Minister tell the House what benefits can be claimed from Medicare or from private health funds by patients on the in vitro fertilisation program? Are there any plans to extend this cover and are any drugs used in the IVF program available on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme? Dr BLEWETT —In relation to termination of pregnancy, there are certain procedures which have been on the medical benefits schedule list for many years and which were covered previously by private insurance and are now covered by Medicare. I remind the House that some years ago a bipartisan decision of this Parliament decided that those benefits should continue. Mr Goodluck-It was not bipartisan. Dr BLEWETT —All right, let me make the point quite clear. It was decided by a free vote of the Parliament that those procedures should remain covered by medical benefits in this country. In relation to in vitro fertilisation, insofar as any hospital accommodation requirement is needed by people being treated in an IVF program, it will be covered either by Medicare or by private hospital benefits. The hospital side is covered in that way. Secondly, there are many medical procedures involved in the IVF program which are already on the medical benefits schedule and of course they are all covered by Medicare benefits. That constitutes about 60 per cent of those costs. However, there are certain laboratory procedures in relation to in vitro fertilisation which are not covered by medical benefits at this point. There are vexed ethical and moral issues relating to those unique procedures and until they are resolved the Government has difficulties in moving in that area. When those issues are resolved there is also the question of the best way to cover these procedures, which are mostly laboratory procedures. I have asked the Medicare Benefits Review Committee-the Layton Committee-to look into this question particularly with reference to medical benefits. It will report to me and to the Parliament on that issue. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 I present the Commonwealth Grants Commission report on tax sharing relativities 1985, volumes 1 and 2. The report was made available to honourable members during the parliamentary recess. One copy of the seven volumes of working papers of calculations and explanatory text, comprising more than 4,000 pages, which accompany the report is being made available to the Parliamentary Library for reference purposes. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 75 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, I present documents relating to the 1984 redistribution of the States and the Australian Capital Territory into electoral divisions. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Pursuant to section 10 (3) of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975 I present a two-volume report by the Commission. Volume 1 of the report concerns the investigation and consideration of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme and volume 2 concerns the shipment of wheat to Tasmania. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —For the information of honourable members I present the Industries Assistance Commission report on chemicals and plastics industries-interim report on end-use under security by-laws. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-Mr Speaker, successive governments have expressed in this House on many occasions their abhorrence of and indignation at the lethal and unjust system of apartheid practised in South Africa. Honourable members will recall that, as recently as 22 March, I vented the Government's outrage at the killing of at least 17 black South Africans by police the day before-the 25th anniversary of the infamous massacre at Sharpeville. My remarks then were wholeheartedly endorsed, I am pleased to say, by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) who speaks on foreign policy for the Opposition. The Uitenhage killings were the culmination of a series of violent clashes between black people and police in South Africa. At least 200 people were killed last year during demonstrations against apartheid. Before the Uitenhage incident, 18 people had been killed and more than 200 injured in the Crossroads disturbances. Indeed, more than 100 people have been killed by the South African authorities so far this year. Many non-white leaders have been detained. Unrest and resistance among non-white South Africans continue to grow, despite the official force arrayed against them. South Africa is unique in the most melancholy sense: It has built its very constitution on the cornerstone of racism; it has organised its very society on the basis of racism; it is defending racism by the most repressive security laws and apparatus. The South African Government's defence of this racist system has been combative and brutal. It has responded to dissent, however peaceful, with systematic repression. Instead of analysing the causes and effects of its problems, it has continued to delude itself by blaming so-called revolutionary elements, allegedly funded and directed from outside the country. In fact, there are signs that it is preparing to bear down even more energetically on non-parliamentary opposition. Church leaders and their congregations have been arrested so as to prevent their demonstrating against government actions. A three-month ban on all meetings by 29 specified organisations, including the United Democratic Front, has been imposed by the Minister of Law and Order. Fifteen black leaders and trade unionists who have been charged with treason have already been placed in detention. It is understood that a number of others are being held without charge. These actions reveal in all its ugly detail the South African Government's determination to stifle the expression of public dissent from its policies, however peaceably that dissent may be expressed. They demonstrate the emptiness of the South African Government's promises to enter into genuine and constructive dialogue with black leaders. The South African Government has now decided to abandon its immorality legislation which created so much personal tragedy inside South Africa and so much ridicule outside it. The change is welcome and it should be acknowledged. But it must also be recognised as an advance that is slight so long as the other, fundamental parts of the apparatus of racial repression remain. I am referring to such legislation as the Group Areas Act and the pass laws and the whole workday machinery of apartheid. For Australians, the continuing violence and loss of life and diminution of freedom in South Africa are matters of profound concern. We have urged South Africa in the strongest possible terms to ease racial tensions and establish dialogue with representative leaders of those who oppose its policies. Certainly, the Australian Government cannot in present circumstances accept the credibility of South Africa's professions of intent to reform the social system which is causing such division. It is this system-this fundamental denial of human rights-which is the root cause of the violence and confrontation which is tearing South Africa apart. It is apartheid which has created and is aggravating so much tension and unrest in southern Africa as a whole. For all these reasons, the present Australian Government, like its predecessor, continues to take action in a number of areas in an effort to induce the South African Government to abandon apartheid. With this policy of inducement in view, the Government conducted a broad-ranging review of all our relations with South Africa in May 1983. One result was a tightening in the conditions applied to civil aviation and sporting links between Australia and South Africa. Included in the relations examined in the review were normal commercial activities in South Africa by Australian companies. In the absence of comprehensive economic sanctions adopted by the United Nations Security Council and implemented by South Africa's major trading partners, the review led the Government to decide to permit these activities to continue, but without avoidable official assistance. In this context it was decided also that the question should be investigated whether or not a formal, voluntary code of conduct should be observed by Australian companies with commercial interests in South Africa. I wish to announce to honourable members that, as a consequence of this investigation, the Government has decided that such a scheme should be introduced. It is clearly unacceptable for any Australian company to pursue commercial activities in South Africa which might exploit the peculiar employment conditions which arise because of apartheid. Several major developed countries have voluntary, official or private, codes of conduct for the activities of their national companies operating in South Africa, for example, the European Community and Canadian codes and the Sullivan Principles in the United States of America. It has been accepted that these codes have had a moderating influence on South Africa's labour situation. The Australian Code of Conduct will bring standards for Australian companies in South Africa into line with the standards for companies operating there under the provisions of other codes. The proposed Australian Code takes account of recent developments in industrial relations in South Africa. Since 1979, following the acceptance by the South African Government of many recommendations by the Wiehahn Commission of Inquiry into Labour Relations, black trade unions have developed significantly, as has the industrial relations system in which they operate. Labour law has been rid of provisions that discriminated on the basis of race, and protection from intimidation and unfair dismissal by employers is now assured by law. Despite these statutory provisions, there are still extensive restrictions on black workers. The right to strike is still restricted, for example, and black workers are restricted by laws which fall outside the strict scope of industrial relations: Influx control laws such as the Black Urban Areas Act and the Group Areas Act. There are also provisions which disadvantage black workers in other areas, including job mobility, training, workers compensation and safety. A number of prominent trade union leaders are among those detained by the South African authorities. I must acknowledge the scepticism of some black South African activists and others about the efficacy of codes of conduct. It has been claimed that such action has, at best, an ameliorative effect on apartheid while leaving its fundamental nature and effects unchanged. These people argue that fundamental changes in South Africa can be brought about only by strong external economic pressure, such as comprehensive sanctions or disinvestment. They argue that, while such drastic action will cause short term economic difficulties for black South Africans, it is the only way to strike directly at apartheid. The Government's 1983 decision does not put Australia in a position to take such unilateral action. I must emphasise that there is no general movement by other countries to implement disinvestment or more comprehensive economic sanctions and nor has the United Nations Security Council taken such action. It should be borne in mind that, were Australia to act unilaterally in this area, as some have strongly recommended, we would only penalise ourselves with no evident impact on South Africa. Other suppliers would move into our place. To be effective, sanctions would, I repeat, have to be applied by all of South Africa's major suppliers. We believe that effective economic sanctions should be instituted by the world community, including South Africa's major trading partners, and we would implement an embargo of this nature. I am confident that the introduction of an Australian Code of Conduct will be a positive and productive action. There is some evidence that black economic power, which has been both a cause and an effect of the development of black trade unions, is still growing. Ultimately, this will have an important impact on the process of change and reform in South Africa, particularly as it affects black people. There are a number of reasons for this prospective growth in black economic power: The absolute and proportional increase in the number of blacks in the economically active population; the predominance of blacks in the work force; their upward movement to more specialised jobs; their growing consumer strength; and their continuing industrial organisation. I am sure that all Australians welcome these trends. Successive Australian governments have vigorously pursued policies to demonstrate Australian opposition to apartheid: Restriction of sporting contacts; observance of an arms embargo; and strict control of government-to-government contacts, such as official trade promotion and airline services. There is, however, no Australian requirement for Australian companies to apply any particular practices or employment standards in their business dealings with or in South Africa, although some companies may be covered by the scope of other business codes of conduct. This Code of Conduct is designed to remedy this omission and is in line with action taken by other major trading nations. An Australian Code of Conduct, attuned to the current labour situation in South Africa, will provide support for reformist political change in South Africa. The development of a distinctly Australian Code of Conduct has been a complex and lengthy process. We have tried to produce a document reflecting the Government's policy on economic relations with South Africa, the attitude of the Australian community toward South Africa, Australia's own human rights policies and legislation and recent developments in South Africa. At the same time, the Government has observed the legitimate commercial interests of Australian companies with interests in South Africa. The Australian Code of Conduct will be a voluntary undertaking to apply to Australian companies or their subsidiaries, branches or affiliates operating in, investing in or having representation in South Africa and which employ non-white personnel. The Code incorporates, in its reporting format, a requirement for companies adhering to it to report annually to the Australian Government on their compliance, which will be monitored. The Code's requirements relate to all non-white employees of Australian companies with operations in South Africa, reflecting the Government's concern about discrimination against all non-white people, of whatever racial or ethnic background. Its provisions are based on widely accepted international and domestic principles and are consistent with the basic human rights conventions of the International Labour Organisation and Australia's Racial Discrimination Act. The Government appreciates that there are those who will expect and argue that the Code should not be a voluntary but a mandatory one. However, successive Australian governments have subscribed to the principle that no other country should exercise extraterritorial legal authority extending to the operations of commercial entities functioning within Australia. All political parties have supported this position. I cite the steadfastness with which this country opposed the extension of United States anti-trust legislation to the activities of commercial entities operating in Australia. In these circumstances to insist that the Code of Conduct now proposed should be mandatory and with penalties, in the absence of mandatory sanctions adopted by the Security Council, would be inconsistent with this basic principle. Companies adhering to the Code would behave in a manner and apply standards fundamentally consistent with their legal obligations and accepted standards of social responsibility in Australia. The Code does not require companies to take action outside what can reasonably be considered normal commercial activities or industrial relations practices, nor are companies expected to breach South African laws. For these reasons the Government expects and hopes that the maximum number of companies would agree to adhere to the Code. The 'Objectives of the Code' make it clear that the application of these principles to the operations of Australian companies with interests in South Africa is to ensure that Australian companies should not exploit the peculiar employment conditions generated by apartheid. The operative paragraphs of the Code itself are self-contained and cover the significant aspects of apartheid which can affect companies in their commercial activities. The provisions are comparable with those of other codes while taking into account subsequent developments in South Africa, such as the acceptance of black trade unions. In outline, the Code's provisions cover the following matters: (a) General: The Code is introduced by a brief statement of the basic principle of equality of treatment irrespective of race. (b) Desegregation at Place of Work: Rejects segregation which is a particularly offensive form of racial discrimination. (c) Employment and Industrial Relations Practices: Applies the principle of equality of treatment to recruitment, employment and industrial relations practices. Particular attention is given to the development of trade unions and comparable organisations. (d) Remuneration: Applies the fundamental principle of equal pay for equal work. The provision recognises, however, that staged programs may be necessary to achieve this but insists that minimum wages must be at appropriate levels. (e) Training and Management: Extends the general principle of equality of treatment to the training and development of employees to facilitate the advancement of non-whites, who may be educationally disadvantaged because of apartheid, to senior positions. (f) Labour Restrictions: Provides guidance to companies for appropriate action to alleviate the deleterious effects of both restrictions on the free movement and residence rights of non-white South Africans and migrant labour which results from such restrictions. Because the restrictions occur outside the work place, but have direct consequences for the work force, recommended action is limited to providing advice and aid relating to legal matters. (g) Quality of Life: Takes into account the social and economic hardships imposed on non-whites in South Africa, and proposes fringe benefits and other measures which are consistent with those which a socially responsible employer in Australia would provide. (h) Monitoring: Companies' adherence to and compliance with the Code plus the reporting of these matters will be major factors in the Code's success. My Department will administer the Code, including the reporting format, the annual replies to which will provide the basis for effective monitoring. The form of the reporting format questionnaire seeks to balance the need for detailed information on the major operative aspects of the Code with the requirements for brevity, simplicity and avoidance of intrusion into the commercial activities of companies. As the Code will be a voluntary undertaking it is desirable that there be consultations with relevant Australian interest groups, prior to the Code's finalisation, in order to obtain maximum domestic support for it. This process of consultation will be undertaken by my Department, which will shortly be writing to major industry organisations, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Campaign Against Racial Exploitation to seek their views on refinements which might be introduced into the Code. Following the consultative process the Code will be widely publicised and I shall issue both general and individual invitations to Australian companies to adhere to it. The Government expects that all Australian companies with interests in South Africa will comply with the Code. It will encourage companies to pledge publicly their adherence to the Code. It believes that full adherence to the provisions of the Australian Code of Conduct will provide better living conditions for all employees of Australian companies with interests in South Africa. The Code will enhance the reputation of those companies and reinforce the effectiveness of Australian and international opposition to apartheid. The Government also intends to monitor the operation of the Code and evaluate its effectiveness as a basis for Australia exploring the possibility of bringing about world-wide adherence to its principles in a multilateral mechanism. We would look for opportunities in the United Nations, including as a member of the Security Council, to advance this policy. Finally, the Government had decided to take a further decisive step to express its abhorrence of apartheid. As a member of the Security Council, Australia may be presented with a proposal for mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa. Honourable members should know that Australia would vote in favour of such a proposal. Its motive for this policy is to try to induce the South African Government to abandon a vile and pernicious doctrine which, by forming the basis for all its actions, is leading ineluctably to national suicide and international instability. I want to conclude by dealing with a separate but related matter about which I feel very strongly: The suggestion that some Australians would be prepared to support the apartheid system in South Africa by playing cricket there. Many of our prominent athletes have announced that they would not compete against South Africa: Mark Ella in rugby and Tom Carroll and Tom Curren in surfing are honourable examples. A number of sports associations have made the same stand, such as the Australian Cricket Board and the Surf Life Saving, the Womens Bowls and the Australian Squash Racquets Associations. The Government welcomes the position of these individual athletes and organisations and respects them for it. Those who may be considering offers to play cricket in South Africa should follow their example and reject the offers. However they may try to rationalise it, their playing as Australian representatives in South Africa would be understood around the world and used by the South African authorities as an Australian endorsement of apartheid. Such terrible things have happened in South Africa in recent days, their pay for playing there would be nothing less than blood money. No material reward could compensate for the irreparable damage which association with apartheid would inflict on their honour and public respect. I agree with the sentiments of the editorial in the Age last Tuesday and with its suggestion that any cricketers who accepted such blood money should incur severe penalties from the Australian Cricket Board. What they are thinking of doing would be unworthy of any athlete representing Australia: They would be willing to trade their standing as representatives of their country to be exploited by the South African Government as propagandist symbols for all that apartheid represents. Their presence would be used by the South African Government to give some sort of respectability to a way of living based on, and thriving on, a barbarous, violent racism. The higher their pay for this, the more ashamed they should be. I could never be proud of an Australian team that included players who had so little respect for the reputation of their country. Accordingly, I present a copy of the following statement for the information of honourable members. Australian Code of Conduct for Companies with Commercial Interests in South Africa-Ministerial Statement, 18 April 1985. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House (3.11) —I move: That the House take note of the paper. I indicate that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) should be given the same time to speak as the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.12) —I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) for giving the Opposition a couple of hours forward notice of this statement. I regret that the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), has a severe viral infection, and I, therefore, have not had sufficient time to study the statement in detail which is a matter for regret on a subject such as this. But that was not the fault of the Minister's office by any means. At the outset, by way of an introductory remark, whilst we welcome the recent constitutional reforms and the decision to abandon the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act in South Australia- Mr Young —South Africa. Mr PEACOCK —In South Africa. I think I am suffering the infection rather than the shadow Minister at the moment. Mr Cohen —What about- Mr PEACOCK —I normally respond gently to interjections from the other side but the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, who has just interjected, seeks constantly to wear his morality on his sleeve. He seeks to imply that he gives strong support to the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs when near the end of it he spent the greater period of the time lying flat out on the bench trying to go to sleep. As far as I am concerned, that probably indicates the degree of support he is giving. Mr Cohen —You made that exact remark before. It is totally untrue. I followed every word that was said. Mr PEACOCK —I am sick of your moral selectivity. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment will resume his seat. Mr Cohen —I was awake every second and I followed every word he said. Don't you make such statements about me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. Mr PEACOCK —Your selective moral attitude in this Parliament is well known and you gave physical embodiment to that by the way in which you received the speech. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he is out of order if he reflects on the Minister or any member of this House. He would well know that such a matter may be raised by substantive motion only. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr PEACOCK —I was indicating that, whilst we welcomed the recent constitutional reforms and the decision to abandon the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act in South Africa, we nevertheless have grave doubts about how serious the South African Government is in instituting genuine reform and the abolition of apartheid. Both the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia have demonstrated in government their attitude and their repugnance to the policy of apartheid. The South African Government continues to defend its 37-year-old policy of apartheid-a policy which deprives blacks of the right to vote or to own land and denies equality of education and opportunity. None of this has changed with the reforms that have been made to date, welcome as they are. Insufficient governments have welcomed the reforms to date for all that there is much more to be done. No doubt the members of this Parliament regard the system of apartheid as repugnant to all freedom loving people. In Opposition we repeat our condemnation and abhorrence of it. It is a system which perpetuates intolerable injustice for the majority of residents of South Africa. I make this point in relation to the Minister's statement concerning a code of conduct for companies with commercial interests in South Africa: I note that the code is modelled on the codes of conduct already put in place by the European Economic Community, by Canada and by the Sullivan principles of the United States of America. It may well be that this code will achieve some additional pressure on South Africa. If that is the case that is to be welcomed. At this stage, from our point of view, we would have to insist absolutely that the code be voluntary in every respect. I make that point forcibly because I note that, in the Minister's statement, he possibly quite correctly refers to some in the community who would want such a code to be mandatory. The Opposition could have no truck with the view that a code should be mandatory. I would want to know that such a code, in being determined and followed in a voluntary way, would not have constant government interference and monitoring of the companies' affairs. If such a code is to be effective I wish it well, but on the basis of it being voluntary. The Minister concluded his remarks by referring to sporting contacts. I simply reiterate the Opposition's point of view that the Government, in effect, is implementing policies which were carried out by the Liberal and National parties when in government. When in government we signed the Gleneagles Agreement and our commitment to it remains, as I have said on this issue outside the House on frequent occasions. However, there is one area of concern that I have with the Minister's statement. For all that I am giving a brief response to his statement now and for all that he was only foreshadowing the question of the United Nations action, I wish to make the following point clear: The Minister, in a relatively brief reference, has indicated that, through our membership of the Security Council, we may be called upon to vote on a question of economic sanctions in respect of South Africa. I have to say on behalf of the Opposition that we cannot agree with economic sanctions being imposed on South Africa. I believe that the vote the Minister has foreshadowed will, in reality, be a meaningless gesture. The United States Administration has made it clear that it is opposed to mandatory economic sanctions on South Africa and it would veto any such proposal. As a result, any such vote by Australia would have little or no effect on Australian trade and investment in South Africa. But the statement of intention cannot be allowed to go without further comment. The Opposition does not believe that the imposition of mandatory economic sanctions on South Africa is appropriate or that it would contribute to the destruction of apartheid. Rather than contributing to the destruction of apartheid, it would unquestionably severely damage-to the extent that the sanctions would work-the economic well-being of the very people we want to help. It is those impoverished elements in the community who, in these circumstances, suffer a great deal more. I want the Minister to understand that I am not engaging in a disagreement with him on this issue, as he would know, for the political purpose of wanting to distance the Opposition from the Government. I do not want to do that. Wherever parties can indicate a similar view in these sorts of areas they should do so and I think that is welcome in the field of foreign relations. Equally, having examined the situation, it ill becomes political parties to go along with their opposite number purely for the sake of it. I really do believe that support for economic sanctions will not work and, as I say, they may well impact on the very persons one wishes to help-in this set of circumstances the black community in South Africa. I think that it will have an impact not only on their economic well-being but perhaps on their political well-being. I do not rule out economic sanctions in all cases. I have been a participant in governments that have called for sanctions from time to time, but in this instance of foreshadowing support for a United Nations resolution in the Security Council to impose economic sanctions, I indicate that the Opposition cannot go along with the Government in that regard. I believe that it may lead to an even more oppressive and determined minority regime in South Africa. It would certainly strengthen the hands of the men of violence on both sides of the political spectrum in South Africa. For those brief reasons at this juncture, I am unable to lend support on behalf of the Opposition to the foreshadowed vote by the Government in the Security Council. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr COHEN —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr COHEN —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) made a remark that during the speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) I was asleep. I was not asleep; I was stretched out on the bench. Mr Deputy Speaker, I came in specifically to listen to the speech because of my long interest in the subject, as you well know. I followed every word of the Minister. I was stretched out. I was not asleep. The Leader of the Opposition interjected when I said 'Hear, hear', and then repeated that claim in his speech. I resent it very much, particularly on a subject which is so dear to my heart. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(3.24) —It is a great pleasure for me to rise in support of the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). There are two reasons for that. The first is a political reason, and that is to note the element of bipartisanship that is already evident in this debate on the Minister's statement. I believe it is to the eternal credit of the Fraser Government that it supported the policies of the Whitlam Government towards South Africa, and indeed-as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has pointed out-developed those policies further in respect of sporting contacts. The second reason why I support the statement is a personal one. In 1972, when the Whitlam Government came to office, I happened to be the Australian representative on the Special Political Committee at the United Nations General Assembly. On that occasion, as many honourable members here will recall, there was a marked change in Australian policy from that which had been followed by the McMahon Government and its conservative predecessors on the question of apartheid in South Africa. So much was that so that I was able in the space of two days, between 2 December and 4 December, to register a change in the Australian Government's voting position before the United Nations on a number of questions relating to apartheid. So it is a matter of great personal pleasure to me that the policies the Whitlam Government adopted have remained the position of successive Australian governments since that time. The statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs is a timely one in view of recent developments in South Africa and in the international community, and I would like to refer to several of those developments now. The first has already been mentioned by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, namely, the tragic massacre at Uitenhage in which 19 people died. That massacre took place on the twenty-fifth anniversary of perhaps the most infamous event in the history of apartheid, namely, the Sharpeville massacre. The second event, to which reference has been made in Question Time earlier today, was the decision of the New Zealand Rugby Football Union to send an All Blacks rugby team to tour South Africa. I think all members of this Parliament would hope to see that decision reversed. In my view, it cannot lead to anything but bloodshed and violence. It is very much out of step with other Commonwealth countries which are signatories to the Gleneagles Agreement and is very much out of step with the stance taken by other Western members of the United Nations on the question of sporting contacts with South Africa. One can only hope, as has been mentioned, that Australian cricketers will not lend their support to the pernicious regime in South Africa by agreeing to undertake a tour, whether for money or for any other reason. The third development is the recent constitutional changes in South Africa, which the South African Government has gone to great lengths to present as a major reform. The Australian Government does not take that position. Indeed, we have explicitly rejected those arrangements as being a sham. They give to the black majority of South Africa no share of power at the national level. They continue to consign the black majority to the economically and demographically unviable homelands, as they are called. In short, they are a facade which is designed simply to deflect pressures for meaningful reform in South Africa. A couple of other developments may be regarded by some as being more encouraging. One of those is the development since 1979 of a genuine freedom on the part of black workers to organise in South Africa. Under the provisions of the South African Labour Relations Act non-white trade unionism has come into existence and is growing strongly. It is also true that the rudiments at least of an industrial relations system which would be comprehensible outside South Africa have been brought into being. Having said that, it is the case that major restrictions still exist on the freedom of black workers to organise in South Africa, not least those which are imposed by the pass laws and the residence laws. It is not much help being able to organise if a person is not allowed to live in the place where he works, where his job mobility is affected, where his education has to be conducted in a segregated fashion, where workers compensation arrangements are markedly different between the black and the white communities, and where there are other restrictions which affect every aspect of daily life. The final development I refer to is the intended repeal of the Mixed Marriages Act and of section 16 of the Immorality Act, which most honourable members here will know forbids either marriages or sexual contact between the races. It has been argued that this could be a step in the right direction and possibly a start-in what is obviously a very important field-towards undermining the whole structure of apartheid. But is is probably nearer the mark to take the view that the Melbourne Age does today. I will quote from the editorial in today's Melbourne Age: The tragedy of South Africa's announced reform of its sex laws is that, like color, it may only be skin-deep: The hard rock of apartheid at present remains untouched. One would like to believe that this was a step on the road to genuine reform. But as an article by James Smith today headed 'Sex law change: progress or ruse?', points out, if mixed couples are allowed to marry how do they get around the existing structure of apartheid, if under the residence laws, one person has to live in one part of the country and another has to live in another part of the country, if their education and amenities have to be separate, if they cannot go together to a film, to the theatre, to the beach, or travel on a train together? These so-called reforms seem to me to be not so much the harbingers of further change as a ruse designed to distract attention from the structure of apartheid. These and other developments leave virtually untouched the basic and all-pervading structure of the system of racial discrimination called apartheid. They leave a situation in which South Africa remains the only country which explicitly enshrines racism in its constitutional provisions and in its structure of government. As the recent tragic events that I have referred to demonstrate, apartheid is a root cause of violence and confrontation in that country, and more widely than just in South Africa. Until that cause of tension and distrust is removed, there will never be a prospect for real peace in that region of the world. In general, the actions of that Government in recent times have merely served to institutionalise the structure more firmly. The system of apartheid is quite rightly abhorred by the Australian Government and, perhaps more to the point, by the Australian community as a whole. I remind the House that our Australian community is built, socially, legally and in all other respects, on the acceptance of cultural and ethnic diversity and on the practical Christian principle that we are all equal, regardless of the colour of our skin, the language we speak or the religious beliefs we may profess. The doctrine of apartheid is similarly abhorred by the international community since it involves systematic discrimination at every level. It affronts the internationally accepted standards of human rights which are enshrined in such instruments as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Together with the Minister, I believe that the maintenance of the system of white supremacy in South Africa is leading inexorably, and it now appears tragically quickly, to widespread violence, destruction of life and to a major threat to peace in southern Africa and, possibly, more widely. Consistent with that stance, Australia has taken a number of anti-apartheid measures, which have commanded the support of all parties in this Parliament, designed to bring pressure on South Africa to bring about fundamental changes in the system of apartheid. They include the matter of sporting boycotts, to which reference has already been made. They also include tightened restrictions by this Government on visits by apologists for apartheid or by South African office holders. They include, naturally, the prohibition of sales of arms to South Africa and-again something which has taken place since this Government came to power-the encouragement of visits to Australia by prominent opponents of apartheid. I am thinking here of Bishop Tutu, the Nobel Peace Prize winner who was in Australia recently, and Dr Allan Boesak. They also include another recent development, a scholarship program for disadvantaged black South Africans, and the granting of permission by this Government for information offices of the African National Congress and the South West African People's Organisation to be opened in Australia. Thus, the measures which have been announced today come on top of and indeed reinforce a number of other measures which have been taken to put pressure on the regime in South Africa. Reference has been made to our willingness to support economic sanctions if those are approved by the United Nations Security Council. In referring to the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition, I think he gave insufficient attention to the fact that we would engage in those sanctions along with the other major trading partners of South Africa. Perhaps he is unaware of the very great pressure within the United States Congress for more stringent sanctions to be imposed on South Africa than has been the case in the past. The United States anti-apartheid Act of 1985, which has been sponsored by Senator Kennedy and a number of other prominent figures, embodies a much stricter approach to South African sanctions. While it may not necessarily pass the United States Congress, it certainly is indicative of a growing consciousness in the United States that the present measures may well not be enough. Indeed, some quite thoroughgoing disinvestment measures have already been taken in the United States. For example, in a number of States, it is prohibited to invest pension funds in South Africa. A number of United States trade unions have taken the same position. It seems likely that this is bringing about considerable pressure for reform in South Africa. If the Opposition at present is not able to lend its support to possible measures in the United Nations, that is a retrograde step if such sanctions were likely to bring about change in the system of apartheid. It is against this background that Australia has decided to introduce a voluntary code of conduct, the provisions of which have been spelt out by the Minister, to cover the conduct of Australian companies operating in South Africa. I make the point that the purpose of this code of conduct is to ensure that the Australian companies operating in South Africa extend to their non-white employees terms and conditions which are no less favourable than those extended to white employees in South Africa. By and large, it represents a recognition that, in the particular circumstances applying in South Africa, Australian companies which operate there have social as well as commercial responsibilities and that in their day to day operations they can help to alleviate the deprivation and hardship suffered by non-white workers and their families as a result of the iniquitous system of restrictive laws and practices embodied in apartheid. It is also important to note that Australian companies are not being asked to do anything that they do not carry out in their day to day operations within Australia. They are not being asked to breach South African laws or to do anything that they would not do here. I am running short of time, but I wish to make one last mention of the bodies with which it is intended to consult in bringing this about, namely, the Australian commercial bodies such as the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Australian Chamber of Commerce, the Campaign Against Racial Exploitation, church organisations and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. CARE in particular has been active to ensure that practices which we all would like to see followed are brought to attention and I commend its efforts. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.37) —Nobody within this House supports apartheid. It is a policy which has brought very considerable suffering to so many people. Certainly, some of the horrific events which have occurred in the name of that racial policy are such that no sane-minded person would support them. I certainly endorse the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), who has outlined his response to this statement. There are several reasons why I wish to speak on this matter. The first is that it somewhat sickens me that this Government seems to pursue selective morality. There are very many countries around the world whose policies do not accord with what those of us who believe in civil liberties see as correct. For example, it is quite ludicrous that we have heard so little about what is happening in Afghanistan. We find it quite impossible that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who made this statement, is sympathetic to what is happening in Vietnam and seems to be pursuing a policy which we view with apprehension in terms of his separate intervention to try to establish some form of a peace process within Kampuchea. We apprehend that the 'hate South Africa' cause is one that he believes has more sexy, if one likes, political overtones. It concerns me that there are so many other countries in the world towards which, if we are to express moral attitudes towards racist policies, this Government might appropriately express its attitude. With respect to movements within South Africa, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, we on this side of the House welcome the abandonment of the immorality legislation and some minimal moves that there seem to be towards greater recognition of the equality of the people within that country. But, while apartheid continues, no sane-minded person would accept that the policies of the South African Government should be endorsed. Establishing this Australian code of conduct on a voluntary basis is a significant step which I believe the business world, and certainly the Opposition, would like to have an opportunity to consider carefully. While it is true that in the normal course the appropriate notice of this statement has been given to the Opposition, the issues within the establishment of a new code of conduct, involving yet more government intervention in business, are such that they need to be considered very carefully. I noticed, for example, within the Minister's statement, that there is to be a reporting format, a requirement for companies adhering to the voluntary code to report annually to the Australian Government on their compliance with the code, which will be monitored. Frankly, any intervention by this Government makes me suspicious. We already know the degree to which it has walked away from trying to assist in regard to the companies on the Australian Council of Trade Unions hit list, identified as a result of the Queensland power dispute. We see so many areas where, in the conduct of business, the sticky fingers of Labor seem to be prepared to intrude to the deprivation of the rights of the individual and the opportunities for private investment. Therefore, we are concerned that this code of conduct should be voluntary. I believe that, more appropriately, the code could have been laid on the table of the House, which would have allowed members of this place and of the business community to examine it and assess its implications so that we might know a little more than two hours consideration of a barefaced statement permits. The very nature of the new code in the conduct of companies, business in South Africa strikes me as a matter which is of profound importance, one which can barely adequately be considered in this type of brief debate on a ministerial statement. I am apprehensive. While noting, as we all did, that the Minister for Foreign Affairs referred to precedents, for example, the European Community code, the Canadian code and the Sullivan principles in the United States of America, he has suggested that the Australian code will pick up the standards set down in those codes. He has also suggested, however, that there will be some differences, making the code more relevant to Australian companies. The Australian code needs to be considered by business. I hope that if business seeks to introduce modifications to that code for valid reasons, they will be considered properly and the code modified accordingly. