Monday, 22 April 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I wish to advise the House that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will be absent from Australia until 25 April as he will be visiting the United States for discussions with bankers and businessmen. In his absence the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) will act as the Treasurer and the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) will represent the Acting Treasurer in the House. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) will be absent from Australia from later today until 12 May. He will be visiting the United States and Canada, principally to examine the effects of resource development on indigenous peoples. In his absence the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) will act as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) will represent the Acting Minister in the House. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) will be absent from Australia until 28 May. He will be representing Australia at the Anzac Cove ceremony in Turkey and also attending the annual commemoration of the Battle of Crete. In his absence the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) will act as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Acting Minister will be represented in the Senate by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). Mr SHACK —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations how, in light of his failure last week to condemn the disruption by the Australian Council of Trade Unions of essential services to Queensland and his failure to support the reintroduction of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) legislation and to use the Trade Practices Act to ensure the continuation of essential services to Queensland, he proposes to back up his view, expressed as recently as last Saturday in