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned our opposition to the support the Government has indicated it may be giving to a resolution, were it to be presented to the United Nations Security Council, with respect to mandatory economic sanctions. Certainly, the members of the Opposition are concerned that those who suffer from such economic sanctions are the very people who are worst affected by the apartheid laws. It seems to us to be incongruous for the Government to lend its support to a measure which would hurt so much those people whom it purports to be representing by these new measures it has announced to the Parliament. Therefore, the Opposition says to the Government that rather than give carte blanche support to such a resolution, as it has, it would be more appropriate if it were to consider carefully the implications of the introduction of economic sanctions. It would see that they are not the way in which the racist laws in South Africa can be modified. This whole matter is one which, at a time of a decision by the New Zealand Rugby Board, has highlighted the extent to which the Gleneagles Agreement and the code set down therein are coming under increasing scrutiny. As one who for many years has been involved in rugby, I very much regret that, because of the racist laws in South Africa, the Springboks team is not able to participate in international football contests in the way that lovers of the code would wish. Nonetheless, the Gleneagles code does permit some regulation of sport interchange. I hope that it is possible at some future stage for the involvement of politics in sport to be removed. It seems to me very sad that those who have no more than their love for a particular code of sport should find that love prejudiced because of the way in which politics has intruded on it. However, the Opposition parties adhere to the Gleneagles code and, in government, would, of course, want to examine the extent to which we could encourage the South Africans in other ways to move away from their apartheid policy than by the procedures and practices that the Government has outlined in this statement today. In particular, we are concerned that there should be a recognition that, sadly, there are many countries whose laws and attitudes to democracy and civil liberties are such that they should be condemned. There are too few democracies in this world. All that can be done-not only in South Africa but also in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other countries-to modify their attitudes to human beings is something that we on this side of the House would welcome. We therefore think that to suggest that support should be given to mandatory economic sanctions within the United Nations would be a very regrettable step and certainly would be very vigorously opposed by the Opposition. Debate (on motion by Mr Humphreys) adjourned. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 43 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, I present the Australian Heritage Commission annual report for 1983-84. I seek leave to make a statement in relation to the report. Leave granted. Mr COHEN —In a speech to the Institute of Landscape Architects late last year, I announced that a review of the Australian Heritage Commission Act was to be undertaken. It is particularly fitting that I make a statement about that review in tabling the Australian Heritage Commission's annual report for 1983-84. The review will examine the Commonwealth Government's role in the conservation of the National Estate, with the word 'conservation' being used in its accepted professional sense of all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural and natural significance for present and future generations. This review will therefore examine the Australian Heritage Commission Act and its relationship to other relevant Commonwealth legislation and administrative arrangements for the conservation of the National Estate, considering their adequacy and appropriateness. Although there had been a growing public interest in environment matters in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it was not really until the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate under Mr Justice Hope that the many elements that make up our heritage were brought together under the heading of the National Estate. The specific recommendations resulting from the Hope Committee's report fell into two categories: First, actions the Commonwealth Government should take to regulate its own activities, and secondly, actions the Commonwealth Government should take to encourage the protection of the National Estate. These recommendations led to the establishment of the Australian Heritage Commission as a statutory authority under the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. As the Government's policy advisory body responsible for the National Estate, the Commission's major responsibilities are: To prepare and maintain the Register of the National Estate; to provide policy advice on heritage matters, and to develop policies and programs relating to the National Estate. Whilst the Heritage Commission has attracted its share of publicity in relation to many of the current conservation issues that feature in the headlines, I believe that two of the more important functions performed by the Commission are education and publicity about the National Estate. Probably the most publicly visible product of the Commission is the publication The Heritage of Australia, the illustrated Register of the National Estate. This magnificent volume has proven to be a best seller throughout Australia, indicating the depth of community awareness of our heritage. As a follow-up to this success, State volumes from the Register for individual States have been published, a volume on Victoria in 1983 and on Tasmania last year. I am pleased to announce that the South Australian and New South Wales volumes will be released in the near future. Other examples of the Commission's active promotion of the many facets of our heritage include: The development of a secondary school kit called 'Investigating the National Estate'; the publication of brochures about the role of the Commission and National Estate themes; exhibitions and displays; films on heritage subjects and conservation techniques, and promotion within Australia of the World Heritage Convention. I believe that such promotion of our heritage is vital if we are to continue to receive the community support we need to ensure the protection of the National Estate. As a corollary to this ongoing promotion, however, there needs to be a process for ensuring that the measures employed are effective. It is now more than 10 years since the Hope report on the National Estate and it is an appropriate time to review what has happened since then, and how effective the Government's heritage conservation measures have been. In particular the review will examine: Scope of the Commonwealth's role, including the functions and responsibilities of the Australian Heritage Commission and developments since the 1974 report of the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate. Relations with Commonwealth, State and local governments and with the private sector, including business organisations and voluntary conservation bodies. Concept of the Register of the National Estate and its operation and procedures, including criteria for inclusion in and removal from the Register. Resources, including Commonwealth, State and other. This will encompass financial assistance, such as the National Estate grants program, grants-in-aid to the National Trust, taxation measures and staffing. The review will be conducted as follows: Advertisements will be placed in the main newspapers calling for submissions from all interested persons and organisations; I will write to my Commonwealth, State and Territory colleagues and formally seek comments; and my Department will write to interested organisations-environmental, forestry, mining, et cetera-seeking their contributions. An integral part of the review will be the holding of a workshop of one or two days duration which will provide a public forum for the exchange and clarification of views about the operation of the Australian Heritage Commission. My Department will undertake the review and prepare a report for me which will also take into account the recommendations of the Hodges Committee report concerning the Australian Heritage Commission. The Hodges Committee was the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, which reported in late 1979 on the adequacy of legislation and administrative arrangements. If I remember correctly, I was a member of that Committee. I am interested in obtaining the views of all parties in the Australian community involved in the conservation of our national heritage so that development and conservation interests receive equitable and balanced consideration. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-The Opposition welcomes the decision of the Government to review the Australian Heritage Commission Act. Having read the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation relevant to these matters, which was tabled in October 1979, I draw the attention of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) to page 71 of that report. It quoted from Hansard on 22 February 1979. It stated: The Prime Minister, when announcing the review of the Act, stated that 'there were some elements of the Heritage Commission Act as originally passed which do come into conflict with other Acts and which could stand in the way of matters which have been under full environmental review'. I am somewhat nonplussed as to what became of that inquiry, and the need now in 1985 to conduct apparently a second inquiry into a very similar area. Am I to assume that the first inquiry, despite the promise, was never concluded? Nevertheless, the subject of this inquiry is important, but it must not be allowed to pass without comment. The Australian Conservation Foundation has advised the Environment and Conservation Committee of this House that it has some doubts about the manner in which the Minister proposes to conduct this inquiry. As the Minister said, the inquiry will be essentially an in-house inquiry conducted within the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, although efforts will be made, as I noted from the final page of his statement, to conduct a public forum for the exchange of information and views on the operation of the Australian Heritage Commission. I wonder, in view of the background which the Environment and Conservation Committee of this House already has on this subject, whether it would be more efficacious for this House to conduct an inquiry of this type. I note, for example, that we have already had the Hodges report, to which the Minister referred. I think there is a need for a more wide-ranging review to be conducted by an institution such as a committee of this Parliament to enable all sections of the Australian community-in particular, the business community, the States, individual heritage organisations and conservation groups-to feel that they have access to the Parliament on this subject. After all, it is a review of legislation of this Parliament, rather than access only to a department which may or may not conduct the examination to the satisfaction of all concerned. One of the key elements of the Australian Heritage Commission Act was the establishment of the National Estate grants program. In the 1982-83 annual report on this matter there were some very serious criticisms raised which I hope will be subject to examination in the context of this review. For example, the Commission stated that the program provides financial assistance for government and non-government projects aimed at identifying, protecting and preserving the National Estate. The money is provided by the Commonwealth for projects recommended by the State governments. The Commission's criticisms on this included, among other things, the lack of Commonwealth-State consultation, which was often non-existent or token; the Commission was not involved in formulating study briefs; and the grant of the funds was susceptible to unacceptable delays. For example, the 1982-83 programs for Victoria and New South Wales were signed on 21 February 1983 and 26 May 1983 respectively, but recipients did not receive advice or funds until about a month later. The Commission went on to say that States were able to veto projects; that some projects were funded with inadequate briefs or supervision; that some funded projects were outside the guidelines of the program; that it was difficult to ensure a balance between natural, Aboriginal and building environment components of the program in some States; and that there was considerable disenchantment about current program delivery amongst recipient organisations, both government and non-government. The question is whether an inquiry at this time will be able to conduct investigations and cover this very wide range of difficulties which have been identified in the application of this legislation. It is important to note the Commission's opinion that the program did not effectively protect the National Estate. It went on to state the usual problems of staffing, which I understand is certainly the situation at the present time. One of the more immediate problems the Commission appears to face is that, while it has conducted a significant number of reviews into various elements of the National Estate in recent years, they are literally gathering dust and it has not been able to achieve the ultimate objectives of the legislation. One of the weaknesses of the legislation appears to be that there is not a significant degree of distinction between what I would call items of primary National Estate importance and other items or areas in relation to the degree of protection provided to them, nor is the Commonwealth able at this stage to negotiate successfully with all the State governments. Mr Cohen —Do you mean a graduated system? Mr CONNOLLY —Yes, graduated. There are some States which have tended to resent the imposition, as they see it, of Commonwealth legislation in this area. It has been pointed out that the essential ingredients of the Act are related principally to the Commonwealth Government, not to the States, except to the degree that those States are prepared to accept it. It is worth noting that, even then, items on the National Estate are not necessarily always protected from the Commonwealth. For example, some years ago the Commonwealth Bank, in a most extraordinary action, which I can regard only as reprehensible, decided to buy and demolish what, I understand, was the first gaol in Parramatta. Very peculiar activities were conducted, including the demolition of the gaol at about 3 a.m., with the expectation that nobody would be around to see what was going on, which of course was the case. This demonstrates that the Act does not necessarily protect all items on the National Estate, it does require that Commonwealth departments under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act take these factors into account. It appears to be a possible weakness that statutory authorities-in this case, the Commonwealth Bank-are not necessarily covered to the degree that they should be. In my final observations I make the point that we are now heading towards the bicentenary. In that context, I have no doubt that the Australian heritage should be given considerable importance. It is worth pointing out that heritage is not just bricks and mortar; it is also the expression of the traditional values of our past. I was disturbed to read a letter in the Sydney Morning Herald of 30 March headed 'Past has no part in 1988 arts'. The letter referred to the bicentennial commissioning program which advertised in newspapers for artists to create on that date multi-art works of a grand scope to mark our 200 years. Of course, we do not object to that. The advertisement stated: . . . 'Preference will be given to commissionings which reflect present day Australia, or deal with the future, rather than projects which re-enact the past'. If we go down that road we tread the path to absolute absurdities. For example, Tchaikovsky would never have written the 1812 Overture because that reflected the feelings of the Russian people on the appearance of the Napoleonic armies at the gates of Moscow but it was in the past! The same principle applies to Australia's relatively short modern history of some 200 years. Our present development was sown during that short period. There is nothing to be ashamed of. There were pluses as well as minuses in terms of current community values. One thing is certain: If we are to proceed on the basis of heritage protection, let us not delude ourselves that we need to talk only about bricks and mortar; we have to protect the legacy of those past Australians who made our country what it is today. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the brumby declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House follow the example of President Nixon in the U.S.A. by declaring our wild horse protected from industry and discriminate slaughter. by Mr Bilney,Mr Blanchard,Mr Jull,Mr Price and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Scott and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cleeland and Mr O'Keefe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The Petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: (1) Imports of frozen peas from New Zealand and elsewhere have increased from 4.8% of the Australian market in 1979/80 to an estimated 20% in 1984/85-from 2.2 million kilograms to 8.0 million kilograms. (2) As a result of these escalating imports, in 1985: Growers are faced with cuts of up to 30% both in contract tonnages and prices, Hundreds of jobs in the processing industry will be lost, with many hundreds more under threat in downstream industries, Millions of dollars will be lost from sensitive regional and State economies. Your petitioners therefore request that: The Australian Government: (1) Reject the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission Interim Report on Frozen Peas that no assistance be provided to the industry. (2) Support the proposals made by grower organisations and trade unions for import restrictions and other measures of support for the Australian frozen pea industry. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond and Mr Miles. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The Petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the current Telecom Australia practice of charging STD telephone rates for telephone users living in ''outer metropolitan'' areas is unfair given that Telecom's method of determining what is an outer metropolitan area (by drawing concentric circles on a map centring on the Perth GPO) does not take into account the development of regional and subregional corridors of urban growth which are encouraged by the West Australian State Government. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the recommendations of the House of Representatives Committee on Expenditure concerning Telecom's zonal charging policies be implemented so that areas of urban growth at significant distances from the Perth GPO are not automatically classified as STD telephone areas but instead that consideration be given to the development of areas of urban growth in relation to their STD status. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth- That in the light of the Government's failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions, all relative legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jull. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of Australia respectfully show their desire that your Honourable House (The Government) act immediately to raise the Tertiary Education Assistance allowance to the level of the Unemployment Benefit. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. We call upon the Government of the Commonwealth to: 1. Reject the 'user pays' system of education and hence tuition fees in any form. 2. Abolish the overseas students charge and make a commitment to action to improve the Overseas Students Programme. 3. Publicly reaffirm its commitment to a free post-secondary education system, open to all. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. 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 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 respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That we condemn that Australia should assist the United States of America by participating in the testing of MX Peacemaker Missiles, or any similar weapons, from Australian shores. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should- 1. seek to reverse this deplorable decision and, 2. ensure that Australia's commitment to a Nuclear Free Zone in the South Pacific be maintained. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petitioner 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 Custom regulation to prohibit the importation of material that is obscene, indecent or blasphemous. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 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 remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition, (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The continuing failure of the Government to act against the ACTU's attack on the people of Queensland, and the consequences of this failure of leadership for Australia. 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 PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.04) —To put it mildly, we are on the eve of an unprecedented act of union lawlessness. The planned blockade by the Australian Council of Trade Unions of one of the States of Australia is an attack by the trade union movement on the legitimate Government of a State and on the Australians resident in that State. We are witnessing the culmination of an unprecedented dereliction of duty by a government of its responsibility to govern for all Australians in the interest of protecting the trade union officials behind it. This Government has dumped the people, dumped business, dumped principle, dumped the law and dumped its responsibility of governing. It has been a failure on all fronts. During the original power strike when the Queensland Government was forced to take action to protect its people from further disruption of essential services, the Federal Government confined itself to attacking the Queensland economy and abusing the Queensland Government. There was no word of criticism about the actions of unions that had torn up agreements, rejected conciliation and arbitration procedures and defied Industrial Commission orders. There was no criticism of the strike which cost $500m. There was not one word of criticism from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and not one word of criticism from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). When the ACTU announced its boycott of Queensland and consulted with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the Federal Government's response was to continue, as it has done today, to attack Queensland and its Premier. There was no attempt to dissuade the ACTU from its course of action. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations said: 'We can't condone industrial action'. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) made a few murmuring noises about the strike. That was the sum total of the Government's actions. On at least three occasions the Cabinet discussed the matter. Not once was it willing to take a position on the issue. It wanted the ACTU to make all the running. The Government was neither willing to intervene to stop the strike nor willing to support it publicly. In recent weeks, the collapse of the Government's credibility has proceeded. The Prime Minister telexed the Queensland Premier. It is interesting to reflect on that. He sent the Premier a telex, and it got through only because the Queensland Government ended the strike and electricity was switched back on. However, he did not telex the Electrical Trades Union of Australia and he did not telex the ACTU; he telexed the Queensland Premier. The message got through only because of the actions of the Queensland Premier. The Prime Minister told the Premier in the telex: 'It is all your fault, Premier. You, as Premier, and your Government are in breach of the International Labour Organisation conventions'. When the Premier replied that there was no breach of the ILO conventions-- Mr Willis —Do you believe him? Mr PEACOCK —Do I believe him? I paid very close heed to what the Minister said. He said that if charges were brought they would not stand up in a court of law. The Minister has equivocated so much on this issue that he is meeting himself coming the other way. The Premier replied that there was no breach of the ILO conventions and that the Prime Minister had a duty to stand behind a democratically elected government and to invoke section 45D (1) (a) and section 80 of the Trade Practices Act. What was the Prime Minister's response? There was no response. He could not handle it. He could not give a view but made further attacks on the Queensland Government. We have reminded the Prime Minister in this House that he has the power to act to protect the people of Queensland and the national interest. Again, what has he done? He has done nothing. He has merely attacked the Government and the Premier of Queensland. He has not condemned the unions for their blockade. He has not condemned the unions for their hit list of 51 companies. He has not offered assistance to businesses on the ACTU's hit list that could be adversely affected. I refer not only to the businesses but also to the tens of thousands of people who are employed by those businesses that will be hit by the decisions of trade unions. Despite repeated requests, the Government has refused even to criticise the action of the union officials. It has refused to criticise or to take action against the wildcat actions of the Transport Workers Union, a union which has been a persistent thorn in the Government's side. As for action which would protect the people of Queensland, there has been none. The Government has refused to invoke the Trade Practices Act. Despite offers from this side of the House, the Government has refused to pass the CE(EP) legislation to ensure that Commonwealth employees remain at their posts. Today, Telecom Australia workers are threatening to cut telephone, radio, television and computer links to Queensland. The Government will not even pass the CE(EP) legislation to prevent it. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is at the table, and I pose this question to him: Will these Commonwealth workers who are going to refuse to service Queenslanders tomorrow be paid by the Government? Will they be paid for their action tomorrow? Will the Minister answer that question when he gets up? Tomorrow thousands of passengers will be disrupted because the trade unions are closing Brisbane Airport, but the Government will take no action at all. It will just keep that denigration of the Queensland Government coming through. The Government is with the trade union officials on this matter and against the people and the democratically elected Government. Instead of offering a standard of leadership, the Prime Minister has confined himself to vague statements about how no side in an industrial dispute is completely right or completely wrong. I have the feeling that the union tail continues to wag, even on the drover's dog. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations will not even take the 'bob each way' approach of the Prime Minister. He will not go even that far. A month ago he said that he could not condone the action, but now he will not say even that. Yesterday the Prime Minister went one step further. He said that the Premier could keep his legislation-an interesting development-as long as it was not invoked. What law will not be invoked tomorrow? A fascinating precedent is being established by the man who poses now in the position of Prime Minister. Today he will not invoke the law against the trade unions. What will be promoted tomorrow as a law that does not have to be kept? It is a fascinating question to pose. Who is being protected by the non-implementation of legislation, to quote the Prime Minister's words? It is the trade union movement again. There is a kids' game that is played out in the community called 'Simon says'. A form of osmosis is taking over the members of this Government, and when Simon says 'Leave us alone', they leave him alone; when Simon says 'Do not implement the law', they do not want to implement the law; when Simon says 'Stand with us', they stand with Simon. 'Simon says' is the credo now of this capitulating Government that cares not one whit for the services for which it is responsible and which it should keep flowing through to Queenslanders tomorrow. Make no mistake about it. The Government will be responsible for the shutdown tomorrow of services by Commonwealth workers and it will back and fill today, it will back and fill tomorrow, because Simon says that is what it has to do. The Government has no guts, it has no principle, and it has no application of the law. It does not give a whit about the Queenslanders as long as its slate is clean with the trade union officials. As a consequence of the Government's refusal to exercise even moral leadership by criticising the trade union leaders, the Government's call not even to impose the legislation of the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Parliament is placing the trade unions above the law. The fury and the breadth of the trade union officials' reactions-- Mr Milton —You support a police state. Mr PEACOCK —I hear interjections from the little mouthpiece of the Left. Members opposite talk about civil liberties being constrained, but they should tell me where is the civil liberty in the conscription of their trade union mates in forcing everyone to join a union. They should tell me about the civil liberties of the closed shop. I was waiting for the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), the rising star of the Left, to come in because he knows that this debate will be read avidly by his henchmen in the trade union movement and more particularly by his controllers. He has to get on the record. He adopts a defiant stance, not on behalf of the people but on behalf of the trade union officials for whom he is merely a mouthpiece. This Government has abandoned any right of authority over industrial law in this country because it is not prepared to implement it. It has been trying to hide the real impact of its ties with the trade union movement for a long time. It has been trying to present itself as responsive to the interests of people, and even trying to present itself as being responsive to the interests of the business community. It has been trying to hide the irresponsibility of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Government's pretence has become threadbare over the months. Through its behaviour over this blockade, the Government has had its final fig leaf removed by the ACTU hit list. More particularly, the former President of the ACTU stands in this Parliament stripped of his prime ministerial clothes, a captive of the trade union leaders, governing not for all Australians but in the interests of trade union officials, believing that trade unions have to be put above the law. Instead of acting against union lawlessness, the Prime Minister attacks the Government of Queensland for protecting the rights of the people of Queensland to essential services. Instead of attacking and acting against the ACTU's hit list, the Prime Minister said yesterday: 'I am not in the business any more of telling the ACTU how to run its business'. The roles are reversed now and the orders are being sent through all the time in the play-out of the little game 'Simon says'. The implications for Australia of this Government's subordination to the ACTU go well beyond the damage that will be caused to the people of Queensland by a futile blockade and a futile hit list. There are the most profound implications also for Australia's international standing and reputation. Not only is the Minister not interested in that, he could not even answer a question today about the impact of this strike-for which he is responsible-on Australia's standing and the dollar. Today the dollar is worth 63c. As I have said before in this Parliament, this is a typical Labor Government. The dollar is worth 63c and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is not even the full quid. This man cannot even tell us about the impact on the dollar; he turns it aside to another Minister. What will be the effect on our economic standing internationally of the Federal Government's acceptance and tacit support of the blockade of a whole State of Australia? What will be the effect of the Federal Government's acceptance of union victimisation of individual employers on overseas investors? What will be the effect of the Prime Minister's commitment to placing unions above the law? The Government knows that the economy is balanced on a knife edge but it is prepared to dismiss any of these consequences. The reason why the Government will do nothing is the accord. I remember the apparently binding words of the accord, and I quote them to the House: Government policy should at all levels be accommodating and supportive. It sure is, but it is about time the Government became supportive of the interests of average Australians and supportive of their rights to essential services and supportive of action required to sustain economic recovery. It stands condemned for its non-action. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(4.20) — Madam Deputy Speaker, we have just listened to a diatribe from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and I can say that I agree with one thing, and that is that this a serious issue. Apart from that I can find no basis of agreement with the Leader of the Opposition. He said that this is a matter of leadership and that this Government should be providing leadership in this issue. Let me say to him that his concept of leadership is the last thing that this Government will be pursuing, because his concept of leadership would be for this Government to adopt policies which would greatly worsen the situation and lead this nation rapidly into the most horrendous industrial conflagration since the 1890s. If that is what the Opposition wants-I suppose it would be a good thing from its point of view-we should adopt its kind of approach: Get in there, do more of what the Premier of Queensland is doing, do much more union bashing and bring in some really draconian legislation. That would bring about a much worse situation than we have at present. That is why we are in the present situation-because that kind of legislation has been adopted, that kind of union-bashing approach has been adopted, in a way which is totally unreasonable. We are not saying at all that unions have no obligation in this society. Of course they have an obligation to act responsibly, but it does not mean that governments can simply act in a way which is totally irresponsible because they are dealing with trade unions. But that is what is happening in this case. We have a government which is taking action both in terms of passing legislation and dealing with its own employees in a way which is totally unreasonable, which is entirely inflammatory and which is designed to bring about the kind of situation which has now arisen. The Opposition's solution to all of that is to pursue more of the same policies. I do not think there is anyone on the other side who really believes that that would solve the issue. All the Opposition is doing here is raising an issue from which it thinks it can get some political mileage. It hopes that it can hang on to Joh's coat tails and get some political mileage out of it. Let me say to the Opposition that if this dispute goes on the way it is heading, because of the attitude of the Premier of Queensland, it will not be a matter of hanging on to his coat tails to get into office because the Opposition will go into oblivion. It will go into oblivion because that kind of approach will be seen in the very near future by the Australian people to be a disastrous one. Already a very high percentage of the Queensland people can see that this kind of approach is disastrous. Almost half of them-45 per cent-said in a Courier-Mail poll that the legislation introduced by the Queensland Government should be repealed. If this goes on much longer it will be a much higher percentage because the people of Queensland certainly do not want to be knocked around by trade union action. They do not want to be knocked around by governments either, particularly governments which pursue policies which inflame industrial situations and create the situations whereby there is industrial disputation not only in Queensland but throughout the nation. Those sorts of governments are not serving the people of their State or the nation; they are being absolutely inflammatory and in this case, deliberately bringing about the kind of situation that has arisen. It is absurd to bring in a matter of public importance which criticises this Government for a lack of leadership and then to put up an approach which would simply bring about a much more disastrous situation. But that is all the Opposition has to offer. It really has nothing to offer, except more union bashing, more hanging on to Joh's coat tails and hoping that it gets some mileage from it. I say to the Opposition: You will get nothing out of this because you will be seen to be totally lacking in principle. The Leader of the Opposition, a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, had the respect of most people in the Australian Labor Party when we were in Opposition. He was the man we regarded as being a person of some principle and, indeed, he resigned from the Ministry on a question of principle, and he had the respect of everyone for that. But since he has been Leader of the Opposition he has been prepared to throw away every scrap of principle in order to gain some political mileage. We do not know what he stands for any longer. He came in as a sort of small 'l' liberal. God knows what he is these days, but I think he is somewhere over to the extreme Right, racing after Joh as fast as he can to try to emulate all his actions so he can perhaps get into office and get the support of a larger number of people on the Opposition benches. In the eyes of the Australian people that is not leadership. He is not a man of principle; he is simply an opportunist who is seeking to use this place at every opportunity to try to demonstrate that he can get some mileage out of issues. In the end, that is not leadership. He is the last person who should come into this House and criticise the Government for lack of leadership. A leader should stand for something. I do not think it is very easy to find out what the Leader of the Opposition stands for these days, except opposition to the Government on any issue, whatever it is, and for any reason. The Government's position in this dispute is responsible and does show considerable leadership. We have tried to bring about a situation in which this dispute, this confrontation, can be resolved. That is the obligation of government-to bring about a situation where it can be resolved. We have done that. We have put up a proposition which is eminently reasonable. All it requires is for the Queensland Premier to sit down and talk with the unions about this issue and there would be no confrontation. I go further and say that he has to make only a few concessions, particularly in respect of the reinstatement of the linesmen, which is not an unreasonable proposition, and there would be no dispute at all. There would certainly be a lot of concern about the legislation which is on the books, but there would not be the sort of industrial disputation that there is at present. So this matter is eminently resolvable. The Premier of Queensland can resolve this issue; he can do so because we have created a situation in which he can. But he does not want to resolve it. He does not want there to be an end to the blockade. He wants all that to happen. Opposition members have to ask themselves what it is he is trying to achieve. The people of Australia have to ask themselves: What is the Premier of Queensland trying to achieve? Is he trying to bring about some purely political gain by taking on the trade unions so that he can be seen to triumph over them after some horrendous confrontation? Maybe that is his idea. Perhaps he is simply taking on the Federal Government in some way. Perhaps he thinks he is destroying us in this way. I think he is due for a tremendous shock if that is his view. Perhaps, as we on this side of the House have said several times, he is trying to cover up the enormous economic shambles in his State. But whatever the reason, there is obviously no intention on his part to resolve this issue on what are eminently reasonable grounds for a resolution of the dispute. I believe that indicates the gross irresponsibility on the part of the Premier of Queensland and his Government because they are deliberately engineering this confrontation and deliberately ensuring that it goes on even after this Government has made tremendous efforts to bring about a situation where there could be a reasonable resolution of it and no confrontation. That is the obligation, that we have to take responsible action. We have done that. We have shown leadership. We have been responsible. We cannot, of course, resolve it if the Premier of Queensland will not play along with what is an eminently reasonable approach. We cannot resolve this issue if the Premier of Queensland does not want to resolve it, and he obviously does not. There is nothing else that the Government can do in the sense of taking some overall action which will end the confrontation. As I have said, the approach of the members of the Opposition would simply make it much worse and there would be no resolution at all. In their hearts they know that is true. Of course, they will not acknowledge that in this debate, but it is true. As I said in Question Time, if they talked to a few businessmen, who are responsible for large segments of the economy of this country and who are concerned about what is developing due to the actions of the Queensland Government, they would be much more concerned and cautious in their comments in this place than they have been to date. This Government is greatly concerned about the prospects of the developments tomorrow due to this confrontation, blockade and industrial disputation. As I have said many times, we do not condone the taking of industrial action but we hold the Queensland Government substantially responsible for it. If honourable members look at what actions the Queensland Government has taken they can see that this Opposition is supporting an array of measures which are unprecedented in this country. I think it is a disgrace and an enormous disappointment that this Opposition and its Leader are so lacking in principle that they will support anything. They will support all of these things that the Queensland Government has done. The Queensland Government has given the Commissioner of the State Electricity Commission of Queensland enormous powers to direct people to perform work to maintain or restore the supply of electricity. In the way that is done, with penalties involving fines and the dismissal of employees, that is a breach of the International Labour Organisation conventions Nos 29, 98 and 105 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Yet a former Foreign Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, says that that does not matter. He does not care about breaching international treaties any more. Mr Peacock —You told me that it wouldn't stand up in court. Mr WILLIS —I never said that; that is a lie. He is so unprincipled these days that he does not care about tearing up international treaties any more. As he is a former Foreign Minister, I think that that is a disgrace. There is a total prohibition on strike action which involves any ban or limitation of any kind in the electricity industry in Queensland, with automatic loss of pay and dismissal or suspension at the employer's option. That is a breach of ILO Convention No. 87 and also the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There is no appeal to a court or independent body against dismissal or any other sanctions which apply to employees who are undertaking strike action in those circumstances. Yet the Opposition says that that is okay. Workers can appeal only to the Minister or the Electricity Commission; there is no independent tribunal. We have also the cancellation or suspension of the registration of unions by a fast-track method, which I will not go into in detail. That is a breach of ILO Convention No. 87 because there is insufficient opportunity for an independent tribunal to consider whether there are actually grounds for such cancellation. The Queensland Government has undermined the processes of conciliation and arbitration with its legislative variation of agreed terms and conditions of employment by changing the hours, changing the terms upon which employees should be employed, obliging them to agree not to go on strike or undertake any ban or limitation on work, and negating union preference, despite the fact that all of these conditions of employment were endorsed by the State Industrial Commission. The Queensland Government has removed the power of the State Industrial Commission to deal with disputes in the electricity industry and set up another tribunal for that. It has denigrated the integrity of the State Industrial Commission, leading to rebukes from the Commission. That Government has used unprecedented acts against the rights of unionists and penalised their participation in industrial action, involving provisions for the confiscation of the property of persons fined for refusing to comply with directions of the Electricity Commissioner, power to sue for damages caused by disputes and fines of $50,000 for individuals and $250,000 for unions engaging in any industrial activity. The Queensland Government has demonstrated its contempt for the State Parliament and neglect for the proper procedures of parliament by rushing draconian industrial legislation through the Queensland Parliament with extreme haste. It gave little notice of the legislation and allowed virtually no time for debate. Indeed, it went through the whole parliamentary process in less than 24 hours. The Queensland Government has changed the evidentiary standards to help prosecutions by introducing new types of evidence. For example, newspaper reports stand as prima facie evidence of the truth of their content and can be used to prosecute individuals for inciting or encouraging action which may harass or annoy any employee who has refused to participate in an industrial dispute. The onus of proof has been varied so that in effect defendants are obliged to rebut the allegations made against them. Of course, the next step is to presume them guilty until they are found innocent. The Government has brought in provisions which give wide powers to the police to act against peaceful picketing which might annoy workers. We have all seen on television hundreds of people being carted off, including various members of the clergy. Combined with the statutory powers of arrest for which the Government has legislated, this demonstrates another attack on accepted civil rights in this country. Following dismissal electricity industry employees engaged in strike activity lose all their accrued entitlements to superannuation and long service leave. Re-employment is available only on the basis of a 38-hour week, with an agreement not to strike. There is to be no reinstatement of benefits until after a six months probationary period, with a further loss of entitlements if they do go on strike. I do not have time to go through any more but it is extraordinary that the Opposition has no criticism of any of that. All of these breaches of democratic rights, of civil liberties and of international treaties are exactly 100 per cent okay with this Federal Opposition. Members of the Opposition are 100 per cent behind that kind of action. Therefore, if they were to become part of a Federal Government at some time in the future-I do not see that as a possibility-we know what they would be like. They would pursue this kind of legislation. They would create the greatest industrial conflagration since this one, because this will be an enormous conflagration if the Queensland Government does not see sense. There is a resolution to this dispute. It can be found in the proposals put forward responsibly by this Government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(4.35) —For three days the Opposition has raised the matter of the Australian Council of Trade Unions blockade of Queensland. This is a case of a union led and sponsored assault on two and a half million fellow Australians who happen to live in Queensland. During Question Time on Tuesday, Wednesday and today, in debate on Tuesday and again in the debate today, we have been patiently asking the very simple question, which I ask again now: What will the Government do to protect the constitutional rights of the Australians who live in Queensland? Once again in a speech from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) we have seen his absolute failure to face up to and answer that simple question. For three days we have urged the Government to live up to its duty, to live up to the reasonable expectations of Queenslanders, to defend them against desperate actions of trade unions which, in league with the ACTU, from tonight will cut off the people of Queensland from fellow Australians. The Government has had every opportunity but has done nothing. This Government has done not one thing to defend the constitutional rights and freedoms to which Queenslanders, like all other Australians, have a basic and inalienable right. On the eve of this blockade the Australian people can conclude only one thing-at the heart of this Government's inaction lies support for the ACTU organised blockade of Queensland. There can be no doubt that this Government supports the ACTU's organisation of the blockade. There can be no doubt that the Government supports the union leaders who are at the vanguard of this violation of the constitutional rights of the people of Queensland. There can be no doubt that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations support the ACTU and the unions' actions. I know it, the Prime Minister knows it, the Minister knows it, this House knows it and the public knows it. It is obvious that this Government supports the ACTU, for how else can we explain its total inaction in the face of the blockade? How else can we explain its dereliction of duty, its total failure to take action? What was said of this Government when it was first elected? What was its great promise? We heard the Prime Minister talk about it today in Question Time. The great promise was of a glowing partnership including the Government, trade unions and business. We heard that from the Prime Minister when he talked about recovery, reconciliation and reconstruction. The true nature of this Government is becoming all too clear. This Government has dropped any pretence of working for business because it supports the ACTU's 51-company hit list. This Government has abandoned business, abandoned the thousands of shareholders and abandoned the tens of thousands of employees and hundreds of thousands of customers. It is clear now that we have a duo, not a trio, of big Government and big unions in partnership against the people. Recovery, reconciliation and reconstruction have been replaced by blackmail, belligerence and blockade. All this is directed against the people of Queensland and Australians generally, who support free and responsible trade unions but not union thuggery, violence and blackmail. This Government has not condemned the ACTU's actions. It has not uttered a single word of criticism about the blockade or the unions' outrageous participation. This Government stands condemned in the sight of two and a half million Queenslanders, it stands condemned in the sight of 15 million Australians. The Government has refused our offer to co-operate in the speedy passage of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill which would enable it to deal speedily and effectively with Commonwealth public servants, its own employees who from tonight will be participating in this blockade and refusing to work as directed. The Government has repeatedly refused to use the Trade Practices Act-legislation it has on the books right now; legislation it wishes to repeal. It is the only effective piece of industrial legislation that stands between union action and the vast bulk of working Australians. The Government has refused to use the Act. The Prime Minister and the Minister have refused even to get on the telephone and talk to their mates and ask them to call it off. This Government has done nothing. This Government supports the blockading of Queensland. It is a disgraceful state of affairs. Has any Commonwealth government ever before supported the blockading of one State, cutting it off from the rest of the Commonwealth of Australia? This Government has left 2,500,000 Australians at the mercy of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its militant union elements. This country no longer has a national government. This is a Government not willing to take responsibility for all States, only some of them. This is a Government not willing to take responsibility and act on behalf of the total population. As from tonight this Government is leaving 2,500,000 of them out in the cold. This Government has dumped the people of Queensland. The Minister had the cheek and the temerity to get up in this House yesterday and actually disclaim responsibility for the blockade. He has rejected the notion that the Federal Government is as responsible for defending the rights and freedoms of Queenslanders as supposedly it is responsible for defending the rights of any other Australian. This Minister-today in Question Time he was joined by the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-had the outrageous effrontery to suggest that we are responsible for the business of government in Australia. If this Government cannot take the pace, if the Minister and the Prime Minister cannot do the job, they should move aside. We can. We are not beholden to the trade union movement. We are not shy of our constitutional duties. We are not unwilling to defend the constitutional rights of all Australians. We are ready and willing to step in to fill the void and the breach left by this Government's disgraceful inaction. Let us just look at what this Government has said it is doing. What is the great initiative that it is supposedly taking. It is supposedly pressuring the Premier of Queensland to ring up the Prime Minister and his Minister's mates in the ACTU. How pathetic! How contemptuous! How revealing about the true hierarchy of power in Australian national politics at the moment! The Government of Australia, having refused to play any leadership role in the face of this blockade-a role it was elected to perform-is referring the matter to its true boss, its true master, the ACTU. Why should the Premier of Queensland, an elected leader of a free State in this democratic Commonwealth, get in touch with Simon Crean? He is the non-elected de facto supremo of a trade union organisation which does not represent the Queensland community or the Australian community but merely represents a clutch of union leaders without a shred of respect for the rights of people-and employees-to go about their daily tasks without obstruction, interruption or harassment. The underlying tragedy for the trade union movement and the trade unionists themselves is this: There is a place for trade unions in a free and democratic society. The Opposition unequivocally supports the right of people to join organisations to pursue their mutual interests. Trade unions are an expression of this right. Let there be no mistake that we, on this side of the House, support trade unionism. But people joining any sectional organisation must recognise that they must act responsibly and reasonably. They must be willing to operate within the bounds of behaviour that have been laid down legally and constitutionally by successive, popularly elected governments which all other citizens observe. This Opposition supports responsible trade unionism. The great tragedy for the ordinary trade unionists in the face of this blockade is that they will be lumped with the wilful, undemocratic destructiveness and bloody-mindedness of union bosses who are not pursuing the interests of their workers and who are busily engaged trying to undermine the power and authority of elected governments. They are trying in the case of the Queensland Government and they have succeeded in the case of this Government. This Government's inaction is outrageous. This Parliament is not some social club for retired ACTU employees to which honourable members opposite belong. They are in government and they should be governing. This is a great nation which does not deserve this Government. If it cannot do the job it should get out. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(4.46) —The Opposition has brought on this matter of public importance not to solve the problem confronting Queensland- Opposition members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The honourable member for Moreton will sit down when the Speaker is on his or her feet. I call the honourable member for Moreton. Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. For somebody who has actually fled the Queensland Premier- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. If any more frivolous points of order are brought up, I will deal with the honourable member concerned. I call the honourable member for Capricornia. Mr WRIGHT —The Opposition has brought on this matter of public importance not to solve the problem confronting Queensland because of the proposed blockade, not to settle a dispute that is gravely affecting the lives of a thousand Queenslanders and their families, not in the interests of industrial justice but, as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said earlier, to try to score politically. That is all the Opposition has done it for. It amazes me that the Opposition, when in Government, claimed it protected State rights. Now it wants this Labor Government to move in on Queensland. Members of the Opposition spoke about constitutions. They certainly threw away the Constitution in 1975. I note that not one speaker on the Opposition side bothered to talk about the effect of the new laws in Queensland. Not even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) spoke about this. The people of Australia have a right to know just what has occurred in the State of Queensland. The people of Australia and the people of Queensland need to realise, if they believe in democracy, what is actually happening under these new laws. For instance, anyone charged under the new industrial laws has fewer rights than a person who is a common thief or a shoplifter. The traditional rules of evidence have been breached and the onus of proof has been reversed. It is now on the accused. People need to know that a person may now be convicted on hearsay. They need to know also that a worker's personal property can be confiscated. But we have heard not one word about justice for the worker. People need to know that the new laws have introduced the concept of forced labour. The Electricity Commissioner has the power to direct any person, skilled or unskilled, man or woman, young or old, to help lay cables or lop trees interfering with power lines. That is the new law. As the Minister said, it contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, these laws do not just affect the power workers in that State. They affect the members of the general public. Members of the police now have the power to arrest on suspicion a person who is in visual distance of an electricity depot in Queensland. If the police suspect or believe that that person was part of a previous picket, or that that person may be involved in some way in a dispute, he or she can now be arrested by police. What this means to the people of Queensland is that anyone who dares to walk down Ann Street past the South-East Queensland Electricity Board depot could land himself or herself in gaol, totally innocent of any action or attitude against the Government. Private citizens or passers-by can be arrested if they fail to go to the aid of police who might be dealing with picketers. Honourable members opposite talk about constitutional rights, civil rights and justice. Yet we have not had a word- Mr Tuckey —Has it happened? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor has been warned. I will name him the next time he interjects. Mr WRIGHT —Members of the media can be arrested if they film workers going to work during a dispute, on the grounds of harassment. Journalists face gaol and fines if they refuse to make available to the police and to the Bjelke-Petersen regime information relating to articles published or media reports generally. We have also seen priests and ministers being stopped from singing hymns in the police watch house. A wooden cross has been confiscated. The private notes of journalists can also be confiscated and used as evidence against workers, unionists and members of the general public. The Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act gives permanent state of emergency powers to the Electricity Commissioner. The Commissioner can conscript anyone to carry out his personal instructions. Failure to do so carries heavy penalties. The new laws remove the power of the Industrial Commission to settle disputes in the electricity industry. The new Electricity Industrial Tribunal makes strikes in the electricity industry illegal and punishable by instant dismissal and fine regardless of the safety aspect of any dispute. Any power worker, linesman, electrical mechanic or electrical fitter can be dismissed if they refuse to climb poles or work on overhead transmission or electricity reticulation systems despite the fact that these workers might honestly believe and can prove that the conditions of work are a danger to themselves, a danger to life and limb. There is no consideration in this legislation for the aspect of safety. Instead, the right to withdraw labour has been removed totally. The public has been hoodwinked because the Premier of Queensland has taken advantage of public opposition to power disputes and to the personal inconvenience that is caused. I suggest to this assembly that a new concern is arising. It is not just coming from unionists, it is coming from others in the public. I note that criticism is forthcoming from civil liberties people, the legal profession and the churches. I bring to the attention of this chamber comments made by the Anglican Primate of Australia and Archbishop of Brisbane, the Most Reverend Sir John Grindrod. He has entered the issue, and he is not controlled by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He is not some political radical, some ratbag, as the Leader of the Opposition tries to make out about anyone who supports the union on this issue. I draw honourable members' attention to an article in the Courier-Mail this week stating that the archbishop had written to the Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, asking him to take the initiative in reconciliation and to open negotiations. Why did he do that? Sir John Grindrod clearly realises that the solution to this dispute and the pending blockade is in the hands of the Queensland Government and, in particular, in the hands of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. This same archbishop, this same Anglican Primate of Australia, has described the right to strike as one of the necessary breathing holes of freedom. In the article he is reported as saying: . . . a solution to the State's power dispute required sensible compromise. 'I would hope for a solution that respects the opinions and liberties of workers, listens to the recommendations of the State Industrial Commission, recognises the responsibilities of the employing authority, the unions involved and the Government and is very sensitive to the well-being of the community . . . 'One of the basic rights in a democracy is the right to strike. 'It may sometimes be difficult to handle, but the deprivation of the right can, in the long run, produce much more serious consequences'. He said he hoped both sides in the dispute could make a fresh start 'for the present and future well-being of the community'. The position taken by the archbishop is well supported by others. Roman Catholic, Anglican and Protestant ministers and priests have been gaoled. They are not the radicals, the ratbags, that members of the Opposition have spoken about here today. They are concerned people who honestly and personally believe that these laws are wrong. Father Morgan Howe, a Roman Catholic priest, came out and said publicly that these laws are bad laws. Yet we have here the contention that anyone who supports this position is some sort of radical and ratbag. No one enjoys strikes. Everyone realises that some strikes can be seen to be unwarranted, that many people get hurt but, likewise, unions also sometimes have no choice. As Sir John Grindrod said 'one of the basic rights in a democracy is the right to strike, to withdraw skills and labour', just as those who represent industry and the primary producer can withdraw the product they want to sell if they are not satisfied with the price and conditions. The Federal Opposition stands condemned for its actions and attitudes to this issue. It has tried to fuel the disruption further. It does not want the issue resolved because it thinks it is on a political winner. It is not concerned about the people of Queensland who have lost their jobs, who stand to lose their superannuation, some who have been forced into poverty. The Opposition is not concerned about the dangers to the public of second rate work being done by understaffed, overworked and, in some cases, underqualified contractors. It is not really concerned about human and civil rights. It has not made one single, positive contribution or recommendation on this issue. It wants it instead, to spread. That is in contrast to the Electrical Trades Union of Queensland, the Queensland Trades and Labour Council, the ACTU, the Queensland Opposition, church leaders, the Industrial Commission, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). All have sought new discussions and negotiations. The unions are willing to sit down and talk. I know the real reason for all this. It is that Queensland's economic situation is in a mess. The Premier may not be able to solve Queensland's economic plight overnight, but in one moment he could end the proposed ACTU blockade of the State. He just has to say that he will sit down and talk about the power dispute. No other promises, no other undertakings, are required. He just has to be willing to talk. I call on him now to set aside his personal hate for unions, just for a moment, and instead consider the welfare of Queensland and simply agree to talk. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The discussion is concluded. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I present the 225th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr CADMAN —by leave-The 225th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts is presented in two volumes-the first appraisal of Stratplan, the automatic data processing re-equipment program of the Department of Social Security; and the second appendices to the report dealing with occupational health and safety aspects of the use of visual display equipment. This report was tabled in the Senate on 18 October 1984. When the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hawke) announced his Department's complete computer re-equipment program, Stratplan, in June 1983, he recognised that this was a very expensive and complex program and announced that the Government had decided to refer it to the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts for monitoring and report. Stratplan will bring about the replacement of outmoded and inadequate equipment in each State, the establishment of a national computer centre in Canberra, the installation of mini-computers in regional offices, and approximately 7,000 visual display units throughout the Department. The Minister in June 1983 announced that the cost of the re-equipment, that is the capital costs, would be $100m. The Committee was informed during the inquiry that the total cost may be $234m. During 1984 the Committee conducted six hearings in which the Department of Social Security presented progress reports and made submissions on specific areas of concern to the Committee. The Committee also visited the Department of Social Security's National Computer Centre in Deakin, Australian Capital Territory, and met with representatives of the Public Service Board, the Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association and the Capital Territory Health Commission. The report addresses the important issues arising out of these hearings, particularly occupational health and safety, industrial relations, offset arrangements, the tendering and purchasing processes, and project and financial management. The Committee concludes from its investigations that the Department of Social Security has been successful in the implementation of many aspects of Stratplan, such as its purchasing procedures, the installation of equipment in the national computer centre and in New South Wales, the recruitment and training of staff, the design of ergonomically sound furniture and terminals, and in the initiation of project management methodologies. However, the Committee notes that industrial relations are difficult, due mainly to the inability of the Department to provide eyesight and radiation emission tests for equipment that the staff associations demand. While progress has been made in this regard and concerning work organisation, the disputes have resulted in considerable delays in the implementation of Stratplan. In the light of those difficulties the Committee recommended that the Public Service Board, which is responsible for setting standards for conditions of service of government employees, consult with other appropriate departments and agencies to establish and promulgate common occupational health and safety standards as a matter of urgency. Such common standards may prevent the recurrence of the problems faced by the Department of Social Security which has been required to negotiate at length in the areas of health and safety standards with staff associations. The Committee dealt with the issue of offsets agreements formulated as part of the Stratplan project. Since the report was tabled in the Senate, there have been assurances that obligations are being met. The Committee regards compliance with offset arrangements as vital to advance the capability and capacity of Australian industry and is concerned that the benefits of the Stratplan offsets live up to predictions. The Committee recommended that all offsets agreements be signed prior to contracts being let and may pursue the issue of Australian industry participation and the offsets program as a follow up to two recent Auditor-General's efficiency audit reports. As part of the Committee's monitoring role of the Stratplan project, Report 225 recommended that the Department of Social Security continue to report progress and problems on a monthly basis to the Committee and the Australian Audit Office and that the Department of Finance oversee overall costs of the Department and regularly report to the Committee. The issue of the health and safety of keyboard operators is an important one, particularly in the light of the current high incidence of repetitive strain injury in private and government employees. With this in mind the Committee has included as appendices to the report a number of documents which were made available to it on the subject of repetitive strain injury. Volume 2 contains a selection of employers' and staff associations' policies, views on the legal aspects of the issue, selected departmental directives to keyboard staff and selected research. The Committee hopes that this volume will improve the availability of information on this subject. The Committee was heartened by the establishment of a Task Force on Repetitive Strain Injury. This Task Force is chaired by the Public Service Board and includes representatives of the Office of the Status of Women, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and the Departments of Health, Employment and Industrial Relations, Finance, and Housing and Construction. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has three representatives on the Task Force. It is hoped that this Task Force will recommend action to eliminate this serious injury. The Committee expresses its appreciation to the staff of its Secretariat and others who contributed to the compilation of this report. The Committee expects to present further reports on Stratplan in due course. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.03) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of State head office building for Telecom Australia, Sydney. The proposed work is for the construction of a major high rise office building in the Sydney central business district to provide a new State head office for Telecom Australia. The new building is to be constructed immediately adjacent to the existing Telecom House between Pitt and Castlereagh Streets. It will enable Telecom staff and State head office activities to be consolidated on the one site and allow expensive leased space elsewhere in the city to be relinquished. The proposed building will provide some 29,000 square metres of office floor area in 33 levels above ground. Associated works will include modifications to the existing through site shopping arcade and the provision of additional retail space for rental. For the benefit of members who have some rapport with the city, the site, known as Telecom Plaza, is near the Central Railway Station and is within the Brickfield Hill precinct, an area steeped in the early commercial history of Sydney. Telecom is fortunate in already having a substantial site in this area. It was being held for future expansion of the City South telephone exchange but the increased capacity and reduced physical size of modern exchange equipment has now released the site for alternative development. Major Telecom office accommodation is already located on portions of the site. The building will be of reinforced concrete construction with a largely column free internal area to maximise flexibility for office planning. The exterior will be clad with precast concrete panels with a stone finish. Energy conservation has been an important criterion in the design. Solar heat loads will be minimised by providing tinted double glazing and a computerised energy management control system will be installed. The environmental impact is an important consideration in the design of major office buildings and wind tunnel testing has been used to investigate likely wind movements at pedestrian levels. Relevant local council and other authorities have been extensively consulted. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $45.5m at January 1985 prices. If the proposal is favourably considered by the Committee and the House it will take some six months to complete the main contract documents and call tenders. Construction time is estimated at a little over two years. I am pleased that my Department is associated with Telecom in this major building proposal. Honourable members may not be aware that the Department of Housing and Construction has had a long association with Telecom and has built up a valuable pool of expertise in the planning and construction of its various buildings and services. I am very pleased that the Hawke Labor Government has been able to place this very major construction work for Telecom upon its civil works program. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House and to the Public Works Committee. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.07) —As the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction and on behalf of the Opposition, I say that we support the motion referring the proposed building to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works. In the brief statement given to the House by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), I listened carefully to see whether an environmental impact study had been carried out in relation to this proposed building. As the Minister has said, it is a very large building, with some 33 storeys, and is in a very historic part of Sydney. If an environmental impact study has already been carried out, obviously the Minister will bring that study to the attention of the Public Works Committee. I have lived in Tasmania all my life but did work for one year in Sydney. Some of my forebears came from Sydney. I am very conscious of the area to which the Minister has referred. Aspects such as wind problems which can be created by the construction of such buildings and other matters need to be very carefully looked at. I am sure that the Committee will look carefully into all the matters placed before it. Like the Minister, I, too, look forward to receiving the Committee's report and having the opportunity to debate the same in the Parliament prior to the construction of the building on the behalf of the Australian Telecommunications Commission. In short, the Opposition supports this matter being referred to the Public Works Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.08) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Development of terminal area, Townsville Airport. The work generally comprises provision of a common user domestic passenger terminal, an apron and taxiway works and car parking and other services to overcome congestion at peak periods, alleviate aircraft parking problems and improve car parking and traffic flow. The proposed facilities are designed to satisfy current and forecast requirements at Townsville into the 1990s'. The main elements of the proposed work are: A new air-conditioned common user domestic passenger terminal building integrated with the existing international terminal building; demolition of the existing domestic terminal building; strengthening, rehabilitation and extension of aircraft movement area pavements and the domestic aircraft apron; widening of apron approach taxiways and fillets to accommodate wide-bodied aircraft; support facilities and services including modification of the internal airport road system, additional car parking, a new central emergency powerhouse and alterations and extensions to drainage, power supply, fire and other services. The proposed work was referred to the Committee in September 1984 but the Committee was unable to complete its inquiries and table the report before the dissolution of the House in October. The reference therefore lapsed. The Government now desires that the proposal again be referred to the Committee for consideration and report. The estimated cost of the work, when previously referred to the Committee, was $14.3m in September 1984 prices. The current cost in March 1985 prices is $14.7m. The increase is due solely to increased costs over the period as measured by my Department's building price index. I present plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.11) —My remarks will be brief but I want to make two specific points about the motion at this stage, before the work is referred back to the Public Works Committee. In my capacity as shadow Minister for Housing and Construction I was recently in Townsville. I visited the Townsville Airport and saw the situation there. From the outset I say that I totally agree with the matter being referred back to the Public Works Committee. I think it is fair to say that both the previous member for Herbert and, across party lines, the present honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), have repeatedly drawn to the attention of this Parliament the situation in Townsville. Having seen the situation, I simply say that the work is desperately needed. On behalf of the Opposition I do nothing other than to thank the Government for bringing the reference to the Committee. I hope that the Committee will complete its investigation and bring down its report quickly and that the Government will get on with the job. I do have to say, though-this is the bad part of my speech from the point of view of the present Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) and this Government-that I would be failing in my duty to this Parliament and certainly in my duty to my electorate if I did not draw attention to the schizophrenic thinking of the Hawke socialist Government in relation to the upgrading of airports around Australia. Whilst I do not begrudge the $14.7m which is being provided for the upgrading of Townsville Airport, I do have to ask where the Government was when it came to providing $6m for the Hobart International Airport for very necessary upgrading. The Government was not here because it did not refer the matter to the Public Works Committee. It forced the Premier and the people of Tasmania to dish out $6m of dam compensation money to pay for work that the Government should have done. It was not the fault of the present Minister. He was not the Minister at the time. Let this go on record as one occasion in this Parliament when I am not blaming the Minister, because it was not his decision. Mr Deputy Speaker, you come from Western Australia. I come from Tasmania. I believe that this Government should be honest and even-handed in relation to the upgrading of airports. I repeat: I welcome the move to refer to the Public Works Committee a program for Townsville which is much needed and which, in Townsville four weeks ago, I publicly undertook to support on behalf of the Opposition. I repeat: Both the past member for Herbert and, across party lines, the present honourable member for Herbert have been extremely active on this matter. But why is it that we have one rule for Townsville and a different rule for Hobart? I charge the Minister, as long as he holds the portfolio of Housing and Construction, with this responsibility: He must ensure that there is fair dealing and that we do not see Tasmanians taken, in my humble opinion, too cheaply by a Government which says: 'We will not spend the money. You can find it out of your own resources'. In fact, being fair to the Minister, had he been the Minister at the time, the disgraceful decision of the Hawke socialist Government not to fund the upgrading of Hobart International Airport would not have been taken. I wish the Townsville project every success. I also say in passing that it is more than significant that this reference occurs just two weeks after the Townsville City Council elections at which, I am sure all members of the House would be delighted to know, two Liberal aldermen were elected, and a third Liberal candidate narrowly defeated. So the Townsville City Council, which used to comprise 10 Australian Labor Party aldermen, including the Mayor, and one Independent, is now becoming a little more democratic because it has the advantage of two Liberal aldermen. I assure honourable members that Aldermen Blades and Lindsay, as Liberal aldermen, will be watching the development of this project very closely. However, let not the Government ever again make fish of one and foul of another. Let the Minister, while he has anything to do with the matter, never again let decisions be taken that are against Australia's tiniest but most beautiful State-Tasmania. I have to say bluntly that I wish the present Minister-I note that the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) who is from Tasmania is present in the chamber-had referred to the Public Works Committee the proposal to spend $6m on the upgrading of Hobart International Airport. The fact is that the people of Tasmania had to pay $6m out of their own pockets. That was a pretty rough deal. Apart from those criticisms, the Opposition supports this matter being referred to the Public Works Committee and wishes the Committee every success in its deliberations. I am certain that its members will enjoy the opportunity to again visit Townsville which is, in my humble opinion, one of the most beautiful parts of Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1985-85. Mr GEAR(Canning)(5.15) —I was interrupted during the previous debate on these Bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1984-85 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1984-85, by the grievance debate. I was talking about our unfair taxation collection system, the basis of which has moved to the pay as you earn taxpayer. I gave some examples of how unfair the taxation system has become. To support my contention I refer to 'Occasional Paper No. 8A' entitled, 'Australian Economic Statistics' published by the Reserve Bank of Australia. It shows the breakup of taxation collection in Australia from 1949-50 until the present. The figures are broken down into broad categories. If we look firstly at the category of indirect taxes we find that as a proportion of total tax collection they reached a high of 40.1 per cent in 1958-59. They have been going down ever since. At present, indirect taxes comprise only 27.9 per cent of all taxes collected. In 1956-57 company taxes comprised 17.9 per cent of all taxes collected-a record high. They have been decreasing ever since until now they stand at only 10.4 per cent. We cannot blame the companies altogether for that because, under the policies of the present Opposition, which was the Government during that time, we saw more and more companies go to the wall, go bankrupt. So the capacity of companies to pay tax has been severely inhibited by the restrictive policies of our predecessors. Certainly, the taxation contribution to revenue of companies has fallen significantly. If we compare those two sources of taxation collection with another source, the pay as you earn taxpayer, the honest taxpayer, who reached a low point in 1959-60 of contributing only 19.3 per cent to total taxation collection, we can see what has happened to his contribution to taxation collection. It has been going up ever since. It reached a high point in 1981-82 under the former Government of 42.7 per cent. That is more than a 200 per cent rise in proportion to total taxes collected. In the next year, 1982-83, in the infamous family Budget designed to win the former Government the election of 1983, the contribution of pay as you earn taxpayers was brought down to 42.3 per cent. Under this Government it has been falling. In 1983-84 it was 40.3 per cent and in 1984-85 it was 39.1 per cent. Previously I talked about the need for tax reform and how the former Government would never attempt it because of the political risks involved. It was happy to sit on its hands and watch the system grow more inequitable. One aspect of the previous policy the Opposition has stuck with is supporting the tax avoiders. This Government has had two elections. We have two clear mandates to collect the money that these tax avoiders have ripped off the honest taxpayers of Australia. I refer to legislation that has been through this Parliament a number of times. Firstly, legislation was introduced to try to collect tax from the bottom of the harbour schemes. As the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) pointed out, we have put that legislation to the Senate five times and it has foundered because the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Democrats have ganged together to knock it on the head. So be it. Those parties are breathing new life into the tax avoidance industry by doing that. Tax stripping is not practised by the ordinary, honest taxpayer but by the cheats in society. The cherry picking schemes were possibly the worst examples of tax cheating, where workers' superannuation benefits were used for tax advantages. Mr Staples —Parasites. Mr GEAR —They are parasites, as the honourable member for Jagajaga points out. The Government has a clear mandate to collect those taxes and it will keep putting that legislation to the Senate to remind the people of Australia of the friends of the tax avoiders. This Government has the guts to tackle the difficult question of the taxation system. When honourable members opposite heard of the tax summit, they backed away at the fastest rate of knots we have ever seen, because they do not want to know anything about it. They will only try to make political mileage out of it, as they have with the debate on the matter of public importance, the Queensland dispute, in the last couple of days. Honourable members opposite do not care about the economy of Australia; they are trying only to score political points. I want to look at the state of the economy because that is important in raising taxes. It goes without saying that the healthier the Australian economy, the more able it is to sustain a greater level of taxation. I came into this place early, as did you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because of the election called by Mr Fraser when he saw that the Australian economy was getting worse. He went to the Australian people a year early because in his estimation the Australian economy was going downhill so fast that if he waited another year he would have been decimated. The Australian people know why he went early. As soon as this Government was elected the situation was reversed. The previous Government had used inflation as the basis for its decimation of the Whitlam Government in the unconstitutional actions it took at that time. The previous Government said after that disgraceful performance, that it would lower inflation. That Government came in when inflation was approximately 11 per cent and when it went out it was approaching 12 per cent; in seven years it did nothing. As soon as the Hawke Labor Government came in, that situation was reversed. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in Question Time today, the inflation rate was halved under the policies this Government adopted. Unemployment was going up at an alarming rate. In the last years of the conservative Government 200,000 jobs were lost. Unemployment is going down now, and that is great. Not only are people able to come off the dole and pay tax but also, in humane terms, a job gives a person a purpose in life. If we can do that for our fellow Australians, we are doing a great job indeed. The Opposition pretends to be a friend of business, yet it sent many businesses broke. The small businesses that went to the wall under the policies of the previous Government give the lie to the fact that the Liberal and Country parties looked after the business sector. Under this Government the economy and profit levels of all those companies have risen significantly. I refer to a Treasury paper, 'The Round Up', issued in March 1985, headed 'Highlights for March 1985'. It states: In the December quarter 1984, average weekly earnings for all employees increased by 0.8 per cent and average weekly ordinary time earnings for full-time adult employees increased by 1.7 per cent. Not only has unemployment gone down, but also workers have had their wages maintained under the wages accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The accord is proving to be a real plus for the Government. The document continues: New motor vehicle registrations grew by 3.7 per cent in the three months to January to be 10.2 per cent higher than in the same period a year ago. That is a significant economic indicator of how well the economy is going. When people are buying new cars they are confident about what is happening in the Australian economy. Another indicator is: New dwelling building approvals rose by 4.1 per cent in January 1985 and by 4.2 per cent in the three months to January. Under the policies of this Government the first home owners scheme has been a tremendous success. It has led to a resurgence in the building industry, which has flowed through the whole economy. The document continues: Employment grew strongly in February (0.7 per cent) to be 3.3 per cent higher than a year earlier. Employment has grown by 110,000 persons since June 1984. Employment growth will exceed the predictions of the Government at Budget time, notwithstanding the disgraceful performance in Queensland where people are being laid off and the strike situation is affecting the employment prospects of many other people. Looking at the other side of the employment coin-unemployment-the document continues: The unemployment rate fell to 8.3 per cent in February while the labour force participation rate rose to 60.7 per cent. That means people can see that there is now a chance of getting a job, and they are starting to respond to that by applying for jobs. While that might tend to keep up the unemployment level, at least the Government's performance is an indication to the people of Australia that they have a much better chance of getting a job than they did a year earlier. There are many other statistics I could point to. My colleague Senator Graham Maguire has issued in the last few days a significant paper entitled 'Inside the Faltering Queensland Economy'. The Prime Minister read from that paper some of the alarming statistics comparing the rate of growth in Australia to that of Queensland where it is actually going backwards. The most significant point of that is that Australians generally are working together. Australian employers and employees have come to the conclusion that when they work together and pull in the same direction, they will achieve their goal a lot easier than if they are fighting all the way, which is what is happening in Queensland. This statistic can only be described as dreadful: The working days lost due to industrial disputes for the 12 months to January 1985, compared with the 12 months to January 1984, in Australia went down by 15.6 per cent and in Queensland went up by 83.9 per cent. There is a direct corollary between the industrial situation in Queensland, and the state of its deteriorating economy, and the situation in the rest of Australia. I feel really sorry for the people of Queensland who have been subjected to the sorts of jack-boots tactics that we have seen in the last few days. The Federal Opposition does not cover itself with any glory when it supports that sort of action. Finally, there have been calls for a restraint in government spending. I have been contacted at my office by a few people who say that the tax summit in July should not be about raising taxes but about restraining government spending. The Government quite rightly points out that the tax summit in July should go on, regardless of the level of government spending, because we are not talking about government spending; we are talking about raising taxes for a particular level of government spending. Government spending is a different issue altogether. For any level of government spending there has to be a more equitable taxation system than we have at the present time. I would like to give an example of how this Government tried to cut government spending and the role the Opposition played in that. I refer, of course, to the assets test. The assets test is a clear example of how the Government tried to limit government spending in an area where it would not greatly hurt the people affected. When I say 'greatly', I realise that there are anomalies in the assets test, but we can work them out as the assets test is applied. What we are saying with the assets test legislation is that the richest 2 per cent of pensioners do not really need the pension. In fact, the assets test is very generous in that it allows pensioners to have the family home plus $100,000 worth of assets before they are affected. Under the previous incomes test it was hard to measure a person's wealth in terms of income alone. Executives on high salaries were able to get out of expressing income on their tax returns by taking lurks and perks, just as rich pensioners could put their assets into non-income bearing schemes to receive the full pension and benefits, whereas that money should be more correctly addressed to the needy people. Certainly, the very emotive attack that was launched on the Government by the Opposition once again does not bring it any glory at all because if the Opposition were responsible it would have agreed with us that that was a necessary move. I notice that one of the new Liberal members of this House, when in civilian life, actually supported the assets test. Now that he is a member of the Opposition he is bagging it. All I can say about that honourable member is that he has leadership potential in the Liberal Party. Mr Leo McLeay —It will be a long time before he is a member of the Government. Mr GEAR —He will not be a member of the Government for a long time. I come to the question that arises from the Government's move in trying to limit government spending by putting an assets test on pensioners. I pose this question: If the Opposition does not support our move to introduce an assets test to limit the pensions paid to the richest 2 per cent of pensioners, where would it restrain government spending? Arising from that question is another question that has never been answered. If the Opposition abolishes the assets test, will it raise taxes so that the richest two per cent of pensioners who do not really need a pension will get it or will it lower the pension so that the people who really need it will get less? In conclusion all I can say is that the people of Australia should be thankful that they have a Government that had the guts to take on this difficult question. I am sure that as a result of our action the Australian economy and the taxpayers of Australia will come out of this a lot better off. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(5.31) —These Appropriation Bills cover the supply of money for the general workings of the Federal Government throughout Australia. Included in the Bills are the appropriations for the Department of Science and the Department of the Special Minister of State. This afternoon I wish to address my remarks particularly to those two departments because I believe very strongly that there is no shortage of men and women in this Parliament, or indeed throughout Australia, who are prepared to come forward and acknowledge the vital importance to the future of Australia of science and technology. Yet we face a confused and dangerous situation if the present Government continues its policy of talking up the issue and then doing very little about it. It is a very dangerous policy because, as we have seen, it arouses expectations in the scientific community and then dashes them, causing disillusionment and frustration. On Tuesday of this week I witnessed a national demonstration of concern in the scientific community about the Government's arbitrary decision making in the fields of science and technology. A meeting of the National Committee of Concern, sponsored by the Australian Academy of Science, was held. This is the first time that anything of that nature has ever been done. The National Committee of Concern met to launch a systematic program to inform Australians, including the heads of government departments and politicians at the Federal and State levels, about the role of science in the future development of this country. An example of problems which have arisen concerns the Australian research grants scheme. As honourable members may know, this scheme is the funding pool for supporting basic research. It is central to the support of research in universities which are dedicated to maintain a primary responsibility for looking after basic research. It is vital to the long term future of Australia. This Labor Government promised the scientific community a 10 per cent annual increase in funding over three years beginning in 1983. In 1983 the Government met this promise for the most part and, in fact, increased funding by about 16 per cent. But last year the increase in real terms was negligible. The consequence of this sudden change of form has proved to be a tremendous source of disillusionment throughout the scientific community. Labor's election promises, plus its considerable talking up of science and technology during 1983 and 1984, led, quite reasonably, to high expectations among research scientists. In fact, as a result of that talking up, a record number of applications, some 2,355, under the Australian research grants scheme were received for 1985. Significantly, there was a 40 per cent increase in applications from researchers in the fields of engineering and applied sciences. In all, requests were made for research funding amounting to $65.8m. So when we look at the appropriation for 1984-85 we find that it met only 36 per cent of the demand-much less than half. In fact, only 26 per cent-just over a quarter-of the requests for new projects were accepted. That is the lowest proportion on record. This Government prides itself on its record in a number of areas. I do not think it would pride itself on the record of having granted the lowest proportion ever of requests for new projects. For 1985, 732 projects classified by the examiners as being very good were turned down and for 1986 the Australian Research Grants Committee considers that $48.72m is needed in order to fund those research projects classified as highly recommended. Of course, they will not get it. The Government now seems prepared to acknowledge in private that it made a hash of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation estimates. The CSIRO is the main body which is the national focus for scientific and technological research in Australia. There are many people, including some in the CSIRO, who would like to think that the private sector could take over more of the burden for innovation and initiative. But the private sector has been under pressure to make a profit in conditions where the loadings of trade union demands have hit company profitability. Professor Slatyer, the principal adviser to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on scientific and technological issues, made an important contribution to public debate when he addressed the National Technology Conference last year. Against the background of declining attractiveness of Australian manufacturers, he said: Quality is directly related to technological innovation and the use of advanced technology. Advanced technology greatly increases potential productivity and flexibility and, in the process, can substantially alter the effect of such present-day determinants of competitiveness as wage levels and production runs. His central argument was that our ability to prosper as a nation depends crucially on our science and technology base. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) took this argument along a path that was unforeseen by Professor Slatyer. On Tuesday, at the meeting that I mentioned, he said that a significant part of the Government's research and development budget would go towards modernising industry rather than to basic research. In this context he seems to assume that technology has a life of its own, independent of basic research. Of course, we all know that that is fatuous. The United States Government recognises the role of government in basic research as a priority. Japan does also. In Australia, we have to strike a sensible balance ideologically and administratively. I submit that this Government, in its treatment of CSIRO, is not doing this. The circumstances of the last Budget, when the Government decided to get stuck into CSIRO and reduce its budget by $9m, had little to do with the reflective concern about the balancing of basic and applied research; it had a lot to do with the unpopularity in the Cabinet of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). Honourable members in this House know the situation very well. The Minister for Science came into the House predicting that if the Government did not commit itself to a re-capitalisation of the Bureau of Meteorology, the commercial airlines would be made unsafe and there could be major civil aviation disasters. In this House the Opposition has become used to the Minister's addiction to hyperbole and exaggeration for political effect, and his remarks were greeted with a wry cynicism. The reaction on the Government side was one of anger. The consequence was that when the Minister went before Cabinet with his estimates he was done like a dinner, presumably by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), amongst others. Cabinet found that the Bureau of Meteorology was listed as the thirteenth item for attention on the Minister for Science's priority list. It gave it number one priority and sliced funds off the CSIRO. I am sure that there was no consultation with Professor Slatyer about the priorities of technology over basic research-just a big slash of the pen. What has been the effect of the Cabinet's decision? Looking at CSIRO, it has had to reduce its recruiting of young people, the kind of people over whom, in another context, the Government has shed tears. The loss of $9.2m would cost 180 positions. Research areas hardest hit were: Agriculture, fisheries, forestry, mineral resources, energy, food research and bush fire research. The CSIRO was told by the accountants in the Ministry of Finance that it should redirect its resources away from agriculture. The CSIRO informed the Government that that was not easy to do under an irrationally tightened Budget. Now we have Senator Button focusing on basic research for cutbacks, presumably on research in universities. The intellectual conclusion reminds one of the statement made by Sir Mark Oliphant last year when he deplored the authority of accountants, lawyers and such like in the role of fixing government scientific priorities. Is the Government prepared to demonstrate to this Parliament that it is acting on the considered advice of Professor Slatyer and his advisory committee? If it is not, why is it not? The Government has been stung by widespread public concern and the Minister for Science has had sticking plaster placed over his mouth. Senator Button has been given the task of silencing the public concern that has been provoked by the Government's attack on science. This is an attack which has been reinforced and sustained by Senator Button as he juggles figures from his Industry Department responsibilities and pastes them into aggregate estimates for science. There was no mistaking the intent of his language when he said in his address to the National Committee of Concern: To endorse basic research, however is not necessarily to say that it has to be at the same level as at present, not that every basic research endeavour or area presently in progress is unquestionable. It is clear that Senator Button has been charged with the task of silencing the views of the Minister for Science. We may also ask whether Senator Button has not told the Prime Minister to keep quiet, because the Prime Minister has at his disposal the advice of Australia's most strategically placed scientific body-the Australian Science and Technology Council, of which Professor Slatyer is Chairman. Are we to take it that it is the Prime Minister's position that Senator Button can run riot in this area; or are we to take it that the Australian Science and Technology Council's advice is either not forthcoming or unheeded? I have put certain questions on notice about this matter. There can be no doubt that the allocation of resources is an ever present task and challenge, but please let the debate in the Government in this area be conducted not by the personnel in the Finance Department but by those who are invested by their training, authority and public office to undertake that task. The situation is that scientific research, where it has not already been cut back, will be frozen. This is to justify the argument that has been found valid in the industrial sector. The figures bear some examination. Sixty per cent of government support for industrial technology is not in the form of outlay on research and development but in the form of tax concessions, with the effect not being felt until 1987. The support for commercial outlay in high technology will remain frozen in money terms at the 1983-84 figure. The obligation to the car industry of $30m a year for five years, which is a political offset for the industry's acceptance of the car plan, has been introduced as a justification for freezing or cutting back the level of the national scientific effort. I remind the House and the people of Australia that the support for the car industry of $30m a year is greater than the total amount supporting the Australian research grants system. Senator Button's remarks to the National Committee of Concern, particularly his use of highly misleading arithmetic in justification for his Government's actions, have done nothing but confirm a widespread belief that the scientific community has been totally betrayed by this Government. Clearly, Senator Button in his capacity as Minister for Technology is using his clout as a member of Cabinet to shift priorities in science and technology in a way that does not commend itself to those who can balance a concern for the future of Australian industry with an expert capacity to balance the linked priorities of basic science, applied science and technology. The debate on this issue would be greatly improved if Professor Slatyer's committee were to prepare a Green Paper on the matter. The concerns existing in the scientific community about the direction of Government policy would be alleviated if the scientific community had more access to the processes of Parliament. It is interesting that both the Labor Party and the coalition parties share a policy commitment to create a parliamentary joint committee on science and technology. I would very much like the Government to consider this proposition now because it is by a greater understanding by members of parliament of the importance and ramifications of science and technology in the development of the nation that we can get the true feeling and expression of interest in this Parliament, provide access to members of the scientific community to the processes of government and, hopefully, encourage more support, in the hard sense of funds, to the scientific community. It is utterly imperative that we do this and that the scientific community have the access I have just mentioned. It would encourage and improve communication between this Parliament and the whole of the scientific community, and it may well ease the way to produce all round an improved understanding of the relationship between industrial development and science and technology. It would minimise the sense of arbitrariness which affects the current public understanding of government policy directions. I turn now to another aspect of my responsibilities. Earlier this week in this House the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) disclosed the findings of the inquiry by the Electoral Commission into the informal vote at the last election. We all recall very clearly that a sizable swing was registered against the Government in an election where polls had tipped an increased Government majority in the light of the so-called impressive achievements of Australia's most popular ever Prime Minister, Australia's most internationally acclaimed Treasurer, and a Primary Industry Minister who earned himself his Party's soubriquet 'the Bob Hawke of the bush'. When those expectations of public acclaim were disappointed in the election and the Prime Minister instead faced an attitude of rejection in the electorate, he rushed to blame the size of the informal ballot. The Special Minister of State, he said, had done it again; he had made a mess of things again. He had introduced a ballot paper which carried a built-in disadvantage to Labor. Labor's loss of seats and the Opposition's gains were due not to any rejection of the Government and its policies, he said, but to the informal ballot. We all know the Prime Minister's desperate protestations along those lines. Well, earlier this week the Special Minister of State wanted to reprove the Prime Minister with the evidence that the swing could not be attributed to the size of the informal vote but, indeed, to the issues in the electorate provoked by the developing unpopularity of the Government. The Commission found that the election result was not, in fact, altered by the informal voting. It was good of the Minister to shift the political cost for the voting chaos in this way. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to wait for the report to become available in its entirety when it is referred to the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. It is interesting to note that the report was due to go to that Committee last week, but unfortunately it was not available in time for us to meet earlier this week. However, we found that the Special Minister of State already had his copy. Where do we expect this issue to go? The Government has a very poor political case indeed for moving away from preferential voting. It is clear that its intellectual case is equally thin. As for the Prime Minister's loss of face, nothing has happened since the election to suggest that the electorate's growing awareness of the internal contradictions of his Government was misplaced. Since the election there has been an open season for faction fighting in the Labor Party. Many people outside ask me why the Prime Minister seems to dislike Parliament. He organises parliamentary business to minimise parliamentary requirements. Under this Government the opportunities for private members to speak in this House, to represent their constituents' views in speeches and questions, have been curtailed as never before. The Prime Minister, unwisely, even preferred to have a long election campaign rather than have a few more weeks of Parliament. His minders were all aggrieved, it was said. Well, the reason is quite clear. When Parliament meets Caucus meets, and when Caucus meets there is hell to pay. The Prime Minister finds it irksome to listen to the tiresome attacks of the back bench, lifted to public prominence by the Tammany Hall structure of the Victorian Labor Party. We have all seen those marvellous photographs in the Sun-News Pictorial of the delicate way in which the operations of the Labor Party are conducted in Victoria. But the Prime Minister could live with all this, it seems, if he could be assured of a continuing media hype proclaiming his Messiah-like qualities. As we all know, the mystique has gone. The other Prime Minister, Max Gillies, portrays him now as an invisible man. Even the business tycoons have stopped publicly declaring their public confidence. Perhaps nothing signifies the collapse of the leadership more than the level of the Australian dollar-63c today. We know that when the Prime Minister chickened out of the MX test, when he failed to make available an airfield for a United States aircraft to operate from, he created an international shock wave about his competence as a Prime Minister. He showed himself as a creature of the gallup polls. He showed himself as a head of government who did not make decisions on the basis of judgment of the merits, but as a leader who judged the flow of party popularity as the principal ingredient of statesmanship. So the Prime Minister moves in and out of the shadows of government, not as a leader with an increasing grasp of government over time, but as a shadow of a leader who is content to avoid as much trouble as possible with that vexatious group of backbenchers who howl their frustrations into the night. The Special Minister of State is well placed, it seems, to recover his composure in the face of the explanation of the large informal vote. His Leader can no longer justifiably blame Labor voters who find difficulty with the ballot paper. In fact I was amazed at the gratuitous insult handed to Labor voters by the Prime Minister following the result of the last election. He said that Labor voters were too stupid to fill in the ballot paper correctly. Mr McVeigh —Who said that? Mr MacKELLAR —The Prime Minister said that about Labor Party supporters. It really was the most gratuitous insult to supporters of his own cause that one can imagine. The Prime Minister can blame the Senate ballot for a particular spin-off of confusion. But in the final analysis he can blame only himself and his Government for the developing disarray before the voters and the continuing and accelerating decline in the short time since the election. We clearly have a government on the skids and we clearly have a Prime Minister on the skids, and it is reflected most clearly in the decline and the disarray which confronts people when they contemplate the value of their money. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(5.52) —It is interesting to hear Opposition spokesmen attempting to rework the results of the last election. We heard the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) suggest a few moments ago that the result of the last election was a government on the skids. I would have thought that even the honourable member for Warringah would look at history before he made some of those comments. The problem that the Opposition has is that the election results speak for themselves. In this Parliament the Australian Labor Party was returned with 82 members. The National Party of Australia was returned with 21 members and the Liberal Party of Australia was returned with 45 members. Even a person with a rudimentary sense of mathematics, as the honourable member for Warringah must have, would know that that gives the Labor Party a majority of 16 seats in the Parliament. Another look at history would show that that is the largest majority a Labor government has had in this House since Federation. If that is an example of a government on the skids, I hope we stay on the skids for quite a long while because I am sure a majority of 16 is quite a comfortable majority for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and I hope the Opposition can look forward to those sorts of majorities for us for some years to come. Mr Scholes —Like Snedden, they did not lose; they are just in opposition. Mr LEO McLEAY —No amount of reworking the figures will help the Opposition and, as the Minister for Territories has suggested, the Opposition is so craven in its approach that it has now come to the conclusion that it did not lose the election, it just happens to be in opposition. I can say, I think without doubt, that that is where it is going to be for some time to come. If I sound like I am not being charitable, I now wish to inject just a little charity into my speech. I note that the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) is in the House. When I last spoke a week or so ago I was rather unkind to him. I am happy to withdraw that unkindness towards him. I am sure he will be pleased to know that on this occasion I am also going to make some remarks about contemporary music. We might even convert the honourable member for Menzies into an old rock and roller after this. When looking at Government support for contemporary music we need to have some sense of equity in the appropriation of government moneys. In the 1983-84 report of the Australian Council we see that $9.8m was appropriated to the Music Board, that is approximately 25 per cent of the Australia Council's appropriation in that year. The Music Board has eaten up a considerable amount of the Australia Council's funds over a period. If one looks at the Australia Council's annual report it is plain from the Music Board's statement that it sees itself as having certain goals. The Australia Council report states: The Board's goals encompass the performance of all musical styles, the development of high standards of performance, and of maximum access to these performances through their presentation to all segments of the population. In assisting the development of community music, the Board aims to provide ever-broader access by the community as audience and greater opportunities for involvement in all musical activities. We then have to look at the realities of what the Music Board has done. When we turn over the page we see in the top left hand corner a very small table, which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. It meets the Speaker's guidelines. Leave granted. The table read as follows- MUSIC BOARD Allocation of Funds to Major Activities $'000 1983-84 3 914 The Australian Opera 40% 3 212 Opera and Ballet Orchestras 33% 457 Composition 5% 146 Documentation 1% 703 Education and Community Development 7% 1 400 Performance 14% 9 832 Total 100% Mr LEO McLEAY —Honourable members can see from that table that of the Music Board's appropriation of $9.832m, 73 per cent was spent on the Australian Opera and the opera and ballet orchestras. Mr Goodluck —Too much. Mr LEO McLEAY —My colleague from Tasmania says: 'Too much'. I think that it might not be too much but there ought to be a fair share for other forms of music. Most of the balance of 23 per cent goes to what one might term 'fine music'. It has been estimated that in the financial year 1983-84, the period to which these amounts relate, contemporary music as opposed to 'fine music' received approximately 3 per cent of the Australia Council's Music Board appropriation; 3 per cent for the music that is listened to by the vast majority of Australians. I think there is a good case for suggesting that there is inequity in that. If one were looking for a bias one might look at the staffing of the Music Board. In the report we see under the heading 'Staffing' that the senior project officer resigned from the Board during the latter half of 1983 to take up the position of General Manager of the State Opera of South Australia. The Board then welcomed the former Orchestral Manager of the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust Sydney Orchestra as the new project officer. One can see that the Board gives not only the finance that it is allocated to the Australian Opera and the opera and ballet orchestras but it also seems to give them the jobs. One could ask: Which came first? The argument is advanced by those who are in favour of the type of appropriations that the Music Board is making, that the Government should not build in dependence where it is not necessary. I guess that is rather cold comfort for struggling contemporary musicians. It is alright to be dependent if one is at the upper end of the scale but if one is a member of a struggling band, a struggling pop singer or a struggling folk singer or jazz musician, one should not be dependent. I think it is a fallacious argument to suggest that only 'fine music' can exist on subsidies while other forms of music should become a function of the market-place. The 'fine music' argument that contemporary musicians have chosen the world of the market-place is in a way, I guess, true. But they have chosen it only because they have been forced to go there. However, the savage attrition rate in the commercial world does not really take any account of innovation and excellence. It is interesting to note that 300 years ago J. S. Bach was a struggling teacher. Mozart was a genius who lived in abject poverty and achieved fame only after his death. It was a pity that there was no commercial market for their music in those days. There is a case to be made for the Mozarts and Bachs of today because it is important that the people who put forward the line that contemporary music is somehow tacky and commercial recall that the Mozarts and Bachs were the avant-garde contemporary musicians of their day. They were not up there in the lights; they were the people who were trying to get into the market. They were the struggling musicians. The Music Board of the Australia Council should look to the future as well as the past. It should look to contemporary musicians as well as to fine musicians and it should increase the appropriation from the small 3 per cent in 1983-84 to an amount that at least reflects the very wide support that contemporary music has in this country. While it is very easy to blame the Board because it has not been able to make a case as to why it has not provided assistance to contemporary music, we should look also at other ways to assist contemporary music. The Prime Minister has spoken about averaging incomes. That would be a fine way to assist struggling musicians and artists. Their incomes fluctuate quite markedly from time to time and there is a case for them to have the same averaging provisions as writers and primary producers. We could look at training schemes whereby rather than forcing people taking up a musical career to go on the dole we could give them some training allowance, as we do people who undertake other forms of vocational training. We should be willing to say that bands, for instance, are a form of small business and we ought to be looking to extend to them the provisions we have for small business. We could be giving to those groups, which may or may not be incorporated, some assistance with rather complex legal issues that they have to go into to prevent themselves from being ripped off by promoters. There should be ways of extending investment allowances to them so that they can purchase the equipment that makes their livelihood viable. The Government should look also at the 32 per cent luxury tax placed on records and cassettes. Perhaps some of this money should be ploughed back into the industry so that a benefit is derived by those who produce the revenue. As well, the Government should consider placing the same tax on blank cassettes because one of the great methods of pirating income from musicians nowadays is the use of blank cassettes. People have striven to produce something that is unique but find that it is pirated and that once again entrepreneurs are making the profit and none of the money is accruing to the people whose talent has made the music. Maybe a tax put on blank cassettes at least could be ploughed back into the industry and there would be some benefit for those musicians whose work is stolen-I put it as bluntly as that-by racketeers and by people who are silly enough to purchase these pirated cassettes. If one looks at the support that government gives to contemporary music, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation cannot be allowed to get off scot-free. People from the ABC will say: 'We support contemporary music; haven't we got radio station 2JJJ and don't we have Molly Meldrum on Countdown?' In some ways that pales into tokenism when we look at the appropriations of the ABC to the other end of the music market. It appropriates approximately $22m for the ABC orchestras and not since the days of Bernie Heinze have we seen the ABC orchestras do anything like the Boston Pops orchestra does in the United States of America. The innovations that Heinze brought about in Australia were a good way of introducing young people to a smorgasbord of music. I saw a lot of benefit in providing for people the type of music that they wanted and also introducing them to other forms of fine music. The ABC orchestras do not appear willing to do that any more. They do not like the idea of what they call 'light orchestral music'. The ABC really must ensure that the orchestras that the Government contributes $22m to start to be a little more representative of the people who pay the bills, otherwise the stories we see in the papers about Senator Walsh's attempts to hand the orchestras over to the States where they would wither on the vine will bring about a bandwagon effect in this Parliament. Now, more than ever, people in the fine arts area can no longer suggest that they should be supported or else we are somehow a country of cultural idiots. There needs to be a broadening of the funding policies of both the ABC and the Australia Council's Music Board to include contemporary music. We all need to remember that music is not just opera and classics-the Australia Council's Music Board has belatedly accepted that even jazz maybe in there as well-but it is also folk, rock, ethnic and pop. It is time the ABC and the Australia Council had a look at that. In the five minutes that remain I shall address myself to a quite different issue. I believe the Commonwealth Government should provide more support for marriage counselling. I do not see any parallel between the two issues at all but one might suggest that if unhappily married people went to loud rock and roll concerts they may find they have some things in common; I do not know. I am a firm supporter of the Commonwealth's becoming more involved in this area. The divorce statistics in Australia at present are frightening. The last available report of the Family Law Council, the 1983-84 report, shows that in 1983 there were 42,307 petitions for dissolution of marriage in Australia. That was a small decrease, of 1.2 per cent, on the 1982 figure. It still shows a monstrously high number of failed marriages in our community. Since 1977 the number of petitions for dissolution of marriage has hovered around the 40,000 mark. It does not seem to be getting any worse but it does not seem to be getting any better. The high cost of divorce in Australia, in both economic and social terms, has never been fully quantified but I believe the social costs alone are things that we should be looking to alleviate. We can put some quantum on the financial costs, at least in terms of the cost of the running of courts, et cetera. In 1984-85 the Commonwealth has appropriated $26.9m for the running of the Family Court of Australia. It was estimated a year or so ago that 65 per cent of the money appropriated for legal aid goes in legal aid for Family Court matters. An extremely high cost is involved in running the court system; an extremely high amount of the money available for legal aid is eaten up. I believe some assistance could be given to the institutions of marriage and the family in Australia if the Government put forward more money to help. In the same year as we are spending $26.9m to run the Family Court system to dissolve marriages the Commonwealth has contributed only $3.65m to agencies which are involved in assisting with family counselling. It is spending $3.65m helping to keep families together and $26.9m on the mechanism which puts them apart. No financial assistance is provided by the Commonwealth for those people who go to private counsellors. That works out at about $50 an hour. That is fine for people on reasonable incomes, they can afford it. Working class people cannot. There needs to be a more positive approach by the Commonwealth. Society needs to have a more informed attitude to the role of marriage counsellors. I think there has been a small improvement in society's approach. As can be seen from figures provided by the Attorney-General's Department, 17.6 per cent of client referrals to family counselling came from friends, relations and neighbours. At least people are starting to take the right approach. However, I think the Commonwealth needs to provide more money to assist family counselling. An equal amount should be provided to keep families together as is provided for the mechanism to help families separate. Counselling can even assist those whose marriages have failed by helping them to separate in a more civilised and respectful way. This will go a long way towards helping the children of some of those marriages that have failed. I believe that family counselling is the very poor orphan of the family law system in Australia. It is an area to which the Commonwealth and parliamentarians, both individually and as a whole, should pay a lot more attention. It is an area to which I intend to give some of my time in this session of the Parliament with the hope that we might see a bit more allocated to those people in the Budget next year. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(6.13) —In the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1984-85 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1984-85 I intend to confine my remarks to dvisions 287, 581 and 676. On 16 April we were subjected in the media to a typically bogus and dishonest attack on the Queensland Government, this time, as far as Queenslanders are concerned, by some nonentity called Senator Maguire. Yesterday in Parliament we heard the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) mimic him. Normally, one would not bother to reply, except for the fact that this is part of a concerted Government effort to denigrate the achievement of the Queensland Government. The statistics used by the Prime Minister were selective in the extreme. The accuracy of using the same month in successive years as the basis to indicate the growth of any economy would be dismissed as negligence by any knowledgeable economist. However, if the Prime Minister wants to throw statistics around willy-nilly we should look at another set of statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics pertaining to Queensland. In the period February 1984 to March 1985-the most recent period for which statistics are available-58,500 jobs were created in Australia. But 23,000- Mr Braithwaite —How many? Mr McVEIGH —Twenty-three thousand jobs out of a total 58,500 jobs were created in Queensland. I am sure that this figure will bring joy to any Prime Minister with the nation's interest at heart. Employment growth in Australia was 0.9 per cent. But in Queensland, as I stated earlier on the most recent statistics available-I am not pulling out some isolated statistics as the Prime Minister did to suit his argument-the growth was 2.3 per cent which is three times the national average. Full time employment in Queensland grew by 1.4 per cent whilst the Australian average was 0.3 per cent. So Queensland's employment growth was five times the national average. I draw to the attention of the House the additional cost being borne by many Queenslanders to preserve jobs in other States. For example, every Queensland farmer pays $16,000 in tariff each year, the majority of which goes towards protecting the jobs of those working in heavily subsidised secondary industries situated in New South Wales and Victoria. This is especially significant considering the fact that Queensland was one of only three Australian States to experience population growth in the last financial year. The population rose by 1.7 per cent ensuring that Queensland topped the growth figures for the sixth year in a row. Yet the Prime Minister comes into this House and says that there is no economic growth, that the State economy is stagnating. I ask the simple question: Why do people flock to Queensland? If we look at the building industry we notice that Queensland has roughly 25 per cent of the total share of building activity for Australia, but it has only a 16.1 per cent share of the Australian population. I draw to the Prime Minister's attention the statement made by Mr Tom Barton, the Queensland Trades and Labour Council industrial advocate. I know that the Prime Minister will be delighted when he reads that statement. Mr Tom Barton, in his submission to the Industrial Commission yesterday, not 12 months ago, concerning a wage increase for his employees, said that the talk about gloom and doom in Queensland coming from certain quarters should be dismissed. Clearly, I think he may mean the bedfellow of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Prime Minister. The Queensland Trades and Labour Council is far too strict to support the Prime Minister if it means endangering possible wage increases for its members. In summary, the Prime Minister talks of gloom and doom and the Queensland Trades and Labour Council advocate says: 'We have to dismiss it. Queensland is a great State. Up and away'. The Queensland dispute will not be solved through the Prime Minister's selective, petty and vicious attacks on the Queensland economy. If the Prime Minister has nothing more constructive to offer to the resolution of the crisis than rabid, dishonest attacks on the Queensland Premier, he should leave the ACTU to fight its own battles. Queensland has a government which governs for all Queenslanders, unlike the Hawke Government which governs just for the trade union movement. Queensland has a government that governs consistently and effectively, again unlike the Hawke Government that governs in a pusillanimous and erratic manner. The Federal Government has to set the parameters for economic development. There is only so much that even the best State governments, such as the Bjelke-Petersen Government, can do. Let us look briefly at how badly the Hawke Government has failed in this task of getting the fundamentals right. It has abandoned all economic discipline. Let us look at the results. I am not selectively quoting, just giving absolute facts. Firstly, Australia has the highest real interest rates in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development group. Secondly, Australia has the highest money supply growth of any significant OECD economy. Thirdly, Australia has the second highest current account deficit in the OECD. Fourthly, Australia is the only OECD country with automatic full wage indexation. No wonder it is priced out of the world markets! Fifthly, Australia has the sliding dollar. My Leader, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), and the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), have talked about that in recent days. Mr Braithwaite —Why doesn't the Prime Minister do something about it? Mr McVEIGH —He cannot because he bows to union pressure. That is the point I am making. Despite the burden of the Federal Labor Government, a government bent on mass socialisation and nationalisation, Queensland is showing a well above average performance compared with the rest of Australia. Latest available figures show that private capital investment in Queensland represents 17.4 per cent of the Australian total. Housing completions account for 24.5 per cent of the Australian total. Total buildings account for 22.9 per cent and exports account for 23.7 per cent. These are current statistics, not 12-month-old statistics. They are not statistics that I have just grabbed out of the air. Now honourable members have all those figures clearly in their minds, I remind them that the Queensland population represents 16.1 per cent of the total Australian population. Queensland for its part consistently makes a disproportionately high contribution to Australia's mining and agricultural output and exports. Its contribution was 22 per cent of mining output, 23 per cent of agricultural output and 22 per cent of total Australian exports in the 1982-83 financial year, which again is the latest year for which figures are available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Queensland Government works towards giving the maximum possible encouragement to facilitate economic development. Fortunately, we are a free enterprise economy in that State and we are going to keep it that way. Queensland strives to keep taxes as low as possible. In fact, Queensland tax rates are the lowest in Australia. No wonder the Victorians, the South Australians and the New South Welshmen are streaming up; but we do not want the Prime Minister up there. Queensland strives to ensure that Government regulations are kept to a minimum, it strives to ensure responsibility in financial management, and it strives to ensure that the activities of the Government do not place an undue burden on the taxpayers of the State. Indeed, I think this Prime Minister could learn a few lessons in economic management from Queensland, but he would take a lot of educating. The Labor Government has added more to government spending in two Budgets than the previous coalition Government added in seven years. The Hawke Government is the biggest spending peacetime government in Australia's history. To finance its unprecedented spending spree, this Government has become the highest taxing government in Australia's history. The Queensland economy is not worse off than that of other States, as Senator Maguire and the Prime Minister claim. It is, in fact, far better because the Queensland Government is addressing the hard, difficult decisions necessary to cope with the changing national and world economic situations. Oh, and one more thing. If the Prime Minister thinks that the Queensland economy is doing so badly, we would appreciate it if he would set the Commonwealth Grants Commission straight. Its recommendation to slash Queensland's funding by $77m is clearly, in my opinion, a terrible and vicious mistake. The Prime Minister comes into this House and downgrades the Queensland economy. If he really believes that, and if he is sincere, for once, in what he says he obviously should recommend a massive increase in Commonwealth grant subsidies to save the supposedly failing Queensland economy. We will see just how fair dinkum he is when that proposition hits this Parliament. Mr Braithwaite —Why doesn't he help the sugar industry? Mr McVEIGH —He is not interested in that because the election has passed. In Appropriation Bill (No. 4) under division 944, there is an allocation for the Export Development Grants Board. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sticking to the Appropriation Bills. Can this Government explain why it wants to appropriate more money for the salaries of those administering the Export Development Grants Board? Can the Government explain its rationale for additional appropriation merely to administer the fund when the fund is so disgracefully behind in payments to the exporters it is meant to be helping? The backlog of unfunded obligations owing to exporters under the scheme is estimated to reach a staggering $95m by June 1985. If this Government is not going to allocate more funds to the scheme, and while it is clearly so far behind in payments, why does it need more money for the administration? Quite simply, it does not make sense. Why keep an empty shell going? Far too many exporters have been promised grants under the scheme, with the knowledge on this Government's part that it simply has not allocated enough funds from the Budget to cover such grants. At a time when exporters should be taking advantage of the opportunities brought about from the devaluation of the dollar, their hands are tied due to inadequate funding of the scheme. Australian exporters deserve to know whether or not the lack of funds is part of a deliberate policy which is signalling changes to come. Our country's exporters are struggling to arrest Australia's declining share of world trade. They should not be made to waste time and energy deciphering government policy and intentions. The Government's attempt to cover up its unworkable uranium policy has further eroded Australia's already shaking international trading position and has damaged our relationship with West Germany. The Government has misled the House and the people of Australia over the uranium issue, all for the sake of a farcical policy put together by rabid left wing dogs baying at the moon. The Labor Government's policy on the development and export of uranium is so devoid of principle that no one in this Government has been able to defend it credibly. I refer, of course, to the decision taken during the national conference of the Labor Party last July to prevent the fulfilment of export contracts for uranium previously entered into between Queensland Mines Ltd and the Electricite de France. Queensland Mines was forbidden to carry out its contractual obligations. We now find that, so Queensland Mines will not suffer an extensive loss of export income, the Government will purchase from the company uranium which would have been exported over the next two years. As it is most unlikely that France will cease testing in the Pacific, enabling the Government to withdraw its ban, we have to draw the conclusion that the Labor Government intends to keep purchasing uranium from Queensland Mines until the electorate throws it out of power. The Labor-Queensland Mines deal has never been publicly detailed and has continuously and frantically been swept under the carpet by the Government, which does not want the left wing of the Party and the Australian people to realise that not only does the uranium policy not stand up but the taxpayer is paying through the nose so the Prime Minister can keep the left wing happy with a Clayton's uranium policy. The Government has been less than frank with the electorate and its left wing in deliberately leaving out any appropriation Bill in the 1983-84 Budget to fund the cost of forbidding Queensland Mines Ltd to carry out its contractual obligations. The Prime Minister was determined that the election had to be out of the way before any embarrassing exposures could be made. How dare the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) conceal from the Australian people a shabby deal which is going to cost them $100m? They have treated Parliament with disdain. Such gross expenditure by a Government pleading spending restraint whilst throwing money around like a drunken sailor has to be explained once and for all. The statement issued by the Minister for Resources and Energy on 14 October 1984 contained no information at all on what the Government's extraordinary decision was going to cost taxpayers. Indeed, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's repeated promise of freedom of information for the people, Senator Evans managed to ensure his statement left nobody any the wiser as to exactly what the Government was going to do. Payments to Queensland Mines Ltd under the Government's arrangement were deferred and supposedly will not commence until July 1985. Let us be clear on this point. No payments were to be made to Queensland Mines in this financial year to cover those shipments of uranium which are being purchased from it this year by the Government. The proof can be found in last year's Budget Papers and the Appropriation Bills specifically. There is no financial provision for any such payments. Yet the Government must have known, before that Budget was brought down, that those payments would need to be made in 1984-85. However, the Government still had a further avenue left to make payment. Payment could have been made under the power of the Advance to the Minister for Finance. It seems it was not. Then there is the further avenue of the Appropriation Bills now before the Parliament. In Appropriation Bill (No. 4), under division 944, we finally see a mention of uranium-a payment of $23,000 to Queensland Mines to build a fence around the growing stockpile. The Minister for Trade, Senator Walsh or Senator Evans may have some perfectly legitimate explanation for these contrived arrangements, but if no explanation is forthcoming from the Government on this contemptuous situation it will have to be carefully considered as to whether or not a direct contempt of the Parliament has occurred. Furthermore, if the Government was so determined that no uranium exports should go to France, how does the Minister for Trade explain his then extraordinary decision to allow a shipment of uranium by a West German company from Australia to a French company? The Government has been exposed as powerless to enforce its ban on the supply of uranium to France. Under the 20-year Euratom agreement, finalised by the previous coalition government in 1981, Australian uranium sold to any one of the other nine members of the Community can be resold to France. Government Ministers knew when the policy was made at the 1984 Labor Conference that it was unworkable and unenforceable. Why then did the Government flagrantly waste over $100m of the taxpayers' money in buying off Queensland Mines? There are still further questions to be answered by this Government. Is the contract between the Government and Queensland Mines in US dollars, as world uranium market prices are usually expressed in that currency? If so, has the current estimated pay-out risen above $100m Australian dollars as a result of the 20 per cent devaluation? How is the money going to be paid? Will the Government have to pay interest due on any deferred payments? These are questions which need to be answered and have to be answered. I will not let this matter rest until the Prime Minister, or whoever will be delegated to take the resulting outrage, explains to this Parliament and to the people of Australia how such an outright series of cover-ups, repeated lies and abuse of public money came to be allowed. Sitting suspended from 6.31 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(8.03) —In supporting the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1984-85 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1984-85, I wish to return to a theme that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) raised in the House earlier today. The Prime Minister spoke on the hypocrisy and double standards of the Queensland Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen. What I seek to do is to raise another blatant example of double standards, but this time of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia in the Federal Parliament. It is an indictment of them that, when such important legislation is going through the House, there is not one single member of the National Party present in the chamber and only three or four members of the Liberal Party are present. I am particularly pleased that one of the three or four members of the Liberal Party present tonight is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) because he has to be singled out for special treatment. I speak tonight in support of this legislation and to raise matters of grave concern that I believe are indicative of what must be the demise of the Liberal Party and the National Party for which so many Australians have voted in the past. Those parties are no longer the parties that once represented the small 'l' liberal views in the conservative voice in this Parliament. I wish to refer particularly to the six pieces of industrial legislation that have been passed by the Queensland Parliament. In doing so, I support the Prime Minister in his letter to the Queensland Premier of 13 April in which he said that we have a national responsibility to proceed towards full compliance with the international covenants that were referred to in his letter. These international covenants are not an initiative of the Australian Labor Party. The international covenants to which the Prime Minister referred include the Forced Labour Convention of 1930, which was ratified by Australia in 1933 by a conservative government. The second important covenant is the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention of 1957; again, it was an anti-Labor government, the Menzies Government, which ratified that convention. Another convention referred to was the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention of 1948. A further one was the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention of 1949, which is the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 98. The final one was the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by the Fraser Government in 1980. The matter that I particularly seek to raise tonight concerns the appalling role of the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party spokesman on employment, industrial relations and youth affairs. Speaking on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program The World Today on Monday of this week, Mr Shack was asked the question-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable members knows that he should not refer to a member of the House in that way. Mr TICKNER —Thank you, Mr Speaker. The honourable member for Tangney was asked by a reporter for his view on the ILO conventions in respect of the Queensland dispute. The spokesman for the conservative parties, the honourable member for Tangney, said that those international conventions dating back to the 1930s were, in his precise words, irrelevant. That was then taken up by the reporter, who asked him whether, if they were in fact irrelevant, we should continue to be a party to those conventions. The spokesman for the Liberal Party on this matter said that he believed it was an open question. In other words, he refused to rule out the possibility that, should a Liberal and National Party government ever-heaven forbid-form the government of this country again, the question would be open as to whether that government would repeal any legislation enacted to give force to the ILO conventions and whether the Liberal and National parties would cease to be party to those conventions dating back, as I indicated, to the 1930s. I now move to what I believe to be the essence of the credibility of the Liberal and National parties. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition, who is present in the House tonight, hears what I have to say. What I accuse him of is selling out the principles of his Party, selling out the principles of liberalism that were brought into this Parliament by Sir Robert Menzies and even supported by Malcolm Fraser. I accuse the Leader of the Opposition of deserting the principles of his Party. I do not expect that this statement of mine should be treated with credibility, unless I can deliver the goods. To do that I make reference, first of all, to the statement that was made, on behalf of the Australian Government, at the 1982 International Labour Conference in Geneva by the Deputy Leader of the National Party and honourable member for Gwydir, Mr Hunt. Speaking on behalf of the Fraser Government, he said: . . . the ILO's unique tripartite structure provides the vehicle to assist and promote the development of tripartism throughout the world. He went on to say: Importantly, it also does this through the adoption and supervision of international labour standards. In the formulation and application of these standards, employers' and workers' representatives play a vital role. Importantly, referring to two of the conventions referred to in the Prime Minister's letter, the now Deputy Leader of the National Party, the Party to which the Queensland Premier belongs, said-I quote him word for word-when speaking of these conventions: The benchmark Convention, No. 87 on freedom of association and No. 98 on collective bargaining, go to the very heart of the ILO. The adoption of international labour standards is a significant function of the Organisation. The ILO has established unique supervisory machinery. This seeks to ensure that those member countries which have ratified conventions apply them in law and practice. Mr Robert Brown —Who said that? Mr TICKNER —That was the Deputy Leader of the National Party speaking on behalf of the Fraser Government. How times have changed! I must continue because what the Deputy Leader of the National Party said in Geneva less than three years ago is still relevant. He said: We call upon member States to respect the principle of freedom of association and to move as quickly as possible towards the full implementation of all the important ILO instruments on human dignity. He said, on behalf of the Australian Government: The Australian Government offers its full support to continuing action by the ILO to eradicate discriminatory practices in all their forms. Those words did not come from a spokesman for the Labor Party. They came from a member of the same party as the party of the Leader of the Opposition, when it used to truly be a liberal party, before it took its ugly turn to the right and began to lose the credibility it once had as an opposition party. That is only part of the story. We know that in this chamber over a succession of years spokesmen have made statements on behalf of the Liberal Party, spokesmen who have always supported the ILO and the conventions that the Prime Minister has referred to in his letter. If the Leader of the Opposition doubts what I say I suggest that he looks at what the former Minister, Mr Ian Viner, said when he spoke in 1981 on behalf of the Liberal Party at the International Labour Conference in Geneva. He said-the same conventions, the same organisation, the same principles but a very different party in those days-the following: Of course, the impact of standards cannot be explained simply by their existence. Recognition must be given to the vital role of the ILO's supervisory machinery. . . . It is significant that the conventions of freedom of association, freedom from forced labour and freedom from discrimination are not only among the most important of the ILO's human rights instruments but are also those which have been ratified by the largest number of countries. These are the same conventions and the same organisations that the Prime Minister referred to in his letter to the Queensland Premier. Mr Viner continued. The Leader of the Opposition is looking decidedly nervous and preoccupied. Well he should! Speaking on behalf of the Fraser Government, Mr Viner continued: Consequently, the Australian Government strongly supports the role of the Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in supervising particularly the application of these vital human rights standards. I am afraid that that is still only part of the story. It continues. I must say that another very important contribution to the standards and statements on industrial relations of the Liberal Party was made by the late Sir Phillip Lynch. The context of his statements is worth remembering. He spoke in the Parliament, this very House, on 15 May 1973 about the International Labour Organisation. He was speaking specifically about changes debated by this Parliament which gave full force and effect to the new constitution of the International Labour Organisation. Do honourable members know what was the view of the Liberal Party and the National Party? Mr Peacock —It would not exist today had we not kept the Americans in it. Mr TICKNER —The Leader of the Opposition interjects in a feeble defence. Perhaps he is a bit worried to hear the words of Sir Phillip Lynch in this chamber tonight. In 1973 when Sir Phillip Lynch was the spokesman for a true Liberal Party it was a very different story. The Liberal and National parties both supported the Australian Labor Government under Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in its initiative to support the amendment to the ILO constitution. It passed through this chamber unanimously. I will return to that theme in a moment. In speaking to the International Labour Organisation Bill 1973, the late Sir Phillip Lynch said of the ILO: However, we believe that the primary need for the future is not so much the development of a more extensive code of principles but a rigorous examination by member states of the methods of transferring existing principles into action. In the course of the debate Sir Phillip Lynch went on in a very commendable way, to take up the Opposition, to challenge its credibility. Was the Opposition, he implied, serious in its commitment to the ILO? He went on to say: The Opposition calls on the Minister to make it perfectly clear to the House that any convention which is ratified by him is a convention about which he can say with total confidence that it will not be observed simply in accordance with the spirit of the law but will be observed rigorously in Australia both at a Commonwealth and State level. I commend the late Sir Phillip Lynch for that very important statement. I return to the theme I started on, which was the statements by the Liberal Party shadow spokesman on the ILO conventions, to which Australia is a party and also to his condemnation of those treaties, clearly supported by his Leader, which is at complete variance with everything the Liberal Party, and, I must emphasise, the National Party, has ever stood for. In relation to the ILO conventions, it is important that we remember that Australia was a foundation member of the ILO and that the ILO was established in 1919 as a result of Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles. That is how far back Australia's involvement with the ILO goes. That part of the Treaty was subsequently detached and renamed the 'Constitution of the International Labour Organisation'. The Organisation has been brought into the relationship as a specialised agency within the United Nations. The development of a system of international labour standards was the principal purpose behind the creation of the International Labour Organisation and remains one of the essential activities of the organisation. I have already said that the ILO Act was passed in 1947 by the Australian Parliament, which approved the ILO Constitution at that time. In 1973 an Act passed through both Houses of this Parliament unanimously approving subsequent amendments to the ILO Constitution and the ratification by Australia of those amendments. The Leader of the Opposition is a person of some legal background. He ought to know that the ILO Constitution is very specific. It imposes on Australia an international obligation to give effect within Australia to the principles of the ILO. That is an indisputable fact of international law. However, one would not know that from hearing the statements of the Opposition. That principle arises from two main reasons: First, each treaty Australia enters into in its own right imposes obligations on the parties to the treaty and secondly, the ILO constitution requires members to implement ILO conventions that they have ratified. Specifically, Article 19.5 (d) provides that a member State is to 'take such action as may be necessary to make effective the provisions of such Convention'. It has been recognised that this requires the implementation of the convention, both in terms of legislation and practice. I do not propose to take the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party and the National Party any further. What I wish to do is again highlight how out of step with Australia the Liberal and National parties are and how desperate the Leader of the Liberal Party is in his attempts to retain his leadership, so desperate that he will embrace any extremist cause or viewpoint if he can manage, in his opinion, to squeeze a few political points from it. That principle applies to the extremist and racist League of Rights or the Queensland Premier's draconian legislation, which was clearly condemned in foresight by the late Sir Phillip Lynch, by the Deputy Leader of the National Party and by the former Liberal Party spokesman, Mr Viner. I emphasise again how much support and concern there is in Australia-not just from the Labor Party-for the views being expressed in this chamber by the Government. The Anglican Primate of Australia and Archbishop of Brisbane, the Most Reverend John Grindrod, has expressed his concern; 31 Catholic priests have written to the Courier-Mail; the head of the Industrial Commission in Queensland has attacked the actions of the Queensland Government; and concerned Australians from all walks of life are prepared to take the step of being arrested to defend the principles of civil liberties that the Liberal Party once stood for. When that happens we can see how far out of step the Liberal Party is. This chamber suffers when there is no credible Opposition. It is with regret that I accuse the Leader of the Liberal Party of deserting the principles of his Party and accuse the Deputy Leader of the National Party of failing to defend the principles which he once stood for and which he represented on behalf of the Australian Government in Geneva less than three years ago. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(8.22) —Mr Speaker, I am pleased that you are in the chair tonight because it gives me the opportunity to thank you personally and publicly for the past association that we have shared and to congratulate you on your re-election as Speaker. Longer serving members of this chamber will be aware that I served with you, Mr Speaker, on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation for a number of years. I have a very high regard for you as a person. You are a man of integrity and you have served this Parliament and your constituency well. It has been my pleasure to know you for a number of years. The debate on the Queensland power dispute has continued unabated in this place for many days. I want to pay particular attention to this matter tonight. I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) for a fine speech today, and also the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), and my Queensland colleague in the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). The honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) is a lightweight by any standards, whether it is in this Parliament or the Queensland Parliament. He was knocked out of the ring in the Queensland Parliament over many years. He could not adequately represent the people of Queensland in that Parliament, so he has come to try his luck in this arena. Two recent events-the official approach by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the Premier of Queensland and the unions' blockade of Queensland in a 24-hour strike from midnight tonight-have prompted me to enter what has become known as the Queensland power dispute debate, as it relates to the Queensland Government and the electricity workers. It is laughable that a Prime Minister, who cannot get his own house in order relative to Commonwealth public servants and the untold damage they recently inflicted with strike action, should be preaching to the Premier of Queensland. The unions' 24-hour blockade of Queensland is a feeble and futile attempt by unionists to bludgeon the Queensland Government into submission, and it is doomed to failure. The Prime Minister's approach at this late stage indicates that he has succumbed to pressure from the unions. It illustrates what so many of us have known for so long-that he is not in control in his own right, but rather he is a puppet of the unions and the left wing faction of his Party. He is running scared as pressures and problems mount all around the nation. These unionists who can afford to forfeit a day's pay this week will have their hands out for a pay rise next week. I believe there is a message in that-that many of them are too well off at this particular point. By striking to blockade Queensland the unions will have about as much effect as diluting Moreton Bay with a bucket of fresh water, and even less impact on Premier Joh and the Queensland Government. Premier Joh is reflecting the concern of most Queenslanders at the outrageous behaviour of non-elected unionists in holding our community to ransom. He is reflecting the concern of most Queenslanders-indeed, I would say, most Australians-that unions have gone too far by abusing the power of the right to strike. He is reflecting the concern of most employers who, frankly, have had a gutful of demand upon demand by unions producing less and less. The hiring and firing of labour bears examination by all Australians, because it goes to the very heart of so many conflicts between employer and employee. Many disputes between employers and employees are solved at the local level. Union leaders and industrial commissions do not even get into the act. The real trouble, the real crux of so many disputes, lies in the fact that employees want unchallenged acceptance of their demands without the risk factor of being dismissed. I have been an employer for more than 20 years, so I claim to have some experience and knowledge of the employer-employee relationship. The employee has the right to withdraw his labour from the employer at any time he chooses. He has only to give a week's notice and he ceases to work following the collection of his pay and holiday pay. If he fails to give notice he will forfeit a week's pay. He has no concern that the employer may be left in the lurch through a shortage of staff, or may be unable to readily replace his skills, at the time he serves notice. He is off to other pastures, having gained his livelihood from his employer for four weeks, four months, four years or even 40 years. That is the employee's right which he protects jealously-the right to terminate his services virtually at once. There is no doubt in my mind that the employer should have just as much right to fire as hire. The right of the employer to hire and fire is just as fundamental to the relationship between employer and employee as is the right of the employee to withdraw his labour at will. The right of an employer to dismiss or sack an employee is really part of our history. This is an intolerable position in which to place employers. If an employee is incompetent, lazy or insolent and is judged by the employer to be not in the best interests of his business, dismissal ought to be effected at will. It matters not that the employee is part of a large or small private enterprise organisation, or part of a large or small government department. We have reached the situation with so many unions today that it is only possible to sack an employee, without attracting union action, for such acts as embezzlement, fraud, or causing bodily harm. An employee who is incompetent, lazy or insolent can remain in his job because he is backed and protected by the unions. The development of this situation is a national scandal which has resulted in poor productivity, reflected in the non-competitiveness of our goods on world markets. We have reached the impossible situation where the employer has slowly but surely let himself be manoeuvred into the position where he pays the piper but he cannot call the tune. The unions have a clear message for employers: 'You can hire us on our terms, but under no circumstances do you have the right to fire us'. This is not acceptable to the Queensland Government, to the Queensland people and, I believe, to the Australian people. I now wish to analyse as concisely as possible the situation in Queensland with regard to the dispute between the South East Queensland Electricity Board-the employer-and the Electrical Trades Union representing the employees. The SEQEB made a decision to reduce staff numbers by about 10 per cent in the interests of providing cheaper power for Queenslanders. This meant that the work force would be reduced by more than 400 workers. There were to be no sackings-I repeat: There were to be no sackings-but vacancies would not have been filled until the reduction figure was met. It was the plan of the SEQEB to employ contract labour to do the work that was being done by SEQEB linesmen who were ETU members. I believe that to be a perfectly reasonable stance adopted by an employer-SEQEB in this case-in the interests of conducting a more efficient power generating and distribution operation. A decision was made by the employer-that is the boss; let us not forget that-to provide cheaper power to all consumers in Queensland. The ETU members refused to work with the contractors and went on strike. Large numbers of consumers were without power. As faults occurred, striking unionists refused to return to work to repair them. Later in the dispute power station operators, in sympathy with the ETU workers, reduced power output by half. This caused further inconvenience to homes and businesses as load shedding was introduced. For three weeks Queenslanders were held to ransom by unionists before the State Government stepped in with new legislation, re-employing some of the old striking unionists and employing some new staff. ETU members who failed to report to work when asked by their employer-the SEQEB-sacked themselves. The employer was exercising the fundamental right to fire as part of his right to hire and fire. It is true that the State Industrial Commission was involved in the earlier stages of the dispute. The ETU refused to obey several orders given by the Commission that its members return to work. The Commission was powerless due to the intransigence of the ETU. Mr Hodgman —Shame, shame! Mr HODGES —The Queensland Government, quite rightly I believe, was forced to bypass the Commission in order to restore the essential service of power supply to all Queenslanders. As the honourable member for Denison said, shame on those ETU workers who refused to obey the order of the Commission. Labor Party politicians, unionists, academics and church leaders alike can bleat all they want about draconian legislation and the right to strike, but the simple fact is that the unions have gone too far. It was past time for the elected representatives, the Government of the people, to step in and show some strength. That is precisely what it did. Somebody has to be in charge. That is what the people go to the polls for. They elect a government to govern, and if that means taking strong action to curb the unbridled desires and powers of some unions, then so be it. Governments can appoint all the commissions of inquiry, statutory authorities and arbitrators, including conciliation and arbitration commissions, they see fit to appoint, but in the end it is the government that must show strength and govern when a crisis arises. That is precisely what the Queensland Government did. Past governments of all political persuasions have been far too prone to hide behind these judicial inquiries, authorities and bureaucrats they have appointed. I applaud the Queensland Government for having the guts to go against this creeping trend of hiding behind others who are not directly responsible to the people. I wish to emphasise the point that it is the elected representatives who are responsible to the people. In this instance the Queensland Government took firm action and acted on behalf of the people. Mr Hodgman —And they will win. Mr HODGES —And the Government will win, as the honourable member for Denison says, because it has to win in the interests of the people. I turn to an examination of the Queensland scene. I will endeavour to make an assessment of the calm or otherwise that has been created as a result of this dispute. I could sum up the scene quite accurately, I believe, by saying that the media coverage of the issue continues unabated, but the Queensland people are quiet and relaxed. There is a calm in Queensland that we here in Canberra or, indeed, people in other parts of Australia do not appreciate. When one reads newspaper reports one would think that there was a great deal of upheaval in the State of Queensland. That is not the case. There is no doubt in my mind that that story is being beaten up by some trade unionists and the media. I have had contact with hundreds of people in the past few weeks since the power was restored and not one person has bothered to mention the issue. I have not had one letter or one telephone call of complaint about the actions of the Queensland Government; on the contrary, I have run into people in clubs, at functions, in hotels and in the street and all of them are in complete support of the Queensland Government's stand. All the suggestions of anarchy, bloodshed and rioting made by some union leaders and church men are just a lot of nonsense and are not reflected in the minds of ordinary Queenslanders. The issue is a beat-up, and the sooner union leaders realise it and get on with doing some work in return for the money they receive, the better it will be for all of us. I now wish to examine some of the matters raised in the 'My Dear Premier' letter that was signed by R. J. L. Hawke, Prime Minister of Australia. It was a letter written by a toothless tiger-I call him a lame duck Prime Minister-who is more and more the captive of the unions, to a man, the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who shows great strength and courage. The Prime Minister expressed the acute concern of his Government at the actions of the Queensland Government, while appreciating the great importance of ensuring a reliable electricity supply. He failed, though, to make reference to that important, fundamental right of the employer, the SEQEB, to organise its affairs as it sees fit. I refer to its right to reduce staff, to employ contract labour to produce cheaper power and to fire as well as hire. What a laugh when his letter goes on to talk about 'undermining our international standing with overseas investors and trading partners'! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), as a former Treasurer of this nation, knows only too well what I am referring to now. It is the very unreasonableness of the unions and the strikes they cause that cost this nation hundreds of millions of dollars annually in lost revenue and cause the undermining of our international standing. Mr Cadman —What will happen if Queensland secedes? Mr HODGES —The unions make us an unreliable source of supply. As the honourable member for Mitchell has said, what will happen to this nation in the longer term if Queensland secedes? No one has done more to damage our international standing than the Prime Minister himself, with his recent on-the-run decision to withdraw support for the United States MX missile testing program. He talked about our gains from a greater sense of national cohesion and unity over the past two years. Most people in this nation are tired of this Prime Minister preaching his so-called consensus. We want positive decisions from him. We want leadership from him. All we get is summits, consensus and reconciliation. He was preaching to Premier Joh but he made no reference to his Government's cave-in in recent weeks to the Commonwealth Public Service unions. For two weeks, they wreaked havoc on the Federal Treasury's collection of revenue. I will quote from Press release No. 6/85 of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) which, under the heading 'Deficit', states: As was the case last month, the deficit of $1026m for the month of February 1985 was affected by the delays in processing receipts because of bans imposed on revenue collections by public service unions. The bans were lifted on 22 February but the backlog does not appear to have been cleared until early March. The total cost of paying interest on the additional borrowings required because of the bans was in the order of $18m. The Commonwealth public servants, in that little jaunt, cost this nation $18m because of their go-slow and blockade tactics. Again, of course, this Government and this Prime Minister succumbed to the pressure of the unions. I think that the nation has had enough of union pressures and will support the Premier of Queensland in his efforts. The Prime Minister, in his letter, failed to mention his Government's turn-around from opposition to wage increases for public servants to one of giving in to them. He said that it was his understanding that the unions could be prepared to enter into a dispute settlement procedure. Does he not know that the unionists sacked themselves? Does he not know that the dispute is over and power has been restored? Instead of cringing on behalf of the unions, I thought he would have adopted a statesmanlike approach long ago by telling the unionists to get back to work. Further on, the Prime Minister, in his letter, talked about the Queensland Government not taking account of the rights and processes which have long been accepted in Australia and which are in clear breach of International Labour Organisation conventions, which he says the Queensland Government is contravening. I say to the Prime Minister: 'Go up to Queensland, or for that matter anywhere else in Australia, and poll people on this question. Ask them if they would rather have adherence to ILO conventions or regular electricity supplies'. To start with, there would not be one in 100 who would know what an ILO convention was and the overwhelming result would be the response: 'Provide us with a regular power supply'. People have the right to expect continuity of essential services. There is all this talk about rights, about the right to strike, but what about the rights of ordinary citizens to expect continuity of an essential service? If accepted rights and processes that have become sacrosanct are seen to have outlived their usefulness, then it is time we faced up to the facts and took away that sacrosanctity. If ratified treaties are hindering our progress and processes and no longer serve our purposes then they ought to be deratified. They are, after all, worked out with the best interests of unionists in mind. They are proving to be unsatisfactory in that they place too few restraints on unionists, and that must be checked. I now wish to deal with that much bandied word 'confrontationist', which the union leaders, Labor politicians and so many journalists attach so freely to the Queensland Premier and his Government when dealing with this dispute. It is strange that it is the Queensland Government that is being confrontationist when it does not agree with unionists and introduces legislation to curb them. Surely it was the confrontationist approach of the unionists in the first place that led the Queensland Government to adopt the stance it saw as necessary. It is the Queensland Government that has been elected by the people to make decisions, not the union leaders. The Prime Minister has been gutless over the MX missile decision. He has been gutless in not taking decisions on taxation and he now hides behind another summit meeting. He has been gutless in dealing with Commonwealth Public Service unions. The whole nation is applauding the Queensland Premier and his Government. It is time that the Prime Minister joined in that applause. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(8.34) —In welcoming back to this House my former pharmaceutical colleague, the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), I ask him how members of the once great Liberal Party, decimated by the Queensland Premier's gerrymandering and political chicanery, and now the Queensland rump, can become apologists for the National Party's inexorable climb to political dictatorship. The Queensland Premier is not satisfied with overturning the legitimate powers of ordinary trade union members. We now see on our television sets blood pouring in the streets and all the methods of Hitler's storm troopers being used in a State of Australia. The basis principles of humanity are being disregarded. The day after the Premier of Queensland got into Parliament, he must have drawn red circles around a quarter of his Bible, ignored another quarter and torn out the rest of it. I ask honourable members opposite: Who gets more pay-the electricity worker or the procedural specialist? The electricity worker or the Queensland Premier? The electricity worker or the directors of the allegedly oppressed 41 corporations against whom action is being taken? When the Queensland electricity workers have something like one-quarter of the income of these people, then we can start to listen to this talk of unions running the country. I turn from Queensland to Queanbeyan in this debate tonight on the Appropriation Bills. Just this morning the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) handed over an $18,000 grant prior to the commencement in Queanbeyan of a new program for youth. In support of International Youth Year and through support and funding from the Commonwealth Department of Health, the Australian Sports Commission and the Australian Sports Medicine Federation, a course has been offered nationally to unemployed youth. This morning the Minister for Health handed over a grant for a program in Queanbeyan run by the Queanbeyan youth support scheme. Other cities included in this unique youth project are Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. This community-based program was developed by the national sports trainers' co-ordinator, Chris Wildgen, with special assistance from Dr Hobbs, Dr Malouf and Dr Threlfall. The course will be the nationally accredited Australian Sports Medicine Federation level 1 sports trainers' course. It will use sports medicine as a means to involve youth to communicate information on the basic principles of sports medicine. It will use the sporting image as a means of integrating youth into the community. The objectives are to provide a lifetime skill to the participants, allowing then to become involved in community activities through sport. It will also increase safer participation in sport by educating those who are keen to learn the skills and willing to dedicate their efforts to be of service to a sporting club or team. The Sports Medicine Federation has developed the Australian sports trainers' scheme with Beiresdorf sponsorship. This is a program designed to equip the participants with a sound knowledge of the basic principles of sports medicine. The scheme aims to promote the learning of skills in immediate first aid treatment and the prevention of injuries. The main subjects in level 1 of the course are the role of the sports trainer, the structure and function of the body, taping, prevention of injury, diet, fluid and drugs in sport, and immediate treatment of injury. The skills gained in the course will develop a confident attitude towards prevention and immediate management of commonly occurring sports and recreational injuries. The skills will provide knowledge of basic preventative sports medicine and an understanding of post-injury management. The successful participants in this course will receive national Australian Sports Medicine Federation level 1 accreditation. The Canberra-Queanbeyan sub-region, particularly Queanbeyan, with its high proportion of homeless youth, is a very suitable area for this program, and the Queanbeyan community youth support scheme is participating in that program. I wish to refer to a new measure by the Government to boost country roads programs. Australian roads will soon show the benefit of record levels of Federal road funding. The new Australian land transport program announced recently by the Federal Government will bring road funding in 1985-86 to a record $1,250m, comprising $810m from the new program and $440 million from the Australian bicentennial road development program. The new program, starting with $810m, will be indexed annually in line with the consumer price index to maintain real value. It will extend for five years to provide continuity for the purposes of planning and investment by road construction authorities and industry. The new program will be based on a set share of fuel excise of about 3.8 cents per litre which, when added to the ABRD levy, brings the total to almost 6 cents per litre. Of the record $1,250m, almost $930m will be spent in country areas. This will mean better roads for the country and the maintenance of record levels of jobs. Local government will receive a 5 per cent increase under the program; so it will maintain its record level of grants. National highways will also be maintained in real terms under this Australian land transport program. Country people rely on road transport for both social and economic reasons. In my nearby electorate of Eden-Monaro there are real social and economic problems, and governments often do not recognise what a social problem bad roads are. People in cities particularly fail to recognise this point. In my electorate in the past year people have been unable to get to hospital and they have been unable to reach their doctors. Children have been unable to reach their schools day after day because of floods and other unsatisfactory road conditions. Better roads and an expanded all-weather system will reduce isolation and provide more reliable access to country centres and facilities. The Australian land transport program is an innovative and comprehensive approach to road funding. Despite a difficult budgetary environment the Government is determined to maintain the high level of funding which was established by the Hawke Labor Government in 1983. I believe the Government's national programs are going to benefit the country areas, and this is already being shown. Following a Search Conference on feral animal control in 1983 the Federal Government established a pilot program for feral animal control. That Conference was held at Snowy Station, Dalgety and was convened by me. For honourable members' benefit the aim of a Search Conference is to help a group of people who are more or less in conflict to work effectively together on a common task. In this case the task was the control of feral animals and people with a full range of values relevant to the task in question got together. They included people from the National Parks and Wildlife Service, from the wild dog boards, from government departments and from farming areas, both official and local farmers. (Quorum formed) Before the quorum was called I was speaking about the important program of feral animal control. The feral animal program, which followed from that very important Search Conference which I organised at Snowy Station, Dalgety, in 1983, resulted in a number of very important measures being taken by government. One of them was the establishment of a pilot program in feral animal control, instituted by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), an outstanding Minister, who made funds available for feral pig control in the region. Mr Cohen —He has done for feral animals what Colonel Sanders did for the chicken. Mr SNOW —He has done for feral animals what Colonel Sanders did for the chicken. On the eastern escarpment between the Monaro and Southern Tablelands and the south coast of New South Wales feral pigs have populated the area in vastly increasing numbers. The program that has been set up by the Minister I believe will establish a method of feral animal control which will prevent the devastation of rural communities and the ruination of the rural economy, which will result from any drop in exports caused by the spreading of exotic diseases by feral pigs. Another result from that Conference was the decision of the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service to negotiate with local farmers for the provision of electric fencing. The National Parks and Wildlife Service provided the fencing material and local farmers provided the labour and maintenance of the fences. Since then problems have developed in both fields. There has been an escalation in the number of feral pigs and there have been problems between the National Parks and Wildlife Service and farmers. For those reasons another conference has been convened by me on 2 and 3 May this year. Honourable members and others who are interested will be most welcome to come. I do not know whether honourable members have heard of the electronic scarecrow. The electronic scarecrow acts as a deterrent to most land and flying creatures, resulting from an emission of intense acoustic airwaves that affect muscular and skeletal structures but do not harm the animal. This will be exhibited at the field day in conjunction with the feral animal Search Conference. The Department of Agriculture will be demonstrating and talking on the use of 1080 poison and there will be exhibitions of electric fencing and other features as well as animals on show, including wild dogs, dingoes and wild boars. Col Hunt of Nimmitabel and Mr Graham Blinksell of the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service have contributed to this day and I thank them for their assistance. I believe it will again result in a furthering of the pilot program for feral animal control set up by this Federal Government. These Appropriation Bills are vital to the future of the Australian Government's programs. I believe that the record of this Government is shown through the reduction in inflation which resulted not only from sound economic policies, such as the deregulation of the dollar, but also in investment in programs which pay for themselves. Tonight I have talked about them: Feral animal control, investment in roads, investment in youth, particularly the training of unemployed youth, and sports medicine. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(8.59) —I take this opportunity to speak to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1984-85 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1984-85 tonight because they are concerned with the provision of funds to meet the Government's objectives within the parameters of its policy. It is fair to comment that, in common with governments that have preceded it, this Government is seemingly losing ground, and somehow or other in this country of ours notwithstanding the laudability of objectives, we seem to be getting further and further behind the eight ball. The Bills provide latitude to speak on other matters, which is not always the case, and it would not have escaped the notice of members of the House that during this debate there have been many submissions on the, if you like, Queensland versus the rest of Australia situation presently prevailing. Many of the comments have been highly pertinent and quite objective, in contrast, I must say, to some others. But most of the comments, I think it would be fair to say, address the problem in the immediate sense. I suggest that probably the problem is much more deep-seated. Why do we in this blessed country, where we should have the world at our feet, find ourselves increasingly in greater and greater difficulties? Mr Leo McLeay —It is because of Joh. Mr MILLAR —I will give thought to that proposition and give a response to the honourable member at a later date. The problem does exist and it seems to defy the best intentions and the strongest will of all honourable members and all parties in this House. The situation in Queensland is lamentable. It cannot be described in any other way. How has it come about that we have now a contest between organised labour and, notwithstanding remarks made by honourable members on my left, a democratically elected government answerable to people who retain the capacity to dispatch that government if they believe in due course that the actions in which it has engaged leave something to be desired? It is true that 100 or so years ago the worker, loosely described, was so shockingly treated that unionism was more than urgently required. Lest I should seem to be condemnatory of those who preceded us, let me say that they were probably treated in that way simply because it was the fashion of the day, not necessarily with malevolence but with a lack of thought and consideration. So unionism took its roots. It flourished and established conditions for the workers which their predecessors never would have dreamed of. The reality of it is, as in all things, that the pendulum has swung to a stage now where the union movement possesses strength and influence which give it a disproportionate power in our democratic society. I would venture to say that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), notwithstanding the fact that many of the problems confronting him now have sprung from the seeds he planted when he was a prominent figure in the union movement, is a person of sufficient pragmatism to realise the nature and enormity of the problems that stand between him as Prime Minister and achieving the result he would seek to achieve for this country. I think that left to himself he would probably be able to deal effectively with these problems because they are not problems peculiar to any individual or group; they are our problems as Australians. Presently, as demonstrated by his remarks today, he is confined in his ambitions. Hopefully there will be a change in that respect. As I have said, the pendulum has swung to the extent that the unions now dictate to government. Society has gone along with that. The historical circumstance from the beginning of time has been that a society, a nation, an empire is never more at risk than when it enjoys unprecedented security, comfort and over-indulgence, as we have enjoyed in this country post-World War II. There are generations abroad increasingly in influential positions who have lost touch with the reality that some of us in this House now, sadly, still remember-the reality of bread and beef dripping for a meal and if one had visitors perhaps one could spare some tomato sauce. It could be argued as hardship. Today, because of the conditioning we had from the bounty post-World War II, it may be argued, going to the extreme for the sake of clarity, that hardship rests in an inability to get a boat or a car in the double garage under a two storey brick home. It is all relative, and the society now determining our future has innocently fallen victim to circumstances wherein it has confused expectation with entitlement. We have attained expectation in general terms; we now confuse it with entitlement. Unless our society awakens to the reality of that assertion we will just stumble on as we have been stumbling and there will be no solutions to our predicament within the parameters of conventionality because Australia is no longer in a conventional situation. Our society, our electorates, must have confidence in the quality of government, a conviction that government will act in accordance with its understanding and knowledge of the problems and aspirations of our society. Any government is incapable of doing that if it is hamstrung by the undue influence of outside bodies. What I am saying, in effect, is that one may question the style of the Queensland Premier and question the nature of his legislation, but he has moved in response to the demand of the Queensland electorate-I say that quite sincerely-to break the nexus that exists. He has been prepared to assume the odium and the possible consequences but he has moved to break that nexus. One could say-this might shock my colleagues on my left-that if Joh, as he is commonly known, loses this battle so will the worker because when we look into it deeply we see that there is a mutuality of benefit. The best job conditions on earth are not worth a crumpet if the employer is put out of business. We have been doing this in Australia. Because we have enjoyed the good times, we thought that we could enjoy the extravagance of engaging in this irresponsible action. There is a mutuality of benefit in Australians responsibly exploiting the extraordinary resources of this country to share jointly the benefit that would attach thereto. We have deluded ourselves into believing that we could keep drawing from the bank while not depositing sufficiently to match our withdrawals. It is no coincidence that our dollar now stands at 63c against the US dollar. I digress to applaud the Government for its action in devaluing the dollar. It has provided an opportunity for the world to demonstrate clearly its assessment of Australia. It gives us a signal that we should not fall into the trap of failing to take advantage of the benefits that will accrue from our exports, with the current exchange rates, as a previous government did in respect of import parity for oil prices. It blew through $3,000m for temporary expediency. We should not believe that we have a benefit in respect of exports because the cost of imports will put demands on wage increases and on costs which will compound the difficulties we are presently facing. While there is a benefit to the exporters, including the rural industry, the immediate effect is the prices of goods such as imported tractors will go through the roof. There is no win in this if we lose the opportunity to take advantage of this temporary reprieve in respect of our exports. After all, this country depends on its export earnings and we ignore that at our peril. So the time is right for the Prime Minister, with his Government, to demonstrate that pragmatism for which he is noted or claimed to have. It is later than we think. The worker must recognise that he cannot be extravagant to the point of destroying his own job prospects. We have been doing that. We have the world at our feet if only we apply ourselves. If we study the story of man, of society, and project it into graph form, we will see a rise to greatness from adversity followed by a plateauing out when society becomes divorced from reality and then a plunge to adversity. It seems that the human creature is incapable of reducing the highs and the lows to within reasonable parameters. It seems that we have to learn the hard way. It is no accident that after World War II the defeated nations became the paramount nations within a very short period. Certainly, they had substantial assistance from the victors, under the Marshall aid plan and sundry other plans, but the thing that got them up there was their urge to address the requirements of the time. They had to work to survive and the incidental consequence of that is that they prospered. Proof of that assertion is that, as time has passed by and they have lost touch with that harsh post-war reality, they too believe to some extent that they can engage in the extravagances to which I have referred. As a consequence, there are cracks appearing in their edifice. It is a continuing story of man and his endeavours. I cannot account for any machinations behind the scenes on the part of the Queensland Government, if there were any. But, being somewhat, though not mischievously, condemnatory of the human species, one could not disallow the possibility that that event may have been welcomed. I do not know. I have been trying to be fair and reasonable in the matter. But whether or not that is so, the fact remains that the Industrial Commission ordered the Electrical Trades Union workers back to work. That was the catalyst. The Commission ordered them back to work and the ETU defied the Commission. Its members said: 'We will not go back to work'. The Premier of Queensland, on behalf of the Queensland Government and the people of Queensland, gave them an ultimatum. He said: 'You will go back to work by tomorrow morning or you are dismissed'. Some may argue that that was a little pre-emptory that he did not give them time to consider the situation. That is an argument that I will accept. It is a matter of judgment. But clearly, they had the ultimatum and they declined to go back to work. The Government, as an employer, set about making alternative arrangements. It brought the contractors in. Many of the ETU members immediately argued about the ability and the competence of the contractors to perform the work. It is rather a sad reflection on the whole spirit of the union movement which, in the case of the ETU in Queensland, had been successful in achieving a nine-day fortnight because of the workload. The members of that union argued a very persuasive case. What did they do with their spare time? They did private contract work. Naturally, they would not have declared the income and they would not have paid tax on it. They took work away from others in defiance of the case they argued before the Commission for a reduction in working hours. I ask honourable members to note the sheer inconsistency of it. They defied an order of the Commission. That precipitated the crisis that now confronts us. There is no future for us if we continue this confrontation. I know that the Prime Minister has said that we should talk about it. To what end? The whole history of this matter is that he has been talking about it and yielding-let us not delude ourselves-to the demands of the powerful unions or the Caesars of the powerful unions, if you like, because the ordinary worker remains gloriously uninformed as to what it is all about. When workers were being exhorted to go on strike or to engage in some other action, it would be a happy arrangement to have an independent spokesman at an appropriate assembly. Without necessarily arguing with the pro- position, he could say: 'These are other consequential matters that should be considered before you make a decision'. But it is remarkably easy to persuade people to a point of view if that point of view remains uncontested. These people willy-nilly follow their Caesars. In the very scheme of things because of human nature, the Caesars battle for power. Those who follow live or die as a consequence of the quality of the decisions they make. We see that in this place, as well we know. We see men of laudable ambition battling for the treasury bench. Invariably it does not matter who wins the battle; the nation progressively loses the war. Australia is involved in a war for survival, it is as serious as that. People should not be blase about the fact that last year we paid $5,600m interest on our national debt-interest, mark you, not redemption-and it will get worse. Despite the efforts of parliamentarians it will get worse. What a legacy to leave our children. Some would say, perhaps puckishly: 'Let us generate inflation and we will pay back with paper money.' That is an intolerable proposition, even though in the past it has been a circumstantial event. But it is totally immoral and totally indefensible. So that is the sum of what is happening in Queensland. If we view it all in the immediate context, we come to the point of view that it is a struggle between the legitimate entitlements of the respective groups. But ultimately they are talking about our future, the future of the employer and the future of the worker. I resile from any suggestion that we have a laissez-faire arrangement in the work force with employers and employees. None of us would delude ourselves into believing for one moment that some employers are not as capable of rapacity and viciousness as some of our Caesars in the work force. We all carry the burden of being human beings. There has to be some measure of control. There is room for a difference of opinion as to who is right. But nobody is in the right if, in the ultimate, our country goes down the drain. The indicators threaten us with that circumstance. The Australian dollar is worth 63c compared with the United States dollar. The world virtually holds us in contempt. That is a very serious threat. We have to do something about it and we have to do it now. If this Government feels that it must come to the defence of union members to defeat what is happening in Queensland-this is not just the ambition of the Queensland Premier-at the demand of Queenslanders, we will all lose. I think the happiest result would be to talk but we should talk on the premise that that traditional practice of engaging in dialogue just to create a forum for the union point of view to prevail can no longer occur because the worker will certainly lose his prospects of attaining that to which he reasonably aspires. It is a very serious problem. I just exhort honourable members to consider it deeply- Mr Hodgman —We have made a mess of it. Mr MILLAR —To be fair, we have made a mess of it. We have all made a mess of it because we have innocently fallen victims to the prosperity we have enjoyed. We have lived extravagantly like the profligate son. We have engaged in some very substantial reforms. Some have been circumstantial and some have been encouraged. We have 570,000 unemployed, yet this tends to be ignored by the unions themselves. I have a union spokesman in my electorate with whom I am on cordial terms. At one meeting where it was suggested that we may be able to give some young unemployed part time work at a concessional rate to give them job familiarity and to give them a sense of purpose, this union representative objected most strongly. When challenged on his attitude as a representative of the workers he said unequivocally: 'It is my responsibility, as a union representative, to look after the employed, not the unemployed'. I was shocked. What an extraordinary attitude! Our well-being rests in a common appreciation of what we have, how best it can be engaged, and how best it can be divided. I have diverted from the debate on the Bills before the House. I was talking about some of the social reforms concerning the 570,000 unemployed. There is no qualm or conscience among multi-income families where husbands and wives are working. There is no sexist overtone to that comment. People are not troubled by the fact that in Canberra there are incomes of $40,000 or $50,000 a year going to sustain two people. There is no thought for the worker. They are jobs. There are only so many jobs in this country. We have elected as a society, quite indifferent to the hardships that may result to others, to pursue our ambitions without a thought. It is really time that we took stock of what is happening in this nation, not on a divisional basis but in an appreciation of the fact that, whoever is in government in the end, if there is not a country to govern their labours will be totally wasted. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(9.18) —At this point I confine my remarks on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1984-85 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1984-85 to the communications area and, in particular, to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Over the years, especially during the last decade, the ABC has come in for its share of criticism. However, two quite separate types of criticism have come the way of the ABC. The first type of criticism is the normal type of criticism of programs and the like that all broadcasters receive from time to time. The second type of criticism, which is quite separate and distinct from the aforementioned type of criticism, is an abuse of the ABC in a very political way by members of this House and members of other parliaments in this country. The ABC is not a political tool to be used by anybody on behalf of any group or organisation. Whenever something seemingly goes wrong at the ABC in any number of categories that one might think of there is always someone ever ready to come forward and suggest that the Government intervene or, in some way or other, pressure the ABC to take a particular course of action. One of the first political attacks on the ABC that comes to my mind was the attack during the 1975 election campaign by an Acting Minister in the then puppet Government set up by that infamous Governor-General Sir John Kerr. I am talking about the Acting Minister, the former member for Gippsland, Mr Peter Nixon. Amongst many remarks he made during that campaign, he said: Never in its history will the ABC be under such close scrutiny as during the coming election campaign. How is that for a bit of political pressure from a Minister? I repeat: He was a Minister at that time, during a very important national election campaign. Of course, during the first three years of the Fraser Government we saw the appropriations for the ABC drop by around 26 per cent in real terms-another attempted political strangulation by the conservative parties in this House. I am pleased to say that appropriations have been more than kept up to the mark during terms of this Government. Mr McVeigh —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Would the honourable gentleman tell us what division this matter comes under? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr CHARLES — If the honourable member cares to look, Communications is in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4). It refers to the ABC. Quite obviously the honourable member and former Minister cannot read, which is probably why he was a such a disaster as a Minister. Mr McVeigh —Madam Deputy Speaker, on a further point of order: The honourable member has indicated that I cannot read. That is a reflection on the people who taught me. I ask him to withdraw those words as they are personally offensive. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Isaacs will withdraw. Mr CHARLES —Yes, I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I have said, the former Fraser Government, in which the honourable member was a Minister, in its first three years of office dropped appropriations for the ABC by around 26 per cent in real terms. The Hawke Government has kept the appropriations up to the mark during its terms in office. During the terms of this Government we have also seen substantial change to the ABC. We have seen it change from a Commission to a Corporation, with its own legislation and a new Board of Directors. That was done within a few months of the Hawke Government coming to power in March 1983. However, let me return to the issue of political bashing of the ABC. We all may criticise the ABC from time to time, just as we might criticise some of the commercial networks, all in the context of proper programming or an opinion regarding a particular program or show. However, in criticising a program I have never called for the resignation of the Managing Director or Board members, or called for an investigation into the political attitudes of ABC staff members, or called for the ABC to be sold off to private enterprise. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr Slipper —The ABC is a drain on the public purse. Mr CHARLES —Opposition members say 'Hear, hear'. Those interjections are from members of the same Party of which Mr Nixon was a member when he was in this House. There are, unfortunately, those amongst us who use those or similar tactics whenever it suits their political needs. Why do these people treat the ABC in a different manner from the commercial networks? On the one hand, if a new venture goes wrong-some people have suggested that is the case with the ABC's new news and current affairs program, the National-that criticism is not confined, unfortunately, to the program and related matters. It is sometimes extended to the idea that something is fundamentally wrong with the ABC, its senior members, or possibly, as I have mentioned earlier, that it should be sold off to private enterprise. On the other hand, if one of the commercial networks put on a bomb, and they have had a few in their time, nobody realistically calls for Kerry Packer's resignation as head of the Nine network, if indeed that was the network that programmed a bomb in prime time. Nobody seriously calls for Mr Packer to dispose of his shares in the network. Of course not; that would be absolute nonsense. Yet that is the sort of nonsense the ABC has to put up with. It is double standards between the commercial networks and the public statutory authority. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is not an arm of the Government, as some members of the Opposition seem to think. Judging from some of the interjections and from the questions they have continually put to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) since this Government came to office, they continue to think that way. The ABC is an independent statutory authority under the control of its Board, with its funds appropriated by the Federal Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, as you would know, the ABC is likely to be appropriated around $400m in this year's Budget, I would guess. When the funding for the Special Broadcasting Service is placed on top of this figure, it is a considerable amount. That brings me to the next point I should like to make. That figure is also likely to escalate in the coming years as the SBS expands its services throughout Australia. All of this brings me to the case for a second national network in this country. I have spoken about it many times before in this House. The recent report to this Parliament by the Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service talks at length about this issue and whether the ABC and the SBS should be amalgamated. I wish to read just a couple of recommendations to put what I am about to say into context. I shall read three recommendations from page 23 of the summary of recommendations: We recommend that the first priority is to establish a statutory authority better designed than the SBS to develop a more effective ethnic radio and multicultural television service. We recommend that the ABC and the new MBC should increase co-operation between them, sharing resources, co-ordinating program planning and exchanging personnel. We recommend that the Government should appoint a further inquiry in 1990 of both the ABC and the MBC with a view to considering their integration. In the meantime both organisations should be encouraged to work towards the aim of a single national broadcasting authority. I believe that the ABC and the SBS will and should come together in the not too distant future. I have spoken on many occasions in this House about this issue, centring my remarks around the concept of two national television networks operating in a similar way to the present ABC 1 and 2 radio networks. (Quorum formed) As I was mentioning before I was so rudely interrupted, on a number of occasions in this House I have talked about this issue of amalgamating the ABC and the SBS in a similar way to the present ABC radio 1 and 2 networks. A sensible coming together is a must not only for the sake of good broadcasting but also because it makes good economic sense. It also would assist the ABC in the capital equipment area, which is so costly in our never ending expanding and changing communications industry. The ABC is in the broadcasting industry. If I had a criticism of the ABC, it would be that it has never recognised that to its fullest. It is not a Public Service authority. It should not be run by the Public Service. It is part of one of the biggest and fastest expanding industries in this country-the communications industry. This is a very difficult industry because of its fast expansion and the economics involved, as the commercial networks will attest. The Government this year will appropriate between $400m and $450m for the ABC, the SBS and various other things added together. All the networks must be treated in a similar vein, whether they be the commercial networks or the ABC. As I mentioned earlier, we cannot have the hypocrisy of some members of this House and members of other parliaments throughout Australia treating the ABC in a different fashion depending on who they want to use as a whipping boy for their own political ends in any week. The ABC is an independent body and should be treated as such. I will leave my remarks on the ABC and the communications area at that and move on to sport and recreation. I appeal to the Government, when looking at this coming Budget and funding for the next few years, to look at the allocation of moneys for recreation and leisure facilities at the local level. I congratulate the Government and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who has been very active since his appointment on the election of the Hawke Government, for the trebling of funds for sport and recreation and for the wonderful work in that area, especially the expansion of the Australian Institute of Sport, with funding to assist athletes and sporting organisations. But I would like to point more directly to the provision at the local level of leisure centres and recreation facilities for the general population-not for international facilities-which are very much needed and are something close to my heart. At present there are no specific funds for these. Assistance is provided by grants through the community employment program; but, if a project is rather large on the capital side, it cannot be funded in that way. Of course, if one is looking at such facilities as swimming pools or leisure centres, they are usually in that category. I urge the Government, through the Minister, who I know supports this idea, to look at funding these sorts of facilities at the local level. I do not believe that this Government can spend five years in government-that is what it will be in round terms running up to the next election-and not have this sort of program in place. No matter how much money we spend on sport and recreation facilities at the Institute, which in turn will assist Australia's reputation abroad, we must spend money at the grass roots level to assist people not only in their leisure time-unfortunately too many people have not much leisure time-but also in their general well-being and health, which is so necessary in this day and age. The issue of good health has come to the forefront in the last few years. People are very concerned about keeping fit, eating the right nutritional foods, starting to jog, et cetera. As the Minister reminds me, we are looking at thousands of millions of dollars- Mr John Brown —Twelve thousand million. Mr CHARLES —The health bill will be around $12,000m in round terms this financial year. If we can do anything to assist the general population in its aims for better health, better well-being and peace of mind in its work and leisure at the grass roots level, this Government must look in that direction. As I said, we cannot go to the next election, which would involve around five years of government, without such a program. By that time we would have spent a considerable amount of money-several hundreds of millions of dollars-on sport and recreation facilities at the higher level for the elite athletes, et cetera, but nothing at the grass roots level. It is a fundamental philosophy of people on this side of the House. I am quite sure that Cabinet will look seriously at this matter this year; but, whether it be this year or within the next twelve months, I urge it to take this matter seriously into consideration. Mr Hollis —Hear, hear! Well said. Mr John Brown —Send a copy to the Minister for Finance. Mr CHARLES —The Minister for Finance needs a copy; we might give it to him for his good health. This is a very important area. Under consecutive conservative governments we saw literally no money being placed into the sport and recreation area, or into tourism. I mention tourism because the Minister is sitting at the table. While the previous Government had a good Minister in the late Sir Phillip Lynch, he was continually rolled in Cabinet in his attempts to expand the budget for the Australian Tourist Commission. It is in those areas, under the responsibility of the Minister at the table-tourism and sport and recreation-that this Government has expanded and recognised not just their prospects for the well-being of people but also their great employment prospects. The sport and recreation area will be a tremendous employer; it is now and it will expand rapidly over the next decade. It is becoming a large industry. I am pleased to see that some honourable members-most of them on this side of the House-recognise that. I urge the Government to give urgent consideration over the next few months to the points that I have raised tonight. Mr JULL(Fadden)(9.38) —Tonight we have been treated to two speeches that are worthy of comment. I refer, firstly, to the speech by the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), which was one of the most considered speeches that I have heard in this House since my return to it. While I do not intend to cover the issues facing the State of Queensland at the moment, he made some very salient points on the international implications of exactly what will go on in that State tomorrow. Undoubtedly, this blockade by the Australian Council of Trade Unions will have international ramifications. There is no doubt that Australia is presently facing one of its most difficult periods in terms of the economy. While we are debating these current estimates, it would be true to say that we should really be thinking very seriously about the deliberations of the Government over the next few months and just how it will frame the next Federal Budget. We have seen some dramatic changes in our economy even in recent weeks. I am sure that everyone in this House welcomed the floating of the Australian dollar. I am equally sure that everyone in this House really had no idea of exactly what would happen to the dollar once it hit the free international market. The fact that today we have a dollar valued at 63c will certainly bring us some short term benefits. But I am absolutely certain that the moves we make in the next couple of months will determine whether the dollar is just in a temporary situation of devaluation or whether we are really looking at devaluing the whole of the assets of Australia. I am sure that no Australians would like that. Therefore, the decisions that are to be made by this Government over the next few weeks in terms of the framing of the next Budget and the policies that are to be followed on wage determinations are all terribly critical for Australia, not only for the next few years but indeed for many generations to come. When one comes into this House during a free-ranging debate such as this one often wonders whether the Government has learned anything. We hear honourable members, such as my good friend the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), promote all sorts of big expenditure programs. At this time, probably more than in the last decade or so, we need to make sure that we keep the can on our free-ranging spending and that we have our economy absolutely right so that we can maintain any advantages we get from the depreciation of the Australian dollar. I would like to take up a couple of the points made by the honourable member for Isaacs tonight. I find that quite often we are in fairly general agreement when it comes to discussions about the media. I suppose that is because we share a similar background. I appreciated many of the comments the honourable member made about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I suggest that one of the things the Government should be looking at-this is not a high expenditure program-is the planning of the future nature of communications in this country. We have seen some massive changes in technology over the last few years. I remember many debates in this House when we spoke about some of those changes. It would be interesting to go back to some of those speeches now to see whether our attitudes are really the same, whether technology has caught up with us in this place. It certainly has caught up with the Department of Communications. I suggest that the planning function of that Department is probably more important now than it ever has been. Already we are seeing the system starting to be gummed up. We are going to introduce supplementary licences for radio and television stations. We are looking at a whole renewal process for existing licences. The nature of ownership has changed so much in that area that we are already getting a tremendous backlog in terms of trying to rationalise the very limited facilities we have in the current set-up in this country. It would do not only the Department of Communications well but also honourable members well to project some of the things we will be seeing in the next few years, especially satellite communications. Their nature has changed, too. Already in Europe we are seeing international boundaries being overcome by the advent of television satellites. For example, many of the programs that are beamed out of the Western European countries can quite easily be picked up in Eastern European countries. The cost of a receiving dish to take a television signal can be as low as $10 or $12. One can almost receive a television signal on a cigarette tin. That really boggles the mind, as does what the nature of future international communications is going to be. It should give us an indication of just how small the world is becoming in terms of our capacity to cross international boundaries to have that interchange of culture for which television is so terribly important. I hope that some very real consideration will be given in the next few months by this Government to ensuring that the Department of Communications has the facilities for proper planning and future projections in regard to the way this new technology is to go in Australia. Technology has certainly caught us up in a number of areas. I know that in the newspapers in recent times we have read of the situation facing the Commonwealth Chief Censor, for example. Who would have thought five years ago that the Australian community would end up with the second or third highest concentration of home videotape recorders in the world? The honourable member for Isaacs was talking earlier about the leisure industries and the problems we have in that area. The videotape market is one of the fastest growing industries in Australia today. The whole thing is in a terrible mess. Some of the things that are happening in that industry are almost farcical. There is big employment to be gained from the industry. We know that at the moment, the Commonwealth Chief Censor, because of a lack of resources to censor and re-censor videotapes-they are different from the original film programs-now has a backlog of some 2,000 titles to get through. We have seen some tremendous problems in the community in regard to the legislation that has been introduced by the States in respect of X-rated and unclassified videotapes. In my own State of Queensland we have the most remarkable situation. With reservations, the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Chief Censor is abided by. Although 'X' classifications are right out in Queensland the other things that are allowed are non-classified videotapes. This also applies to other States. Some very famous film titles have not been reclassified. For example, the videotape version of Carousel is an illegal product in Queensland at the moment. It gets worse than that. Murder on the Orient Express, one of the biggest box office movies of all time, is, at the moment, an illegal videotape because it has not been re-censored. Mr John Brown —What about Sound of Music? How is it going? Mr JULL —The Sound of Music has been censored, but the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism will be pleased to know that the royal wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, which has been released through the Thorn-EMI group-it is a British Broadcasting Corporation videotape recording-presently is an illegal tape in Queensland and in other States because it does not have a classification. I think it is absolutely outrageous that this industry has the whole system gummed up purely because the Commonwealth Chief Censor does not have the resources to get through the backlog and get the industry going again. Some people say that the quick quid merchants are certainly in the videotape industry at the moment. But I think it is more than that because the videotape industry is one of the industries that are showing a growth pattern in employment. The profits that go through that industry will create jobs. They are new jobs; they are jobs in the new technology, which is really what the communications industry is all about. That is another point I bring to the attention of the Government tonight. For goodness sake, let us not hinder the creation of new jobs for young Australians. Let us get behind them, even if it means an expansion of the bureaucracy. I would be the last person to advocate a willy-nilly expansion of the bureaucracy, but we should be allocating resources to those areas that are going to produce long term, meaningful jobs. The new technology in the communications industry is one such area. I was pleased to hear the honourable member for Isaacs mention in his speech the situation regarding tourism. I have spoken in recent weeks of what tourism can mean to this country. The efforts that are presently being made combined with the devaluation of the Australian dollar obviously will mean some very real jobs for Australians. Maybe there is room for the Government to start looking at some of the philosophical differences that it claims exist between both sides of the House to see whether it cannot relate them back to a real commitment to creating jobs for Australians. I mentioned the Bureau of Industry Economics figures the other day. I think they are worth repeating. It is tourism more than any other industry in this nation that has the capacity to provide long term jobs for all Australians. Every time we can increase the net number of international visitors to this country we create 1,200 jobs. Therefore, I have no hesitation at all in urging the Government to allocate more funds to the promotion of Australia as an international tourist destination. We have to make sure that we get in on that boom now because tourism is the only industry that will be able to provide long term, lasting employment. I would support any move by the Minister at the table, when he goes to the Cabinet for the next Budget submission, to make sure that those figures are up. It is all very well for the honourable member for Isaacs to say that we have doubled the amount of money we are spending on tourist promotion over the last couple of years. That is true. However, we still come in at about No. 42 in world terms in regard to the amount of money we spend on tourism promotion. We are beaten by countries as small as Denmark. That is the real crux of the matter. If we are to look seriously at the creation of long term jobs for all Australians we must overcome some of these old hurdles. We must make sure that the allocation of resources goes into the right places so that we can create jobs. I turn now to an issue that is worrying a great number of members of my electorate of Fadden. Fadden has a high concentration of young married people, and they face real financial hardship today, as much as they have at any time during the last decade. While I congratulate the Government on looking at areas where it may be able to cut expenditure, it would worry me if the Government went ahead with its plan to trim the family allowances. The family allowance system, introduced in 1976 by the Fraser Government, was regarded as a system that was most fair in terms of providing family support. It had no real strings attached, except one: It had a capacity to deliver into the hands of the wives or mothers a small sum, but a sum specifically to give them support in bringing up their children. More than ever before, this nation must look at encouraging the growth of the family system. We should look at some of the long term ramifications of zero population growth. I hope that any assistance the Government can give in creating a little less hardship for the mothers of Australia will be welcomed. It should be the last area which a government with any heart at all should cut. Governments, no matter what their political persuasion might be, have a responsibility to provide that sort of family support. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has talked about a flat rate for family allowances, but that is not going to help anybody at all. All the studies have proven that larger families will have real problems in terms of financial support and being able to provide their children with basic clothing, education items and even food. Mr Braithwaite —They are the ones in the poverty trap. Mr JULL —The larger families are the ones in the poverty trap. At a time when we should be trying to encourage people to have larger families, I would hate to see the encouragement to families to have another child being taken away. I hope the Government will forget the option of trying to knock down that particular family scale, because many large families look very much to that family allowance for support. It is the only way in which they can provide any real sort of sustenance for their family, and I would urge the Government to completely forget those particular aspects. What the honourable member for Isaacs was saying about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is probably very true. The Corporation is still in a settling down period. I would support what he said about a second network and the utilisation of particular resources. One hopes that a spirit of well-being across the chamber on issues such as this will culminate in a rational approach to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which is a great international organisation. With changing technology, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will have a tremendous capacity to play a very vital part in international communications, which will become more and more important to all of the countries around the world in coming years. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(9.55) —In speaking to the Appropriation Bills (Nos 3 and 4), I would like to talk about the community employment program in relation to other schemes for employment creation. Over the last 10 years in Australia four major job creation schemes have been implemented, all with a different approach to job creation and alleviation of unemployment. The regional employment development scheme, which was better known as the RED scheme, was introduced by the Whitlam Labor Government in 1974. Kirby, in a paper entitled 'The Recent Australian Experience-An Overview Paper', which was published in Youth Employment, Education and Training, commented that this scheme had favourable secondary effects, in addition to its primary effect of creating employment, in terms of regional multipliers, training and mobility, and improved motivation for the unemployed. The special youth employment training program was introduced by the Fraser Government in 1976 as an attempt at a job creation scheme. It still operates through the paying of subsidies to employers of youth, predominantly through the private sector. Structurally unemployed groups, other than youth, are not included under the scheme. It has been widely criticised on five grounds, as follows: Firstly, it encourages the substitution of subsidised for non-subsidised employees; secondly, the training element of the jobs is generally minimal; thirdly, the jobs are of low skill and generally repetitive; fourthly, employers rotate-that is, terminate employment when the subsidy runs out and then seek new recruits under the scheme; and, fifthly, the net job creation effect of the scheme has been minimal-that is, around 20 per cent of the subsidised jobs have been new jobs. Unpublished government studies cited by Kirby point to low retention rates-roughly 20 per cent of participants being with employers two years later-and low net employment effects, sometimes as low as 11 per cent, which I think was in 1979. The wage pause program was commenced at the end of 1982 as the Fraser Government's response to the freeze of public sector wages which it had initiated. In order to sell the freeze, the wage savings generated were to be used by the States for public sector job creation. Criticism of that program also has been widespread, largely as a result of the slowness of State governments to implement the scheme and the varied interpretation and implementation of the guidelines across States. Some States had capital intensive projects employing very few females-for example, Queensland-and other States, such as Tasmania, were very slow in getting projects off the ground. The most successful scheme, the community employment program, was introduced by the Hawke Labor Government in 1983. As stated in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations report entitled 'CEP-The First Year': The fundamental objective of the community employment program is to assist the most disadvantaged groups of unemployed in obtaining permanent employment in the general labour market. It does this by providing work experience and training on worthwhile projects and acting as a stepping stone for those people to get back into the work force. The program is not intended to be a direct source of permanent jobs, although many projects do have the potential to be self-sustaining and to create ongoing employment. Priority is given to such projects in the assessment process. (Quorum formed). In order to achieve the stated objective of assisting the most disadvantaged groups of unemployed, the positions created through the CEP must be additional to those which already exist or which would have been created in the absence of the program. This is to ensure that the CEP jobs are not simply substitutes for other jobs. In addition, CEP projects must be labour intensive. Job creation under the program occurs through the funding of projects sponsored by Commonwealth and State government departments and instrumentalities, local government authorities and community groups. During 1983-84 at least half of each project budget, or more than 70 per cent of the CEP grant, was to be devoted to target group labour costs. This requirement ensures that the focus of the program remains on maximum job creation while still recognising other aspects of project costs. An associated requirement is that, on average, projects should provide participants with employment for six months. Flexibility is introduced by providing for a minimum project duration of 13 weeks and a maximum duration of 52 weeks. A common criticism of past job creation schemes is that participants were engaged in meaningless work and so failed to gain any real benefit from participating. The CEP, on the other hand, provides productive and meaningful work by requiring that projects provide facilities and services of social and economic benefit to the community. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development experience, as quoted in The Challenge of Unemployment, suggests that community schemes provide greater motivation and are more morale boosting to participants than the other forms of job creation schemes. The participants have the satisfaction of feeling that they are doing something constructive for their local communities. Indeed, in my electorate of Cowan, there are a number of community-based employment projects funded through the CEP where the participants have gained a great deal from contributing to the projects. A good example of dedication in this regard is the creative and therapeutic activities group known as CATA and the farm which is associated with the Burbridge Road School, previously known as the Koondoola Special School. In both of these cases, the CEP employees have made a marvellous and selfless contribution to the projects, benefiting themselves at the same time. CEP projects must also create jobs directed at the target group of disadvantaged persons in the labour market. A general eligibility requirement of at least three months continuous registration with the Commonwealth Employment Service has been set to define the eligible population. Priority is then given to the target group, which comprises the long term unemployed, defined as persons registered continuously with the CES for nine months or longer, Aboriginals, disabled people and migrants with an English language difficulty. To give effect to equal employment opportunity policies, a particular requirement of the program was that at least 50 per cent of jobs should go to women, excluding the jobs on local roads component. I am particularly proud as all honourable members would be aware of this employment program's record in relation to the employment of women. From the outset it was evident that the 50 per cent women's target would be a problem because the proportion of women working in the construction industry was only about 10 per cent. In recognition of this, a women's participation target of 20 per cent was set for this component. To ensure that the achievement of the women's target for the Commonwealth CEP as a whole was achievable, an amount of $8.5m was set aside for women's projects and this became known as the women's component. Women bear a disproportionate burden of unemployment, especially hidden unemployment, which has imposed additional economic difficulties on many unemployed women who are sole parents and largely reliant on social security benefits. The Hawke Government is committed to playing an active role in fighting discrimination against women-indeed, against any social group-seeking to participate in the labour market. Accordingly, the Government has taken positive steps to break down the labour market segregation and discrimination against women through actively seeking to improve their participation in Federal training and employment programs. The community employment program, our major job creation initiative directed at the long term unemployed, has as an important objective the achievement of equal female participation. The Government recognised women's difficulties by allowing a moratorium on the necessity for three months registration with the Commonwealth Employment Service. By doing so it acknowledged the impact of long term unemployment on women, not only in the official statistics but also in the ranks of the hidden unemployed. Although we have not yet achieved the equal participation we seek, the results so far have been extremely encouraging. Since the introduction of the CEP in August 1983, 35 per cent of all jobs commenced under the CEP have gone to women. Roads and water supply projects were excluded from the 50 per cent target, but if these are removed from the calculation the extent of female participation increases to 41 per cent. This situation will continue to improve as the community employment program matures. Tighter targeting has been pursued under the program during 1984-85 and a special conference on women and the CEP, sponsored last year by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, enabled program operators from all States to share their experiences and improve female participation. In fact, of all jobs approved under the CEP so far this financial year, 46 per cent have been earmarked for women, or an impressive 49.4 per cent if road projects are excluded. The House will be aware that the Government introduced a target of 25 per cent female participation in roads projects for 1984-85, and over 22 per cent of all jobs approved on such projects since the introduction of this new guideline have been filled by women. A major focus of the recent Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs was the issue of access of particular groups of disadvantaged job seekers, including women, to the current range of Federal training and employment programs. The Committee also contended that disadvantaged groups should not be ostracised from mainstream activities and catered for through separate special programs, which would serve only to entrench existing tendencies to segregation and discrimination. Rather, the targeting approach pioneered under the CEP is now recommended for all mainstream programs, including the objective of equal participation by females and males. This recommendation has significant implications for the operation of a range of Federal programs. The Government will be examining this carefully in the context of its overall consideration of the Kirby Committee's report, according to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). Improving the opportunity for more equitable participation by women in the labour market is also, of course, a function of breaking down some of the socio-economic biases associated with the performance of domestic or family responsibilities. On this issue the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made the Labor Government's view clear when he addressed the International Labour Organisation in 1983. He pointed to the need for a more equitable sharing of family and domestic responsibilities, the provision of support services, and the recognition of the family responsibilities of both men and women workers in the terms and conditions of their employment. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.10) —I rise in this debate tonight on short notice, having replaced the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), who was thrown out of this chamber today when the Government used its numbers to force through a motion suspending him. His offence? He merely stood up for the rights of his Premier and his State. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Fisher should be very careful that he does not reflect upon the actions of Mr Speaker in an event that took place earlier today. Mr SLIPPER —I intended to reflect on the actions of the Government, not Mr Speaker. Like the honourable member for Maranoa, I am pleased and proud to represent Queensland and its National Party Government in this place. I wholeheartedly support, as do all members on this side of the House, the Hon. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the man who will go down in history as Australia's greatest Premier ever. Government members interjecting- Mr SLIPPER —I support the most efficient, effective and forward thinking State Government in the Commonwealth, a Government feared by honourable members opposite, whose colleagues in Queensland have been rejected time after time by the Queensland people. The Queensland people will not have Labor at any cost. They have seen through Labor's narrow, negative, shallow thinking and will continue to do so. I applaud the fact that our National Party Government does not intend to step aside from its responsibilities to protect the community from the irresponsible actions of extremist trade unions who are trying to overthrow the fundamental right of government to govern. What the Electrical Trades Union did and other unions are now trying to do through the blockade in itself is a threat to democracy. To condone those unlawful actions, as this Government has, is a national disgrace. When ETU leaders urged their members to defy State Industrial Commission rulings and used their tactics of industrial blackmail to pull the plug on electricity generation, they cared not one iota about the consequences for Queensland or Queenslanders. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people were thrown out of work, that thousands of small businesses were either forced to the wall or close to it, and that untold thousands of ordinary Queenslanders suffered physically, mentally and financially through union-inflicted blackouts did not deter the union leaders from their illegal industrial action. What they sought and what is now the aim of an ill-advised Australian Council of Trade Unions campaign against the Queensland Government is victory, not so much over the State Government or its legislation but over the rights of ordinary people. The dispute arose over whether the South East Queensland Electricity Board had the right to organise its work force and work programs in such a way as to provide the utmost efficiency in the supply of electricity. The stance adopted by the Queensland Government in legislating to protect the supply of electricity as an essential service has the backing of Queenslanders. Only yesterday in the Courier-Mail was the news that 73.5 per cent of Queenslanders believe that workers should not cut the supply of electricity in support of strike action. Believe it or not-honourable members opposite will not like these unpalatable facts-almost 50 per cent of Labor voters believe that the electricity supply workers should not have the right to strike. Let me provide Government members with some more unpleasant medicine. Only 32.9 per cent of people support the union's position and only 38.1 per cent want the Federal Government to step in; while 61 per cent say that other unions should not be involved. Many people believe that the new laws should be tougher. More than a quarter of Queenslanders, including almost one in eight ALP supporters-as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, being a Queenslander, ALP supporters are a dying breed in Queensland-want stronger anti-union laws. What sort of mandate is that for this Government to take its present stand against the Queensland people? The State Government's position has been endorsed both in the community and in editorial comment. The legislative action taken by the State Government to resolve the power dispute was aimed solely at securing electricity supplies for the State. No law abiding union leader or member has anything to fear from this legislation. The recent initiatives are responsible and just changes to ensure an effective framework for industrial relations and continuity of electricity supplies. The Queensland Government does not wish to union bash, but it wishes to restrain the unions from community bashing. The legislation protects the right of taxpayers, who contribute billions of dollars to electricity generation projects, to reliable and continuous electricity supplies. In the aftermath of the dispute, it protects the rights of those people who wish to work in the electricity industry free from harassment and interference. Why should workmen, perhaps while dealing with high voltage power lines, be abused and shouted at by union law breakers, the sort who are protected and encouraged by this Government, the tool of extremist unions? Nothing contained in any of the legislation restricts or penalises peaceful picketing- Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.15) —I rise to talk about a good perennial that everyone on the other side does not seem to get the message on; namely, the assets test. I support the speech the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) made last night. I also notice that the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) was very quick to jump to his feet. I will just take a few points from what the honourable member for McMillan had to say. He talked about the number of pensioners being affected by the assets test. In particular, he said only a small number was affected, 2.6 per cent, some 30,291 pensioners out of more than 2 million pensioners-a very small number indeed! I say to the honourable member for McMillan that 30,000 people is a lot of people in my books. The honourable member for McMillan went on to say: We on this side of the House are just as concerned, in fact more concerned, because we are taking the problems we receive directly to the Department . . . I would also quote what the honourable member for McMillan is reported to have said in the Border Watch this week: The Chairman of the Caucus Primary Industry Committee, Mr B. Cunningham, is claimed to have said that astute farmers should have had their affairs in order and it was their own fault if they didn't. This is the member who is so quick to tell us about the small number-30,000-and how concerned he is for them. I really do believe that he has-- Mr Coleman —He has fled the chamber. Mr HAWKER —He has gone. For him to suggest that he is concerned and then be reported as saying the opposite is very misleading. To say that people had not been warned and that people on this side of the House are not doing anything about it I think completely ignores the fact that months ago we warned the Government what was going to happen. I also point out to the honourable member for McMillan the sheer hypocrisy of what he was saying in that speech when he cited examples of people with assets totalling several hundreds of thousands of dollars getting pensions under the income test. I say to him that I have already heard some of his colleagues on that side tell me of pensioners who have houses worth several hundreds of thousands of dollars who are going to be able to get pensions under the assets test; so much for his concern and so much for his talking about people exploiting the system. To indicate how serious it is, I quote from a letter which I received recently on this very matter. It shows that the people who are being hurt are not wealthy, are not rich and are not trying to exploit the system; they are people who are genuinely being hurt. I read just a little of this letter: Thank-you for informing the Hawke Crowd about the unevenness of the assets test pertaining to farmers. The accountant who attends to my affairs since my husband's death in June 1983 has told me it's likely I'll be cut out altogether. This is the end. No-one would call me wealthy. My husband was 71 when he died, worked like a slave on this 500 acre farm, became crippled with arthritis also became a compulsive saver. We brought up 7 children, aged now from 17 to 35. My husband got a part pension at age of 70. After his death I was put on a Widow's Pension. We live in a humble home, no shower or hand basin in bathroom. Same old Lux Wood Stove for past 50 years, hot water service through the stove, so you'll know we are not living in luxury, we are now penalised for our hard work and thrift. It is a down-right lie when that miserable Hawke says only the wealthy will be affected. Neither my husband nor I have been drinkers, smokers or gamblers, just hard working decent honest citizens . . . I raise the strongest possible objections for taxpayers to foot the bill to pay for a de-facto accompanying an MP overseas or anywhere else. Men who desert their wives and children should be made pay for their upkeep. I just cite this as an example. These are the sorts of people who are being hurt. These are the sorts of people whom the honourable member for McMillan ought to be taking a bit more notice of because I am sure he has got plenty of them in his electorate. For him to talk about people with several hundreds of thousands of dollars taking pensions, ripping off the system, is rank hypocrisy because under the new assets test with the family home being exempted we are seeing something even worse. We are seeing people with houses worth several hundred thousand dollars still getting the pension. What is the Government going to do about it? That is okay; the family home is sacrosanct! It is quite all right for a person to put all his money into a home, but if he has it in a farm, oh no, he is out. I think honourable members on the other side ought to take a bit more notice of this because I know that in some of their electorates there are people who are affected by this situation. I think it is time this Government had another look at this assets test. In all seriousness, the only decent thing it can do is throw it out. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(10.20) —I want to say a few words tonight about the new Australian land transport program which has been announced by the Minister for Transport (Mr Morris). I have a particular interest in this because the program is specifically directed towards improving the situation for local government. I have a strong commitment and an interest in seeing local government prosper in this way through our policies. In recent weeks I have received strong representations from local government bodies. I am glad to be able to support the Minister in his statement that the Government is carrying through its twin commitments to strengthen working relationships with local government and to improve the land transport system, with particular emphasis on local and arterial roads. I might say that it is a significant departure from the policies of previous governments, which allowed the land transport system to run down totally and did not give it the priority it should have been given. There are a number of other aspects of the new program which I know will be welcomed by all sectors of the community. In particular, local government will be receiving a 5 per cent increase in funding under the Australian land transport program. We have instituted a five-year plan which includes indexed guaranteed funding. That will enable local government to build programs around a consistent funding basis to get its road systems and networks into a cycle of planning and construction. A very important component of this increase in funding is that it will provide a continuity for job opportunities and employment at the local government level. That leads me to refer again in this place to the success of this Government's program under the Australian bicentennial road development program and also under the jobs on local roads program because those programs have enabled job creation in a sector which responds very quickly to the ability to get people back to work. I see that the Minister has entered the chamber. I take this opportunity to commend him on the land transport program. I predict that over the next few weeks in this place there will be very little heard from the other side about this program because the Opposition knows that it will work. It knows that this Minister is one it will not take on because he knows his stuff and he knows his programs work. Another aspect of the program that I believe is also going to be welcomed by the general community, and particularly by motorists, is that a greater share of the current fuel excise is being allocated directly to road funding programs. Motorists can see that they will be getting the direct benefit of the excise on fuel. I am also particularly pleased to be able to acknowledge, as a government, that the pressures on road networks have changed in recent years. There has been a particular demand for local authorities to maintain their road systems, which form an important part of the social infrastructure. There are 21 local government bodies in my electorate. Many of them are what we would call provincial and rural electorates and they are responding very strongly and significantly to the advances that we are making-- Mr Robert Brown —Because they are well represented. Mr O'KEEFE —I thank the honourable member. I would like to believe that that is the case. I think that without any doubt the program gives a clear indication of the significance that this Government places on road funding and its relationship with local government. I wind up-I do not take too much of the time of the House-by again commending the Minister for the way he has been able to put this program together. I indicate to him that this program has my total support. I will be advocating it widely and loudly in my electorate. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.25) —Mr Speaker, as you are aware, each year I bring here two groups of two students from senior high schools in my electorate who spend a week in this Parliament so that they can see for themselves the functioning of our democratic system and pass their experience to their school mates. It is also a form of work experience and, consequently, I request that they write a speech for me to deliver in the adjournment debate. Tonight my guests are Sussan Auguston and Sandra Smith. They are present in the chamber and these are their speeches. Sussan Augustson is a year 12 student and prefect currently studying at John Willcock Senior High School in Geraldton, Western Australia. Geraldton is a large country town of approximately 19,500 residents and is on the coast 475 kilometres from Perth. John Willcock Senior High School is the newest and smallest of the four high schools in Geraldton, two of which are public, while two are private Catholic schools. Mr Cunningham —The kids must have written this. Mr TUCKEY —They certainly have, and I am proud of them. The school has approximately 700 students and a staff of 50 and this year will celebrate the tenth anniversary of its foundation. The school was named in honour of John Willcock, a former member for Geraldton and Premier of Western Australia. Last year the school had its first year 12 students sit for their tertiary admittance examinations. Sussan will be in the second group of year 12s this year to sit for the examination. John Willcock interacts with other country high schools around Western Australia each year at country week. Country week is held in Perth the week before the August school holidays and is concerned with competitive sport and speech. Geraldton is well known for its many established industries surrounding the town centre, the main industries being agriculture, minerals and crayfishing. Many ships from all over the world dock at Geraldton's port to load mineral sands, wheat, lupins and oats. Geraldton's crayfishing industry is the largest in the world today and live crayfish are exported by air, via the eastern States, to Japan and the United States of America. Professional crayfishermen in Geraldton work only six months of the year, but they are responsible for a very large percentage of overseas trade and the state of the Western Australian economy. The high incomes crayfishermen receive are usually injected back into the economy through taxation. Sandra Smith from Merredin Senior High School is also a year 12 student and prefect. Merredin is a prosperous town in the eastern wheatbelt of Western Australia and lies 262 kilometres east of our great State's capital on the east-west railway system where the Prospector and Indian Pacific pass regularly. There lingers a collective and friendly atmosphere about this settlement and it is here that one extremely well-kept high school is situated-the Merredin Senior High School. The school has some 470 students, 70 of whom come from surrounding areas to board locally at St Michael's Hostel. Merredin Senior High School achieves high standards in academic as well as sporting pursuits. A wide range of subjects is offered at the school to cater for differing interests-from sciences, art, languages, social sciences and commerce, through to computing, home economics and pre-vocational training. Agricultural studies are important to the continuing growth of the district and a voluntary agricultural advisory committee gives the school valuable service in the organisation of the school farm and its education projects. The school's motto, 'advance', is portrayed fully as we continue to aim towards still better horizons. If present plans are successful, Merredin Senior High School could become one of Western Australia's largest regional school computing centres by 1986. The town of Merredin is supported by a population of about 6,000 people who participate strongly in various activities within it. Sporting, charity, religious and social gatherings are all very well organised and help create the togetherness and friendliness which is so much desired in communities such as Merredin. Wheat, oats, barley and to a lesser degree lupins are grown in the Merredin Shire, with sheep and pigs providing a reliable income as well. These form the basis of the town's economy. Mr Cunningham —The kids are good speechwriters. Mr TUCKEY —I agree entirely. It was farming settlers, on their way to and from the goldfields in the 1850s, who brought about the formation of the town as a railway station and supply post. Merredin has expanded to become the place of vivacity it is today. A large development project occurring at present in Merredin is the formation of a flora park with a lake and various natural shrubs to complement the landscape. It will become a delightful feature of the town on its completion. Merredin is a sports-minded community with facilities for basketball, badminton, swimming, pistol shooting, football and motor-cross racing. Both towns are wonderful places. Sussan and Sandra have proved great ambassadresses for their school and I am sure, Mr Speaker, you will join with me in congratulating them on their efforts tonight and wishing them well in their future academic years. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Many honourable members and even the Speaker at times have differences with the honourable member for O'Connor, but, with regard to the efforts of the students he has brought along, I am sure we would all congratulate them. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr PRICE(Chifley)(10.31) —I want to talk about a great industrial dispute that is occurring in my State. I refer, of course, to the rebel specialists who are withdrawing their services to the people of New South Wales. I compliment the local media for co-operating with me in inviting constituents of the electorate of Chifley to advise me of their suffering. I have been inundated with cases of suffering. I would like to mention briefly just three cases. If members of the Opposition take delight in this sort of suffering and pain being inflicted on the people of Australia, it is on their heads. Let me give the first example of the sort of pain and suffering they support. I have as a constituent a diabetic who has two needles a day and who requires a hysterectomy. She was booked into the Westmead Hospital, a teaching hospital outside my electorate. Unfortunately the doctor cancelled the operation because she was a Medicare patient. She has still not been operated on and continues to seek additional treatment because of her pain and suffering. The second case concerns a constituent of my electorate who fell off a train at a railway station. He broke both legs and a wrist and received 50 stitches to head wounds. The orthopaedic doctor set one leg and his wrist, but left the other leg. The other leg is still broken and still requires attention. If members of the Opposition take satisfaction in this sort of situation, be it on their heads. Let every Australian know of their cowardly position in supporting these rebel specialists. Shame on them; they are a disgrace. The other case concerns a nurse, a man familiar with medical problems. He went to a doctor and underwent a series of tests. The results of these tests led my constituent to believe that he is suffering from cancer. The doctor now refuses to do additional tests which will either confirm cancer or rule it out. This is a terrible situation. The only benefit in this case is that that constituent is seeking legal aid and intends to sue the doctor. I hope he does, and I hope more people follow his example. I ask the Opposition members who take such delight in this pain and suffering to say why they do not stand up, consistent with their dry philosophy, and seek deregulation of the private hospital system. Why do they not advocate taking away the $150m in bed subsidies that goes to private hospitals each year? Why not take away the $150m to $200m worth of subsidies from Medicare to the doctors who operate in these places and let us completely deregulate the system so that we have a completely private hospital system? We would have insurance rates comparable with whatever the doctors charge. Let me issue an invitation to the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). We could have hysterectomy time trials-we could call them the Dr Shepherd Melbourne Cup Hysterectomy Time Trials-so that we could see how many operations can be performed so quickly in private hospitals. This is the sort of medicine which members of the Opposition are advocating. What I am saying about the deregulation of private hospitals is a consequence of their stand. We should turn that $350m that goes to the private hospital system back into the public hospital system and guarantee a fair and equitable medical and health care service to the people of Australia. I must say that as a new member of this House I was absolutely shocked that the once great Liberal Party should support these rebel specialists. Mr Gear —It is outrageous. Mr PRICE —It is outrageous. It shows the horrific drift to the right. It just shows that the Opposition will not avoid any opportunity to seek some minor advantage. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(10.37) —About a month ago I attended a memorial service for the late Henry Leslie James Keelan, who was a former Town Clerk of Broken Hill. Mr Keelan, or Harry as he was known, was born and raised in the Glen Innes district of New South Wales. He came from humble beginnings. His father was an axeman, or a timber cutter, in that region. I can remember Harry being very proud of the axe that once belonged to his father that he had on the wall. Harry served with distinction in the Second World War in the Middle East, Britain and Italy. After the war he was able to be retrained and did an accountancy course. In 1956 he went to Broken Hill, where he obtained employment with Broken Hill Technical College. Following that he became Deputy Town Clerk of Broken Hill to Con Crowley, who was another giant in Broken Hill history. In 1962 he became the Town Clerk of Broken Hill. Harry Keelan was a man of the people. He served Broken Hill well. I remember that if anything was not up to standard in Broken Hill he made sure that it was. I remember that on one occasion while he was Town Clerk a public building was being erected in Broken Hill and the architects decided on the use of certain materials. Harry Keelan was not happy with the materials. He said to the architects: 'Would you provide the same materials in Sydney or Dubbo?'. The architects said: 'No, we would have something a little better'. Harry said: 'Well, if it is not good enough for those cities it is certainly not good enough for Broken Hill and we want the best'. Mr Robert Brown —It is a great city. Mr HICKS —It certainly is a great city. Broken Hill is a unique city. It is not always easy to work with some of the conditions that apply in Broken Hill, but Harry Keelan learned from Con Crowley just how Broken Hill worked and he learned how to help Broken Hill. I remember that when the standard gauge railway came through Broken Hill on the Indian Pacific line the people who were engaged in providing the line wanted to put boom gates and bells at the crossings in the city. Harry Keelan would not go along with this and there were many arguments over it. Finally, some majestic overpasses were built. The attitude he took was that if something was good enough for Sydney or anywhere else it certainly had to be provided in Broken Hill. Harry was in the Legacy movement. He never forgot his old comrades in arms. He looked after their children. He was a great advocate for Broken Hill. There were 550 people at his memorial service in the cathedral. I think that was a tribute to what he had done. Many of the buildings, civic centres and council chambers would not be in Broken Hill if it were not for his efforts. But edifices were not the only things on Harry's mind. He was concerned also with the welfare of the people. There would be no community organisations in Broken Hill-no Legacy, Apex, soccer clubs, football clubs or welfare groups-but for his assistance and guidance. I pay tribute to Harry because he was a truly great Australian. He put Broken Hill first. When the final roll call is taken, Harry Keelan's name will be towards the top. I would just like to pass on my condolences and, I am sure, the condolences of every honourable member in this House, to Melva Keelan and Harry's four sons. We wish them all the best. Our thoughts are with them. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(10.41) —I was hoping that I would be able to follow the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) in this debate, having spent last weekend in a part of his electorate presenting citizenship awards in his absence. I remind him that he should pay attention to that part of his electorate at some time, because the people there were not aware that he was their member. Tonight I would like to quote from the editorial in today's West Australian. Of course, the West Australian is not a newspaper which is known to espouse left wing views. Indeed, today's editorial is entitled: 'What now?' I will quote the first couple of paragraphs. The editorial states: One day WA will have to come to terms with Aboriginal land rights. It is a pity that the opportunity to do so now has been lost. The Aboriginal Land Bill came before Parliament after a gestation period that was possibly unrivalled. The Government had gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that no opportunity for consultation was missed. Though those on both sides found flaws in the Bill, there remained wide agreement that it satisfied a fair measure of Aboriginal aspirations while properly taking into account the rights and needs of the non-Aboriginal population. No more. Now, thanks to the Legislative Council, that exhaustive process of consultation has come to nothing. That legislation was a recognition of the cultural identity of the Aboriginal people and perhaps in some way compensated for past and present mistreatment. It would not have solved all the problems faced by Aborigines but perhaps it would have gone some of the way. This evening I do not wish to talk about land rights. I wish merely to concentrate on perhaps the last paragraph of this editorial which strikes at the very heart of our democracy. It states: On the subject of politics it was hard to miss the irony surrounding defeat of the Aboriginal Land Bill. The Liberals have often invoked the principle of equality in opposing the entire concept of land rights, but they showed no compunction about using their numbers in the electorally unequal Upper House to defeat the legislation. Some people remain more equal then others. We have heard glowing reports from honourable members who represent Queensland about the gerrymander that exists there. In fact, they are delighted to have it. The Western Australian members of the Liberal Party cling to the situation that exists in Western Australia. There are 13 houses of Parliament in Australia. Four of those show a severe deviation from the one vote one value principle. I could say that four of those are undemocratic: The Tasmanian upper House, the Legislative Assembly in Queensland and both Houses in Western Australia. At the Western Australian election in February 1983, the Australian Labor Party polled 51.3 per cent of the votes in the upper House to pick up seven seats, while the Liberals polled 45.7 per cent of the votes to pick up nine seats. I can go on. The average enrolment in rural electorates is 26,500. In the metropolitan area the average enrolment is 82,000. There is three times the voting power in the rural electorates that exists in the metropolitan electorates. The four lowest enrolled provincial electorates together have a total enrolment less than the largest city electorate. The metropolitan area has 68.4 per cent of the enrolments but only 41 per cent of the seats in the upper House. Members of the Liberal Party in Western Australia clearly are not interested in equality. Just as the Liberal members of this House talk about economic rationality-when they were in government they could not deliver it-they are talking in Western Australia about equality. But the history of members of the Liberal Party when in government is sad and sorry and they all know it. They could not deliver, they did not deliver and they will not deliver in the future. The facts do not match the rhetoric and they never have. Indeed, until they show that they want a fair and equal system they will not be believed. The West Australian newspaper does not believe them. Last year in Western Australia the fair representation Bill was again defeated in the upper House. In the spring session of Parliament in Western Australia a further Bill will be introduced. I hope that the protestations we hear from members of the Liberal Party about equality will mean more to them on that occasion than the rhetoric we are presently hearing and that in Western Australia we will have a democratic system. Mr SMITH(Bass)(10.46) —Recently I attended the conferring of degrees ceremony in Launceston at the former Tasmanian College of Advanced Education which is now known as the Tasmanian State Institute of Technology. When I was speaking to students and lecturers afterwards many of them voiced to me their concern about the rapid rise in text book prices. This is an issue that perhaps warrants the attention of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) in setting the incidental allowances for tertiary students who apply under the tertiary education assistance scheme. However, this is not the main point I wanted to raise this evening. The Principal of that college, Dr Coleman O'Flaherty, at a recent speaking engagement said, amongst other things, that in the 1990s education will be a major growth industry. He said that the increased participation by young people in the education system is one of the main hopes for significant reductions in the current rates of youth unemployment. How true this is. The very vital issue of the educational opportunities that will be available to the youth of our nation is very topical at present. If there is one thing this nation does not need it is more impediments to further education placed in front of our youth. The major issue on which I want to speak tonight is the tertiary education assistance scheme. This was raised with me by those many students with whom I spoke. Already those who wish to continue their education are being financially disadvantaged in relation to those who finish their formal education at the age of 16 and who, even if they are unfortunate enough to be in the 23 per cent of young people who are unable to secure employment, are automatically eligible for unemployment benefit, irrespective of their parental income. Where is the justice and the social equity in that? There is none, of course. This Government is on the public record as having committed itself to bridging the gap between the benefits payable under TEAS and those payable under unemployment benefits. Let us examine the figures. Unemployment benefits offer a person over the age of 18 some $85 a week on which to live-not a princely sum. But it is a princely sum when compared with the pittance offered those who wish to further their education. If a student wishes to go on to study and if forced by circumstances to live away from home, he or she is given by the Government a maximum of $68.67 a week. If a student lives at home this Government will donate the staggering sum of $44.51 a week! There is a perverse disincentive for young people to qualify for the unemployment benefit rather than put themselves through three or more years of rigorous academic study. But even worse are the unrealistic and totally iniquitous eligibility restrictions which apply to applications for assistance under TEAS. Tertiary students who have not met certain criteria for independence from their parents are discriminated against. A combined parental income of just $22,280 will exclude a student living at home from receiving any assistance. If a student is forced to live away from home, he receives no assistance if the combined income of his parents exceeds $27,320. In a nation where the average wage, which admittedly can only ever be a very rough bench-mark, is of the order of $20,000 per annum, these parental income limits are patently and absurdly low. Indeed, maximum assistance is granted only when the combined parental income is $14,281, an amount so low it could be treated as a sick joke if this were not such an important matter. This Government makes much of its posturing on improving the plight of the disadvantaged in our society. In Tasmania we have a Liberal Government which is really trying to help those students forced to live away from home. Every student who is in such a situation gets $30 a week towards the cost of living for 30 weeks a year, a total of $900; that is, every student who does not receive any assistance under TEAS, however small an amount. The TEAS guidelines allow for the receipt of a maximum $500 per annum from other allowances or grants. How absurd! Those who qualify for maximum assistance do so on the supposition that their socio-economic status entitles them to special financial help from the Government. Yet this Government's own regulations deny these people in Tasmania at least $400 a year because it has not concerned itself with the question of how best to assist those most in need. That $400 could go a long way to alleviate the excessive rise in book costs. All of this goes on while the Government expresses concern, as indeed do all Australians, about the appallingly low retention rates evident in our education system. If I could just quote some figures to honourable members for their information, those aged between 19 and 24 years of age- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(10.52) —I rise to speak in support of the Canberra Youth Orchestra and its fund-raising activities in its attempt to represent Australia at the Fourteenth International Youth Music Festival to be held in Vienna in July this year. The Canberra Youth Orchestra has gained a great reputation for developing the playing skills of young people, and I think they should be supported by the community, by the commercial sector, and also by the Government. Mr Cadman —We have our own orchestras to support. Mrs KELLY —A member of the Opposition interjects that they have their own orchestras. That highlights a very important point. The States have their own youth orchestras and the State governments support them. Our particular problem in the Australian Capital Territory is that we have our own youth orchestra but we do not have the State government infrastructure to fund it. So it is placed in a very difficult situation when it comes to funding. This particular group did apply for government assistance through the Australian Capital Territory Arts Development Board, but unfortunately that was rejected. I am sorry that that occurred. The Board is set up with independant representatives, and it seems a great shame to me that an orchestra which could so well represent Australia and youth on the international scene has had its request for funding rejected. Another problem we have in Canberra when groups are seeking funding is that we do not have large corporations here to give them that sort of support. So we have to rely very heavily on our community. The orchestra requires $300,000 to pay for the four-week tour. The parents and players are paying $150,000 and the Canberra Youth Orchestra Society's efforts through fund-raising are bringing the figure to $240,000. It is seeking an additional $60,000. So it has done a fairly good job of raising its own funds, and I am attempting to assist it to get that additional money. I think three matters need to be highlighted. Firstly, the youth group must be congratulated because through this orchestra we can hope to develop musical skills in Australia. Secondly, we see the problems of funding groups such as this in the Australian Capital Territory when we do not have a State infrastructure. Thirdly, the problems of these independent boards not giving enough support to young people in the development of their musical skills is apparent. I hope that, through this Parliament, the community and members of Parliament will become much more aware of the need to develop and support the young people in our community who are seeking to develop their musical skills and to demonstrate them to the world. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.54) —I am absolutely sick and tired of the attitude of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) to the assets test. Three weeks ago I raised with him the problems of home owners and non-home owners in retirement villages. I refer the Minister to the Act, which does not define home, home owner or non-home owner. They are not mentioned anywhere in the Act. The language of the Department of Social Security guidelines used by departmental officers indicates that the Minister or Director equate home occupancy with home ownership and relies on section 6AA (1) of the Act where the words 'any right or interest of a person in relation to the principal home of the person' are being used as a dragnet clause to equate home owner with tenant, occupier, or licensee without distinction. These, of course, are very real and distinct entities. They are quite distinct in legal application. Many residents of retirement villages are occupants. They cannot lease, they cannot rent, they cannot change, they cannot paint and they cannot make improvements to the place in which they reside. I quote from a letter from the Department of Social Security to a constituent living in a retirement village. It says: I am writing to you regarding your recent query relating to your home owner status under the pensions assets test. Although you have no equity in your unit and though you pay a rent or maintenance under the provisions of the assets test, by making your donation to the Anglican Retirement Villages, you have purchased a life tenancy which is assessed as the same as home ownership. I reject that concept as shameful treatment of the elderly. I refer the House to the Anglican Retirement Villages pamphlet which is circulated to those seeking entry to the Villages. I quote: Registrations are recorded in chronological order, except where a special need may be established. Applicants may, if they wish, make a Benefactor Donation; this will assist in the development of our work by providing further accommodation for those without means . . . Another section in the same pamphlet reads: Do I have any equity in the accommodation if I make a donation? In clear print it says: 'no'. The Minister has interpreted this process to mean home ownership. The conditions which are signed by the applicant before entering the village and which appear at the top of the form read: In submitting this application to become a resident I acknowledge that it is subject to the conditions stated below. The 'conditions stated below', summarised, indicate that the resident is a tenant and has the status of a licensee, not of a home owner. I illustrate for the House what the assets test does to individual pensioners by comparing the pensions allowed by the Department of Social Security before and after the application of the assets test. Pensioner X, who was a non-home owner, received the amount of $51.45 a week before the assets test. After the assets test that amount was $53.95. Non-home owner Y, in the same retirement village, received $51.45 a week before the assets test and now, after the assets test, receives $14.40 a week. These people have no equity, no ownership, yet they are being classified as home owners. I raised this matter three weeks ago. The Minister was here. He dismissed the whole thing as being irrelevant and insignificant. Mr Chynoweth —What happens when they sell? Mr CADMAN —They cannot sell; they do not own. I quote from the Minister's letter to the director of the retirement village in regard to this matter and the assets test. The Minister said: It has therefore not been possible to make fine distinctions between various arrangements in a way which could be consistent, equitable and easily understood. They are the Minister's own words, admitting his failure. I believe that this confession of failure is a despicable confession and one that indicts the whole Government for its operation of the assets test. It is a terrible thing and I believe that the Minister ought to take immediate action to amend the legislation. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.59) —In the minute that I have to speak I wish to defend the assets test. It is a system that has increased the resources of the Department of Social Security and enables more money to be given to those who really need a pension-those on a low income. Since the assets test was introduced one person has come into my office in the electorate of Dunkley to complain. He was complaining about a farm in New South Wales that his father owned. I think honourable senators will find that the situation is the same in the majority of electorate offices. In the electorate of Dunkley not many people at all have been affected by the assets test. This is a sham put up by members of the Opposition in looking after their own wealthy friends. Millionaires have been getting the pension. All these facts will be brought out. Whenever these people opposite who scream and yell all the time want some money for their- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Tuckey to present a Bill for an Act relating to the payment of commercial accounts payable by the Commonwealth or by an authority of the Commonwealth. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 18 April 1985: Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Order-1985-No. 1-Marine, Part 10. Public Service Act- Appointment-Department of Social Security-Wallace, G. P. Determinations-1985-Nos. 19, 23, 24, 25. Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act-Declaration under sub-section 9 (1) deeming to amend Schedule 7 of the Act, dated 14 April 1985. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 72) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: With reference to the recent publication of a volume of the Minister's speeches, entitled Selected Speeches 1984, (a) why was this publication produced, (b) who decided to produce it, (c) how much did it cost to produce, (d) why was a non-government printer employed to print it, and (e) is a similar publication anticipated for 1985. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) The Government has a policy of making information on its activities readily available. The people interested in current policies relating to the wide range of activities within my portfolio generally have very limited access to the publications containing all Ministerial Statements produced by the Government Printer in Canberra. Furthermore my Department does not maintain regional offices. The relevant publication is the second in the series of selected statements, the first being Major Speeches during 1983-84. Each of the Ministerial Statements reproduced in the booklet of speeches has been selected because it contains in detail the current Government policy on a particular aspect of my portfolio, such as films, the arts, South West Tasmania, the Daintree, etc. Each of these issues arouses considerable public interest and requests for detailed information. The booklets meet this demand as they present in a modestly produced and easily accessible format the response to public and press inquiries on these matters, and form part of my Department's normal program of information dissemination. (c) $2,984 for 1000 copies. (d) Most printing of Government publications is carried out under contract by private printing firms. In accordance with Finance Regulation No. 51 the work was awarded to the commercial printer offering the lowest price consistent with the shortest delivery time. (e) Yes. (Question No. 75) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Has he received a letter from the Gaullist Party in France protesting about aspects of his response to the situation in New Caledonia. (2) Did that letter cast doubts upon the capacity of that Party when returned to Government, to work with the present Australian Government. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. However, in January 1985 the Australian Ambassador to France received a letter from the Secretary-General of the French Rassemblement pour La Republique (RPR) Party commenting on certain aspects of the Australian Government's response to the situation in New Caledonia. (2) No. The Australian Government seeks to have harmonious and constructive relations with the Government of France, irrespective of which party or parties are in power. (Question No. 98) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) Is it a fact that, as reported in the Australian Financial Review recently, the Australian Wheat Board Forex dealings affected the value of the Australian dollar causing it to rise to 74.80c from a low of 73.35c against the US dollar. (2) Does the Government intend asking the Wheat Board to purchase Australian dollars with its export earnings at times which might affect the down run of the Australian dollar but need not be in the best interest of Australian farmers. (3) Will he give an undertaking that no such interference with the Wheat Board will occur. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Under a floating exchange rate regime the exchange rate is determined by market forces, with the rate applying at a particular time reflecting sales and purchases of the currency at that time. While individual large transactions could be expected to influence the exchange rate (particularly in circumstances where trading is thin), it is extremely difficult to isolate and quantify the effects on the exchange rate of individual transactions. (2) and (3) The Government has no intention of seeking to influence the Wheat Board in the timing of its purchase of Australian dollars with its export earnings for the purposes of influencing the exchange rate for the Australian dollar. (Question No. 131) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: (1) Which companies and individuals hold licences to export meat to the USA. (2) How many tonnes of meat have these companies and individuals exported to the USA in each quarter since March 1983. (3) Which companies and individuals hold licences to export meat to other countries and (a) to which countries do they export and (b) how many tonnes have been exported to each country in (i) 1982 (ii) 1983 and (iii) 1984. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are no quota restrictions at present with respect to the US market and consequently any licensed meat exporter has access to this market. The names and addresses of meat exporters licensed by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation and any restrictions applying to these licences are published annually by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation as List of licensed meat exporters/livestock exporters. The current issue gives the situation as at 1 November 1984 and is available from the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. Additions, deletions, and amendments to that published list since that date are as follows: ADDITIONS Lic. No. Licensee name Address Std Telephone No. Telex 448 Clifford Meat Exports Pty Ltd 10A Pipe Road, Laverton North, Vic. 3206; P.O. Box 102, Altona North, Vic. 3025 (03) 314 9022 35451 RK449 Ostindo Australia Pty Ltd 42 Geddes Street, Mulgrave Vic. 3170; P.O. Box 415, Glenwaverly, Vic. 3150 (03) 560 7111 30362 450 B de Tarle 215-217 Clarence Street, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000; G.P.O. Box 3322, Sydney, N.S.W. 2001 (02) 290 3265 26095 451 Atiboa Pty Ltd 52 Norton Street, Leichhardt, N.S.W. 2040 (02) 523 2774 176594 452 H. W. Wilson Pty Ltd Nepean Highway; P.O. Box 106, Dromana, Vic. 3936 (059) 87 2200 37994 RN453 Olacash Pty Ltd 190 The Trongate, Granville, N.S.W. 2142 (02) 635 0703 . . 454 Treonne Exports Pty Ltd 16-24 Parramatta Road; P.O. Box 50, Strathfield, N.S.W. 2135 (02) 764 4655 70015 455 Delta Commodities Pty Ltd 5th Floor, 32 York Street; P.O. Box C500, Clarence Street, Sydney, N.S.W. 2001 (02) 29 7657 70537 456 Spinnys Australia Pty Ltd 25-27 Cowper Street, Harris Park, N.S.W. 2150; P.O. Box 1412, Parramatta, N.S.W. 2150 (02) 633 9066 21794 457 Bellboy Australia Pty Ltd 29 Burlington Road, Homebush, N.S.W. 2140 (02) 763 1068 23911 458 Ardmore Holdings Pty Ltd Suite 2, 18 Parry Street, Fremantle, W.A. 6160 (09) 335 8588 94619 Deletions Lic. No. Licensee Name 392 Tradepac Pty Ltd 422 Qamdo Holdings Pty Ltd 399 Australia-New Caledonia Exports Pty Ltd 418 Stinson Pearce Pty Ltd 335 Gurrentz Australia Pty Ltd Amendments Lic. No. Licensee Name Amendment 245 Elders IXL Ltd jointly and severally with - Universal Meat Exports Ltd trading as - Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort - Elders East Europe New address, telephone and telex; PO Box 486, South Yarra, Vic. 3141; (03) 249 2600 30256 368 AML and F Holdings Ltd jointly and severally with - Australian Mercantile Land and Finance Co Ltd - Dennys Strachan Mercantile Ltd New address, telephone and telex; PO Box 486, South Yarra, Vic. 3141; (03) 249 2600 30256 370 Henry Jones Ltd New address, telephone and telex; PO Box 486, South Yarra, Vic, 3141; (03) 249 2600 30256 157 DW Baldie and Co Pty Ltd New address, telephone and telex; 99 Reserve Road, Artamon, NSW 2064; PO Box 145, Artamon, NSW 2064 319 Charlick Corporation Ltd Change of licensee Name Charlick Corporation Ltd jointly and severally with Charlick Australia Ltd 337 Pacific Commerce and Traders Co Pty Ltd Change of address, telephone and telex; level 20, 8-18 Bent Street, Sydney, NSW 2000; (02) 235 2477 telex 74022 80 Alice Springs Abattoirs Pty Ltd Change of address, telephone and telex; 3/F, 321 Kent Street; PO Box C162, Sydney, NSW 2000; (02) 290 3899 telex 21212 354 Scanpak (International) Pty Ltd Change of telephone number (03) 584 5322 238 Doble, Simon J Change of address; Hartwood Station Conarga NSW 2696 134 Burton, NL Pty Ltd Change of licensee name; Burton, NL Pty Ltd jointly and severally with Pastoral Industries Pty Ltd 329 Matador Meat Co Pty Ltd Change of licensee name; Matador Meat Co Pty Ltd jointly and severally with Capricorn Meat distributors Pty Ltd 359 Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd Change of licensee name; Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd jointly and severally with W. Weddel and Co. Pty Ltd 258 Lutlick Australia Pty Ltd Change of licensee name Lutlick Australia Pty Ltd jointly and severally with Lutlick Properties Pty Ltd (2) Information relating to the commercial activities of companies and individuals is not available as such information is regarded as commercial-in-confidence. The total meat exports from Australia to USA by quarters since the commencement of 1983 is detailed in the following table. EXPORTS OF FRESH CHILLED AND FROZEN MEAT TO USA BY QUARTERS FOR 1983 AND 1984 CALENDAR YEARS Number Quantity Yearly Period exporters tonnes total tonnes January to March 1983 95 60,110 April to June 1983 94 72,304 July to September 1983 102 77,033 October to December 1983 99 60,434 1983-269,882 January to March 1984 65 40,059 April to June 1984 63 64,831 July to September 1984 61 72,743 October to December 1984 66 50,704 1984-228,337 Components may not add to totals due to roundings. Source: AMLC. (3) The licensed meat exporters referred to in (1) are also licensed to export to other countries. Any restrictions which do apply to certain exporters which may exclude them from some markets are also outlined in the referenced AMLC publication. (a) and (b) The countries to which meat has been exported together with the quantity exported in the last three calendar years are outlined in the following table. TOTAL AUSTRALIAN EXPORTS OF MEAT BY COUNTRY OF DESTINATION (Tonnes Shipped Weight) Country of destination 1982 1983 1984 United Kingdom 25,254 12,511 7,492 France 5,735 4,876 2,579 Germany 3,580 3,947 2,008 Italy 659 330 134 Benelux 4,879 2,705 2,167 Denmark 492 435 161 Greece 5,692 5,504 4,168 Austria 103 144 59 Sweden 2,077 723 900 Norway 540 356 232 Yugoslavia 1 1 1 Malta 281 192 187 Other Europe 1,237 1,022 1,117 USSR 17,511 0 0 USA-East Coast 285,009 216,041 170,935 USA-West Coast 64,958 51,975 55,806 Hawaii 2,712 1,866 1,596 Canada-West Coast 3,481 2,670 1,085 Carribean 13,197 10,847 10,282 Venezuela 1,711 0 0 Other C and S America 23 13 0 Japan (Excl Okinawa) 144,177 133,524 124,715 Okinawa 3,260 2,194 2,122 Hong Kong 11,057 6,634 5,874 Malaysia 11,381 11,463 11,983 Singapore 19,184 16,026 10,745 Philippines 5,174 3,501 6 Taiwan 21,682 24,994 22,988 Korea 79,370 67,282 11,406 Other Asia 412 375 537 Iran 35,536 18,965 0 Kuwait 3,042 2,216 1,968 Oman 3,677 4,028 4,232 Qatar 590 492 438 Saudi Arabia 27,257 23,441 13,090 Abu Dhabi 4,924 6,578 5,201 Dubai 14,815 13,231 10,443 Bahrain 1,359 1,079 854 Iraq 3,188 0 0 Syria 1,100 0 1,520 Jordan 20 655 259 Lebanon 42 144 66 Egypt 88 158 7 Israel 671 575 0 South Africa 197 46 44 Other Africa 474 59 127 Mauritius 3,356 2,919 2,883 Papua New Guinea 4,904 4,540 6,403 Pacific Islands 2,470 1,782 1,669 New Zealand 0 345 276 Ship stores 719 1,171 1,665 All other countries 620 604 573 Totals 863,867 681,087 513,593 Source: AMLC. (Question No. 161) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) Has an application been received from a Queensland miller to import up to 6000 tonnes of French wheat to produce flour in Australia for re-export. (2) Is the Australian Wheat Board opposed to this application being approved. (3) What action does he intend to take in regard to this application. (4) Is it a fact that wheat has been removed from the prohibited import regulations; if so, apart from quarantine restrictions, what constraints are available to prevent other shipments of French wheat entering the Australian market. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An application has been received covering the import of 2000-6000 tonnes per annum of French wheat for the manufacture of flour for both domestic use and export. (2) There are no formal grounds for objections by the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) to an application to import wheat. I am advised that the AWB is working co-operatively with the miller concerned to establish whether his requirements can be met without the need to import. (3) In respect of the current application, consultations have taken place with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries, the Bread Research Institute (BRI) and the AWB, to establish whether domestic wheat of equivalent quality to that proposed to be imported can be supplied. The AWB has arranged for the supply of a wheat variety considered by the BRI as most likely to be suitable for the intended end use. Flour samples have been sent to the BRI for analysis and comment. Should the applicant choose to proceed with his import proposal, then quarantine aspects would need to be considered in the normal manner. (4) Yes; there is no legislative constraint other than quarantine. The Australian Agricultural Council has agreed to consultative procedures consistent with those outlined in (3) above which ensure that the suitability and availability of Australian wheat is taken into account by prospective importers. (Question No. 220) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of the clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) None. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (Question No. 260) Mr Connolly asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What arrangements does the Minister's Department make for the production of films and videos for both internal and external use. (2) Is any production carried out within the Minister's Department. (3) How many films/videos were produced for or by the Minister's Department during 1983-84 and what was (a) the title and (b) the cost of each production. (4) What film/video production equipment is held by the Minister's Department and what is its primary use. (5) How many officers are employed in this area within the Minister's Department and what are their salaries. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are no standing arrangements for the production of films and videos. If there were a requirement it would be arranged with Film Australia in the first instance. (2) No. (3) to (5) None. (Question No. 275) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What arrangements does the Minister's Department make for the production of films and videos for both internal and external use. (2) Is any production carried out within the Minister's Department. (3) How many films/videos were produced for or by the Minister's Department during 1983-84 and what was (a) the title and (b) the cost of each production. (4) What film/video production equipment is held by the Minister's Department and what is its primary use. (5) How many officers are employed in this area within the Minister's Department and what are their salaries. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department makes all arrangements for permanent programs through Film Australia. (2) No permanent productions are made within the Department of Science. (See also answer to 4 below). (3) During 1983-84 a 10 minute slide/sound audio visual production was produced for the Department by Film Australia at a cost of $15,000 and titled 'The Department of Science and Technology'. Eight video cassette copies of this audio visual were supplied as part of the total package from Film Australia. (4) The Department holds a video camera which is used solely for in-house training purposes. All recordings are of a non-permanent nature and are erased after use. (5) In house training recording represents a minor part of the duties of Clerical Administrative staff in the Department's Training Section. (Question No. 279) Mr Connolly asked all Ministers, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What arrangements does the Minister's Department make for the production of films and videos for both internal and external use. (2) Is any production carried out within the Minister's Department. (3) How many films/videos were produced for or by the Minister's Department during 1983-84 and what was (a) the title and (b) the cost of each production. (4) What film/video production equipment is held for or by the Minister's Department and what is its primary use. (5) How many officers are employed in this area within the Minister's Department and what are their salaries. Mr Holding —The answers to the honourable member's questions, as regards the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, are as follows: (1) Central Office (Canberra) contracts Film Australia on all major works for film and video; utilises private video production houses where necessary for speed and lower costs; assists with co-productions and community productions; has two in-house units in Brisbane and New South Wales for informing the general public, Aboriginal communities and training Aboriginal production personnel. (2) Video tapes are produced in the Media and Communications Section of NSW Region for Departmental use and on request from other government departments, institutions and community groups concerned with Aboriginal affairs. Queensland Region produces videos only for distribution to the media, schools and other interested groups to promote an understanding of Aboriginal culture and to provide information on current issues. (3) Central Office-9 films A six film series with Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ''Six Australians''-$15,000 Anangu Pitjantjatjarku video-$1,200 Maningrida Arts and Crafts to produce video on Arts and Crafts for Maningrida Arts and Crafts-$7,400 Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association video on Minister's visit to Ayers Rock-$4,930 New South Wales-14 video productions Conference of Aboriginal Land Councils NADOC Week display, Mt Druitt NADOC Week ball, Blacktown Civic hall Back to nature day, Mt Druitt Indigenous People's Farm, Richmond Official opening of Tweed Museum Aboriginal Arts Board Conference, Tasmania Australian Museum cave paintings Aboriginal fashion show, Canberra Training program for YACS, Sydney Aboriginal health conference Motivation seminar for Year 10 students at Nambucca Heads YACS camp at Berry Matraville HS excursion-Aboriginal bushfood Records are not kept on individual production costs in the New South Wales Region. Total production costs of $1,013.20 were incurred. Queensland-23 video productions Jungiman-Kalkadoon Festival Gateway to Australia-Torres Strait community profile Tomorrow Mike Miller-Cairns, profile of Mike Miller QEH By-Election-Brisbane, Electoral Office official video Portrait of an Aboriginal Artist-Cairns, Thancoupie Addidi Country-Bamaga community profile Jumbunna 3-NAIDOC Brisbane, Rockhampton, Townsville Aboriginals vs Communist-Profile of the League of Rights Mona Mona-Return to Mossman site Bloomfield-Wujal Wujal people's views on roads Governor General Visit-Torres Strait tour Badu Supermarket-New Company Badu Aboriginal Mother's Union-Anglican conference Badu Aboriginal Training Centre-Rockhampton Centre The Cape '84-Kowanyama Delta Downs-Pastoral development Common Ground-Rockhampton, community meeting to hear Frank Brennan's legal views Faces of Queensland-All areas, land film Palm Island Workshop-NAC Land Conference, Palm Island Department of State Health on Aboriginal Health-Brisbane, training for reserve nurses Cattleman's Conference-Rockhampton, Aboriginal aims presentation Legal Service Meeting-Woorabinda and Thursday Island Construction of new Aboriginal community sports complex and swimming pool-Thursday Island Records are not kept on individual production costs in the Queensland Region. Total production costs of $10,925 were incurred. (4) Film/video production equipment is as follows: New South Wales-colour video camera; portable U-matic video recorder and batteries; omni-directional microphone and jack; field monitor; portable audio mixer; outdoor microphone; 4 hand-held microphones; remote control zoom attachment; multicore cable; tripod; quartz kit (lights); manual focus control Queensland-BVU recorder and Hitachi FBZZ camera for professional work (e.g. for TV); low band recorder and Hitachi camera for semi-professional work; 3 x VHS cameras and recorders for use in training of 4 Aboriginal trainees under NESA. (5) Salaries and positions of officers who as part of their duties undertake video/film productions: Central Office-One Films Officer, salary, $27,806 New South Wales-One Officer, salary, $18,012 Queensland-Officers directly involved are: Journalist Grade A1, $31053: Clerk Class 7 $20768: Clerk Class 5 $22681. The time involved in video work in each case would be estimated at 30% of full duties. (Question No. 315) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) How many compensation claims for repetitive strain injury were received by the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under his control in (a) 1983/84 and (b) 1984/85 to 20 March 1985. (2) What is the analysis of these claims giving details of sex, type of duties performed and the number of claims accepted, rejected and finalised. (3) How many employees are considered to have been successfully rehabilitated, and what steps were taken to achieve rehabilitation. (4) What steps are being taken to prevent this type of injury. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 25; (b) 106. (2) Sex; 117 female, 14 male. Type of duties; 101 keyboard, 18 clerical, 4 laboratory assistants, 2 tradespersons and 6 manual handlers. Claims accepted 89, claims rejected nil, claims awaiting determination 42. (3) 39 staff are considered to have been successfully rehabilitated to date. Staff who submit an RSI claim are initially referred to a Government Medical Officer and any recommendations the GMO makes for rehabilitation are followed. RSI sufferers are usually given the opportunity of alternate duties for a period after their return to work. Some sufferers have been able to return to their original employment whilst others have successfully adapted to the alternate duties offered. (4) Throughout the portfolio ergonomically designed furniture and equipment is being introduced into keyboard areas as quickly as possible. Exercise and rest breaks are encouraged in keyboard areas and a Departmental strategy on RSI has been issued throughout the Department. A physiotherapy consultant has been engaged to run a pilot program within the Department's Head Office in Canberra. Following evaluation of that program further initiatives of this nature may be undertaken on a wider scale. (Question No. 380) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What (a) statutory authorities and (b) advisory panels or councils come within the Minister's jurisdiction and what is the (i) name, (ii) date and period of appointment of each member. (2) What (a) remuneration and (b) travelling allowance, is payable for each position. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The following tables set out the information requested in respect of (a) statutory authorities and (b) advisory panels under my jurisdiction: (a) Statutory Authorities NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMISSION Travelling Date of Terms of allowance Name appointment appointment Salary per day Chairman (part time) Dr W. R. Blevin 14.8.80 11.12.81-13.8.85 $11 261 per annum $100/$80* Members Prof. R. E. Aitchison 11.12.81 11.12.81-31.12.85 $131 per day $100/$80 Mr R. J. Crawford 17.10.82 10.5.83-16.10.85 $131 per day $100/$80 Prof. R. Collins 17.10.84 17.10.84-16.10.88 $131 per day $100/$80 Mr J. Gilmour 17.10.84 17.10.84-16.10.88 $131 per day $100/$80 Mr A. Verey 17.10.84 17.10.84-16.10.88 $131 per day $100/$80 Dr P. Richards 17.10.84 17.10.84-16.10.88 $131 per day $100/$80 * Capital City rate/other than capital city rate COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION Travelling Date of Terms of Salary allowance Name appointment appointment per annum per day Chairman Dr J. P. Wild C.B.E.* 14.12.78 14.12.78-24.9.85 $81 193 $125/$95* Executive Members Mr S. B. Myer 14.12.78 21.12.84-20.6.85 9 052 $125/$95 Prof. D. P. Craig 26.3.83 23.12.84-20.6.85 9 052 $125/$95 Mr G. G. Spurling 9.9.82 9.9.82-8.9.85 9 052 $125/$95 Dr N. K. Boardman* 14.12.78 14.12.78-24.9.85 76 527 $125/$95 Mr P. D. A. Wright 4.2.83 4.2.83-3.2.86 9 052 $125/$95 Justice M. D. Kirby C.M.G. 11.8.83 11.8.83-10.8.86 9 052 $125/$95 Dr G. H. Taylor* 1.5.82 1.5.82-30.4.89 76 527 $125/$95 * Full-time Members * Capital City rate/other than capital city rate COUNCIL OF THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE Travelling Date of Terms of allowance Name appointment appointment Salary per day Chairman (part time) Dr J. L. Farrands 1.7.82 1.7.82-30.6.87 $6 718 per annum $100/$80* Members (part time) Dr R. K. Steedman 18.7.82 18.7.82-30.6.85 $131 per day $100/$80 Prof. P. J. Cook 18.7.79 18.7.82-30.6.85 $131 per day $100/$80 Assoc. Prof. P. Stevenson 1.7.84 1.7.84-30.6.87 $131 per day $100/$80 Prof. J. M. Thomson 3.9.81 3.9.81-30.6.84 $131 per day $100/$80 * Capital City rate/other than capital city rate ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN TELESCOPE BOARD Travelling Date of Terms of Salary allowance Name appointment appointment per annum per day Australian Chairman (part time) Prof. J. H. Carver 13.9.78 1.9.81-31.8.86 Nil* $100/$80* Australian Members (part time) Dr. R. H. Frater 2.5.82 2.5.82-1.5.87 Nil* $100/$80 Dr. W. J. McG. Tegart 3.3.82 3.3.82-31.12.85 Nil* $100/$80 * No remuneration payable * Capital City rate/other than capital city rate (b) Advisory PanelsANTARCTIC RESEARCH POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Travelling Date of Terms of Salary allowance Name appointment appointment per day per day Chairman (part time) Prof. D. Card, O.B.E. Jan. 79 1.1.85-30.6.85 $163 $100/$80* Members (part time) Dr. G. Chittleborough 15.7.82 15.7.82-31.12.85 $131 $100/$80 Prof. K. Cole Aras Faip, F. Inst. P. 1.1.84 1.1.84-31.12.86 $131 $100/$80 Mr B. Hopkins 29.11.81 1.1.85-30.6.85 $131 $100/$80 Dr J. Zillman 15.7.82 15.7.82-31.12.85 Nil* $100/$80 Prof. C. Von Der Borch 8.7.83-31.12.85 $131 $100/$80 * Capital City rate/other than capital city rate * Full-time public servant-not eligible for remuneration CSIRO ADVISORY COUNCIL Travelling Date of Terms of allowance Name appointment appointment Salary per day Chairman Sir Peter Derham 1.2.81 1.2.81-30.6.85 $13,564 per annum $125/$95* Members Mr K. Satchwell 1.9.81 1.9.81-31.8.85 $163 per day $125/$95 Dr G. I. Alexander 1.9.81 1.9.81-31.8.85 $163 per day $125/$95 Mr R. A. Footner 1.9.81 1.9.81-31.8.85 $163 per day $125/$95 Prof. P. Scott 1.9.81 1.9.81-30.6.85 $163 per day $125/$95 Mr J. E. Kolm 1.9.81 1.9.81-30.6.85 $163 per day $125/$95 Dr S. C. Bambrick 1.9.81 1.9.81-30.6.85 $131 per day $125/$95 Dr V. A. Brown 9.9.80 9.9.80-30.6.85 Nil* Nil* Mr L. P. Duthie 5.7.80 5.7.80-4.7.85 Nil* Nil* Prof. P. T. Fink 1.7.79 1.7.79-30.6.85 Nil* Nil* Mr A. M. Godfrey 7.9.82 7.9.82-6.9.87 Nil* $125/$95 Mr R. J. Kirby 1.8.82 1.8.82-31.7.85 $131 per day $125/$95 Mr D. Hartley 1.9.81 1.9.81-30.6.85 $131 per day $125/$95 Mr J. H. S. Heussler 1.9.81 1.9.81-30.6.85 $131 per day $125/$95 Mr D. J. Ives 24.3.82 24.3.82-23.3.87 Nil* Nil* Mr M. S. Shanahan 1.9.81 1.9.81-30.6.85 $131 per day $125/$95 Dr W. J. McG. Tegart 19.1.82 19.1.82-18.1.87 Nil* Nil* Mr G. J. Hunt 1.7.84 1.7.84-30.6.86 $163 per day $125/$95 Dr J. R. de Later 2.4.84 2.4.84-1.4.86 $163 per day $125/$95 Mr P. R. Staples M.P. 15.4.85 Life of 34th Parliament Nil $125/$95 The Hon M. J. R. MacKellar M.P. 15.4.85 Life of 34th Parliament Nil $125/$95 *Full-time public servant-not eligible for remuneration *Capital City rate/other than capital city rate *Public servant members are not paid travelling allowance by the Council. Travelling allowance is paid by the member's department based on the level appropriate to his/her full-time position. NATIONAL RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Travelling Date of Terms of Salary allowance Name appointment appointment per day per day Chairman (part time) Prof. L. Sandercock 1.12.83 1.12.83-30.11.86 $163 $100/$80* Members Mr N. Hurst ex officio Nil* $100/$80 Dr G. Brown 1.12.83 1.12.83-30.11.86 $131 $100/$80 Prof. P. W. Sheehan F.A.Ps.S., F.A.P.S.A., F.A.S.S.A. 1.12.83 1.12.83-30.11.86 $131 $100/$80 Prof. M. Brennan 1.12.83 1.12.83-30.11.86 $131 $100/$80 Mr A. Baklien 1.12.83 1.12.83-30.11.86 $131 $100/$80 Mr D. Harrison 1.12.83 1.12.83-30.11.86 $131 $100/$80 Mr J. Bettison 1.12.83 1.12.83-30.11.86 $131 $100/$80 *Capital City rate/other than capital city rate *Full-time public servant-not eligible for remuneration AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH GRANTS COMMITTEE Travelling Date of Terms of Salary allowance Name appointment appointment per day per day Chairman (P/T) Prof. P. Sheehan 7.3.79 1.1.83-31.12.85 $163 $100/$80* Members (P/T) Prof. D. Aitkin Fassa 1.1.81 1.1.81-31.12.85 $131 $100/$80 Assoc. Prof. C. Baldock 7.3.84 7.3.84-31.12.88 $131 $100/$80 Prof. N. Hush 7.3.84 7.3.84-31.12.88 $131 $100/$80 Prof. M. Neutze 7.3.84 7.3.84-31.12.88 $131 $100/$80 Prof. B. H. J. McKellar 1.1.85 1.1.85-31.12.89 $131 $100/$80 Prof. J. A. Thomson 1.1.83 1.1.83-31.12.85 $131 $100/$80 Prof. B. E. Hobbs 7.3.83 7.3.83-31.12.87 $131 $100/$80 Prof. J. Imberger 7.3.83 7.3.83-31.12.87 $131 $100/$80 Dr P. R. Whitfeld 7.3.83 7.3.83-31.12.87 $131 $100/$80 Dr F. A. Smith 1.1.82 1.1.82-1.1.87 $131 $100/$80 Prof. M. Williams 1.1.85 1.1.85-31.12.89 $131 $100/$80 Prof. G. Goodwin 1.1.85 1.1.85-31.12.89 $131 $100/$80 Prof. B. A. Stone 1.1.81 1.1.81-31.12.85 $131 $100/$80 Prof. B. Morris 1.1.85 1.1.85-31.12.89 $131 $100/$80 Prof. R. Sussex 1.1.85 1.1.85-31.12.89 $131 $100/$80 Prof. E. Weigold 1.1.82 1.1.82-1.1.87 $131 $100/$80 Prof. P. R. Jefferies 1.1.82 1.1.82-1.1.87 $131 $100/$80 Prof. T. A. O'Donnell 1.1.82 1.1.82-1.1.87 $131 $100/$80 * Capital City rate/other than capital city rate MARINE RESEARCH ALLOCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Travelling Date of Terms of Salary allowance Name appointment appointment per day per day Chairman (P/T) Prof. K. P. Stark, F.I.E., Aust., M.A.C.S. 1.7.81 1.1.84-31.12.86 $163 $100/$80* Members (P/T) Dr. J. T. Baker, O.B.E., F.R.A.C.I. 1.7.81 1.1.84-31.12.86 $131 $100/$80 Dr A. D. McEwan, F.A.A. 1.1.82 1.1.82-31.12.85 $131 $100/$80 Prof. J. Lovering 1.1.85 1.1.85-31.12.87 $131 $100/$80 Prof. J. M. Swan, F.A.A., F.R.A.C.I. 1.7.81 (ex officio) $131 $100/$80 Dr S. Jeffrey 1.1.85 1.1.85-31.12.87 $131 $100/$80 Dr C. Barnes 1.1.84 1.1.84-31.12.86 $131 $100/$80 * Capital City rate/other than capital city rate AUSTRALIAN MARINE SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Travelling Date of Terms of Salary allowance Name appointment appointment per day per day Chairman (part time) Prof. J. M. Swan 17.3.81 17.3.81-31.12.85 $163 $100/$80* Members (part time) Assoc. Prof. P. Sale 1.1.84 1.1.84-31.12.86 $131 $100/$80 Prof. G. Philip 1.3.84 1.3.84-30.6.87 $131 $100/$80 Prof. K. Back, A.O. 1.7.84 1.7.84-30.6.87 $131 $100/$80 Mr B. K. Bowen 31.12.81 31.12.81-31.12.85 $131 $100/$80 Mr R. J. Foster 17.9.82-31.12.85 $131 $100/$80 Mr R. Male 1.1.85 1.1.85-31.12.87 $131 $100/$80 Mr M. Buckham 1.4.85 1.4.85-31.3.88 $Nil* $100/$80 * Capital City rate/other than capital city rate. * Full-time public servant-not eligible for remuneration. METEOROLOGY POLICY COMMITTEE Travelling Date of Terms of Salary allowance Name appointment appointment per day per day Chairman (part time) Dr G. Tegart ex officio Nil* $125/95* Members (part time) Dr J. Zillman 1.5.78 ex officio Nil* $100/$80 Mr G. L. Hollings 1.5.83 1.5.83-30.4.87 $131 $100/$80 Mr R. Yates, A.M. 1.8.84 1.8.84-30.4.88 $131 $100/$80 Mr G. Stuart 25.9.81 25.9.81-30.4.86 $131 $100/$80 Dr D. Smith 30.4.82 30.4.82-30.4.86 $131 $100/$80 * Capital City rate/other than capital city rate. * Full-time public servant-not eligible for remuneration. INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Travelling Date of Terms of Salary allowance Name appointment appointment per day per day Chairman (part time) J. Stonier Aug. 1978 9.8.83-31.12.85 $163 $100/$80* Deputy Chairman (part time) P. Smith ex-officio Nil* $100/$80 Members J. Doyle 1 Sept. 1984 1.9.84-31.12.85 $131 $100/$80 Prof. R. Officer 1 Sept. 1984 1.9.84-30.6.87 $131 $100/$80 D. J. Ryan Aug. 1978 9.8.83-31.12.85 $131 $100/$80 D. A. Walsh Aug. 1978 9.8.83-31.12.85 $131 $100/$80 Dr L. Brodribb 1 Sept. 1984 1.9.84-30.6.87 $131 $100/$80 * Capital City rate/other than capital city rate. * Full-time public servant-not eligible for remuneration. BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF PATENTS ATTORNEYS Travelling Date of Terms of Salary allowance Name appointment appointment per day per day Chairman Mr. P. Smith 1978 ex officio Nil* $100/$80* Members (elected) Mr. M. J. Royal 7.12.82 7.12.82-6.12.85 $131 $100/$80 Mr T. N. Beadle 7.10.76 7.12.82-6.12.85 $131 $100/$80 Mr C. M. Bentley 12.9.77 1.1.84-31.12.86 $131 $100/$80 Dr D. B. Mischlewski 14.8.79 1.1.84-31.12.86 $131 $100/$80 Ms A. Dufty 1.1.84 1.1.84-31.12.86 $131 $100/$80 Mr D. R. Shanahan 1.1.83 1.1.84-31.12.86 $131 $100/$80 Mr R. C. Wray 20.10.78 20.10.78-31.12.87 $131 $100/$80 Mr C. H. Friemann 15.12.80 1.1.84-31.12.86 Nil* $100/$80 * Capital City rate/other than capital city rate. * Full-time public servant-not eligible for remuneration. COMMISSION FOR THE FUTURE Travelling Date of Terms of Salary allowance Name appointment appointment per day per day Chairman (part time) Mr P. Adams 12.2.85 12.2.85-11.2.88 $163 $100/$80* Members Mr R. Williams 12.2.85 12.2.85-11.2.88 $131 $100/$80 Assoc. Prof. S. Smith 12.2.85 12.2.85-11.2.88 $131 $100/$80 Dr M. Cleary 12.2.85 12.2.85-11.2.88 $131 $100/$80 Prof. P. Mason 12.2.85 12.2.85-11.2.88 $131 $100/$80 Prof. L. Sandercock 12.2.85 12.2.85-11.2.88 $131 $100/$80 Ms J. Owen 12.2.85 12.2.85-11.2.88 $131 $100/$80 * Capital City rate/other than capital city rate. (Question No. 395) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on Friday, 22 March 1985: What amount is being allocated to the Commission for the Future? Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is a follows: 1984/85-$166 000 is allocated. 1985/86-allocation is to be determined in Budget context. (Question No. 403) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What has been the change in cattle numbers over each of the last 10 years and what are the present numbers. (2) What is the expected change over the next 2 years. (3) What has been the movement in (a) cattle prices and (b) on-property costs, in each of the last 5 years. (4) How many live cattle have been exported during each of the last 5 years. (5) What effect will the movement in cattle numbers have on meat processors and job opportunities for meat workers. (6) How many additional jobs would have been created for meat workers had the exported cattle been slaughtered in Australia. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following table shows the numbers in the Australian herd in each of the last 10 years: Year Cattle (as at March 31) (million head) 1974 30.8 1975 32.8 1976 33.4 1977 31.5 1978 29.3 1979 27.1 1980 26.2 1981 25.2 1982 24.6 1983 22.5 1984 22.2 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2) Cattle numbers are expected to reach 22.9 million by 31 March 1985, 23.5 million by 31 March 1986 and 24.2 million by 31 March 1987. Source: Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE) (3)(a) The movement in cattle prices in each of the last five year is illustrated in the table below: Saleyard Prices of Livestock* Beef Year cents/kg 1980 141.5 1981 123.7 1982 113.1 1983 150.2 1984 167.0 * Prices are weighted averages at capital city saleyards on an estimated dressed weight basis and with exception of ''yearling'' are for export quality stock: Ox 301-350 Kg; Cow 201-250 Kg. Source: BAE (b) Estimates of average total cash costs for beef farms and movements in prices paid by farmers are shown in the following table for each of the last 5 years. Year Total cash costs* Index of (ended June) ($) prices paid*** 1981 42 622 100 1982 46 439 111 1983 43 816 123 1984 51 912 133 1985 54 093 141 * Estimated average total cash costs excluding family labour for beef-only farms. ** Index based on expenditures by all farm operators. Source: BAE (4) The number of live cattle exported during each of the last 5 years is tabled below: Year (ended June) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Slaughter cattle 50 647 61 966 54 860 55 743 38 115 Breeding cattle 18 414 37 334 55 009 26 050 43 720 Total 69 061 99 300 109 869 81 793 81 835 Source: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. (5) Indications are that the herd size will level off at around 25 million by the late 1980s. On this basis, annual slaughterings can be expected to average around 7.5 million head, compared with an estimated 6.6 million head in 1984. Although abattoir throughput will pick up, employment will not recover to the level experienced in the late 1970s when slaughterings averaged around 11.6 million head per annum. (6) If all slaughter cattle exports in the past 5 years had been processed in Australia, local abattoir throughput would have increased by 0.7%, with consequential marginal increases in total local employment. However, the practicality of increasing local abattoir throughput by diverting animals from the live slaughter trade would be dependent on there being changes in the traditional consumer preferences of the foreign buyers involved. (Question No. 149) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) What adjustments are made to the taxable income of applicants for unemployment benefits or family income supplements in determining entitlements under the income test. (2) Where an applicant has received income from one source but has suffered a loss from another source, in what circumstances are losses allowed to be offset against the income. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Income for unemployment benefits and family income supplement purposes is defined in the Social Security Act as ' . . . personal earnings, monies, valuable consideration or profits earned, derived or received by that person for his own use or benefit by any means from any source . . . ' It is not synonymous with taxable income. In assessing income from self-employed persons, regard is normally had to the individual's income tax return so that due allowance is made for expenses incurred in deriving that income. Items (other than expenses) allowed for taxation purposes which are not allowed for Social Security purposes include trading stock valuation adjustments, investment allowances, amounts invested in Income Equalisation Deposits, capital expenditure and obsolescence. (2) Under the relevant legislation, losses incurred in one aspect of a single business may be offset against profits earned in other aspects. For example, a farmer who raises sheep and grows wheat as a single enterprise may offset the loss from sheep against the profit from wheat. However, where a self-employed individual derives income from separate enterprises or differing sources, losses from one source may not be offset against profits from separate sources. Thus a self-employed plumbing contractor cannot reduce the income obtained from that enterprise by deducting losses incurred in another separate business activity such as the raising of cattle. (Question No. 233) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) How many wives, including de facto wives, were granted unemployment benefits in 1983-84 in circumstances where their husbands were not eligible for unemployment benefits because they were unemployed, due to being, or having been, engaged in industrial action or due to industrial action by other members of the husbands' union. (2) What amount of unemployment benefits was paid to these families. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The information sought is not available. (Question No. 326) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Will he investigate the concept of the 'one stop shop' or 'NOW' Centre to upgrade the provision of Commonwealth services such as pensions, unemployment benefits, Medicare, veterans' affairs and customs, to people in the less populated areas. (2) Will he consider a pilot scheme involving the Queensland towns of Biloela and Dysart to test the effectiveness of this concept. Mr Howe —The answers to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The provision of government services in less populated areas is a matter which has been under consideration for some time. While the concept of the 'one stop shop' in relation to the provision of government services in remote localities does have some attraction, the issue does present a number of significant problems. Staffing and other resource implications are important factors that need careful consideration. The provision of staff with appropriate expertise to satisfactorily under- take the work of a number of departments is a major difficulty. Access to various departments' records to enable enquiries to be efficiently dealt with also raises questions of privacy and confidentiality. My Department services the less populated areas by having officers visit the areas regularly. In addition Departmental Field Officers, Social Workers and Aboriginal Liaison Officers are available to visit these localities. Paid Agents and Honorary Information Officers also provide services in some areas. The Department of Social Security continually monitors the demands for services to ensure that the most appropriate arrangements apply. Expansion of services is usually undertaken where circumstances are judged to warrant such action. (2) At the moment there are no plans by my Department to extend services to the Biloela or Dysart areas. (Question No. 413) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What engagements has the Victoria Naval Band accepted in 1985 so far and in which Victorian communities. (2) What engagements did the band accept in 1984 and in which communities. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Details of engagements accepted by the Victoria Naval Band in 1984 and 1985 are provided in the following tables. VICTORIA NAVAL BAND Commitments 1984 Date Commitment Venue January Thu. 12 Victorian Blind Sports Assoc. Olympic Pk. Melb Sat. 21 Australia vs Pakistan Cricket MCG Melbourne Victoria vs Berlin Soccer Olympic Pk. Melb Wed. 25 West Head Open Day Flinders Thu. 26 Australia Day Flag raising City Square Fri. 27 Ceremonial Divisions Crib Point Mon. 30 Australia Day Parade Mornington February Sun. 12 HMAS Voyager 20th Memorial Crib Point Sat. 18 Hastings Day Parade Hastings Wed. 22 Mornington Cup Mornington Thu. 23 Wardroom Mess Dinner Crib Point Fri. 24 Ceremonial Divisions Crib Point Sat. 25 A.G. Hunter Cup Melbourne March Wed. 7 Moomba Concert Melbourne Fri. 9 Ballarat Begonia Festival Ballarat Sat. 10 Tongala Tent Town Festival Tongala Mon. 12 Moomba Parade Melbourne Sun. 17 Koo Wee Rup Potato Festival Koo Wee Rup Fri. 23 Ceremonial Divisions Crib Point Wardroom Ladies Dine In Crib Point Fri. 24 Red Hill Show Red Hill Sun. 25 Mordialloc Community Festival Mordialloc Thu. 29 Monteray Primary School Frankston Sat. 31 Toorak College Fete Mornington April Sun. 1 Chelsea Youth Week Parade Chelsea Mon. 2 Southern Cross Cinema concert Crib Point Fri. 6 PO's Mess Ladies Dine-In Crib Point Sun. 8 Heritage Week Melbourne Thu. 12 Montefiore Homes Melbourne Sat. 14 Charity Ball Wangaratta Wed. 18 Wardroom guest night Crib Point Thu. 19 Ceremonial Divisions Crib Point Sat. 21 Tobacco and Timber Festival Myrtleford Wed. 25 ANZAC Day Parade Melbourne May Fri. 11 Coral Sea Service (Bugler) Melbourne CPO's Mess Ladies Dine In Crib Point Thu. 24 NOCVIC's Reception Melbourne Fri. 25 Ceremonial Divisions Crib Point June Thu. 7 American Consul General's Cocktail Party Melbourne Thu. 14 St. Michaels School Melbourne Sat. 16 Fancy Dress Ball Corowa Tue. 19 Mount Scopus School Concert Melbourne Fri. 22 Wardroom Mid Winter Ball Crib Point Tue. 26 Parkdale High School Parkdale Fri. 29 Ceremonial Divisions Crib Point July Fri. 13 Ceremonial Divisions Crib Point August Thu. 2 Wardroom Mess Dinner Crib Point Wed. 8 Opening of Auditorium Parkdale High School Parkdale Thu. 9 Small Group Southern Cross Cinema Crib Point Fri. 10 North Albury High School Concert Albury Supper Dance Wodonga Civic Centre Wodonga Fri. 17 Recruit School Passing Out Parade Crib Point Fri. 31 Monash University Melbourne September Mon. 3 Training Captains Divisions Crib Point Thu. 6 Funeral Service (Bugler) Springvale Fri. 7 PO's Mess Dinner Crib Point Fri. 14 Wardroom Ladies Dine In Crib Point Tue. 18 RAS Guard rehearsal Melbourne Sat. 22 RAS Opening Melbourne Tue. 25 ABC Recordings Robert Blackwood Hall Melbourne Fri. 28 Fleet arrival Melbourne Sun. 30 Arts Festival Concert Mt. Eliza October Mon. 1 Training Captains Divisions Crib Point Tue. 2 NOCVIC's Reception Melbourne Wed. 3 City Square Concert Melbourne Thu. 4 Wardroom Mess Dinner Crib Point Sat. 6 Navy Week Race Meeting Melbourne Sun. 7 Commemorative Service (Fanfares) Melbourne Wed. 10 Government House Investiture Melbourne Fri. 12 CNS Divisions Crib Point Tue. 16 School Concert Monash University Melbourne Thu. 18 Opening of TAFE Frankston Wardroom Trafalgar Night Dinner Crib Point Fri. 19 School Concert and Marching Display Euroa Sat. 20 Caulfield Cup Melbourne Tue. 23 Concert and Beat Retreat rehearsal Canberra Fri. 26 Concert and Beat Retreat Government House Canberra Tue. 29 Prime Minister's Housing Scheme launching Melbourne Wed. 30 Opening DFSM Watsonia November Fri. 2 Pre Derby Day Ball Melbourne Sat. 3 Derby Day Melbourne Sun. 4 Schools Music Festival Winchelsea Mon. 5 Pre Melbourne Cup Reception Melbourne Tue. 6 Melbourne Cup Melbourne Fri. 9 Tri Service Marching Display rehearsal Melbourne CPO's Mess Dinner Crib Point Sat. 10 Tri Service Marching Display rehearsal Melbourne Sun. 11 Tri Service Marching Display Melbourne Mon. 12 Training Captain's Divisions Crib Point Thu. 15 Opening Karingal Hub Shipping Centre Frankston Fri. 16 Victoria's 150th Anniversary Celebrating Portland Sat. 17 Victoria's 150th Anniversary Celebrating Portland Sun. 18 Victoria's 150th Anniversary Celebrating Portland Mon. 19 Street March and Concert Mt. Gambier Fri. 23 Gala Day Street March Geelong Wed. 28 NOCVIC Divisions Crib Point December Sun. 2 Cerberus Open Day Crib Point Mon. 3 Training Captain's Divisions Crib Point Fri. 7 Recruit School Passing Out Parade Crib Point Wardroom Ball Crib Point VICTORIA NAVAL BAND Commitments 1985 Date Commitment Venue January Wed. 23 West Head Open Day Flinders Thu. 24 Wardroom Dinner Crib Point Sat. 26 Lakes Entrance Fire Brigade Lakes Entrance February Mon. 4 Training Captain's Divisions Crib Point Sat. 9 A. G. Hunter Cup Moonee Valley Tue. 12 North Balwyn High School North Balwyn Ceremonial Divisions Crib Point Wardroom Dinner Crib Point Fri. 15 Sport Festival Ballarat Sat. 16 Air Show Ballarat Sun. 17 McClelland Gallery Concert Frankston Sat. 23 Melbourne Airport Open Day Tullamarine Moonee Valley Inter Dominion Moonee Valley Sun. 24 Melbourne Airport Open Day Tullamarine Mon. 25 Tattoo rehearsal Melbourne Tue. 26 RSL Park Concert Frankston Wed. 27 Mornington Cup Mornington March Sat. 2 Maffra Mardi Gras Maffra Sun. 3 Point Leo Surf Life Saving Championship Point Leo Tyabb Air Show Tyabb Mon. 4 Fitzroy Gardens Widows Legacy Concert Melbourne Tue. 7 Royal Yacht Club Williamstown Fri. 8 Ceremonial Divisions Crib Point Mon. 11 Moomba March Melbourne Tue. 12 Tattoo rehearsal MCG Wed. 13 Tattoo rehearsal MCG Thu. 14 Tattoo full dress rehearsal MCG Fri. 15 Tattoo MCG Sat. 16 Diamond Creek Show Diamond Creek Tattoo MCG Sun. 17 Tattoo MCG Mon. 18 Tattoo MCG Tue. 19 Senior Citizens Government House Melbourne Tattoo MCG Wed. 20 Limbless Soldiers Bowling Association East Malvern Fri. 29 Recruit School Passing Out Parade Crib Point Sun. 31 Chelsea Youth Week Chelsea April Mon. 1 Training Captain's Divisions Crib Point Southern Cross Cinema Concert Crib Point Wed. 3 Opening of Parliament Melbourne Thu. 4 Ceremonial Divisions Crib Point Sat. 13 Flinders Golf Club Flinders Tue. 16 Monash School Concerts Melbourne Thu. 18 St Colombus College Essendon Fri. 19 Shepparton Ball Shepparton Sun. 21 St Kilda Shrine St Kilda Thu. 25 ANZAC Day Parade Melbourne Mon. 29 Training Captain's Divisions Crib Point Tue. 30 HMAS Derwent Re-commissioning rehearsal Williamstown May Fri. 3 Wardroom Mess Dinner Crib Point Sat. 4 Australian Olympic Fund Dinner Melbourne Mon. 6 HMAS Derwent Re-commissioning Ceremony Williamstown Wed. 8 Government House Investitures Melbourne Fri. 10 Recruit School Passing Out Parade Crib Point Sat. 11 CPO's Mess Ladies Dine In Night Crib Point Fri. 24 Naval Reserve Cadets Parade Crib Point Sun. 26 3DB Sporting Globe Crib Point Fri. 31 Operation Emergency Parade Melbourne June Sun. 2 FEIP Concert Melbourne Thu. 6 Wardroom Dinner Crib Point Fri. 7 Ceremonial Divisions Crib Point Mon. 10 Queen's Birthday Reception Melbourne Thu. 13 Monte Fiore Homes St Kilda Fri. 21 RSPOP Crib Point Fri. 28 Mid Winter Ball Crib Point July Wed. 3 to North West Cape Tour W.A. Mon. 8 August Fri. 2 Ceremonial Divisions Crib Point Fri. 9 RSPOP Crib Point September Mon. 2 Training Captain's Divisions Crib Point Fri. 20 PO's Mess Dinner Crib Point Fri. 27 Ceremonial Divisions Crib Point October Thu. 3 Sandown Dogs Sandown Sat. 5 Flemington Races Flemington Mon. 7 Training Captain's Divisions Crib Point Sun. 13 Lonsdale Open Day Port Melbourne Mon. 14 City Square Concert Melbourne Tue. 15 NOCVIC's Reception Port Melbourne Wed. 16 City Square Concert Melbourne Thu. 17 City Square Concert Melbourne Trafalgar Night Wardroom Dinner Crib Point Fri. 18 City Square Concert Melbourne Sat. 19 Cerberus Open Day Crib Point Sun. 20 St Pauls/Shrine Service (Fanfares) Melbourne Fri. 25 Royal Visit Arrival Tullamarine November Fri. 1 Ceremonial Divisions Crib Point Sat. 2 Derby Day Caulfield Fri. 8 CPO's Mess Dinner Crib Point Sun. 10 Tri Service Beat Retreat Melbourne December Mon. 2 Training Captain's Division Crib Point Fri. 6 Wardroom Ball Crib Point (Question No. 483) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) Has the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation convened a working group to monitor the economic loss arising from mouse plagues; if so, who is represented on the group, how many meetings have been held and what is being investigated. (2) If not, when will the resolution of the July 1984 Agricultural Council meeting be implemented. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes, at the request of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. (b) The working group is comprised of officers from New South Wales, Victoria and South Australian Government departments, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Vertebrate Pests Committee of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and the CSIRO Divisions of Mathematics and Statistics, and Wildlife and Rangelands Research. (c) A meeting of the working party was held on 19 and 20 September 1984 to plan and co-ordinate methods of assessing losses that might occur during the anticipated plague. (d) The working group is assessing economic loss and damage in the following agricultural industries; winter grain crops (wheat, barley etc); summer grain crops (rice, sorghum, sunflowers, etc); horticulture; vegetables and annual fruit cropping; intensive live-stocking (pigs, poultry and food lots). The working group is also assessing losses caused by damage to farm equipment and to personal and domestic items on farms. In addition the working group is assessing the estimated costs and benefits of a range of mouse control techniques and loss prevention activities instituted by government agencies and the private sector. (e) The working group is to report to the next meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture to be held in mid-July 1985.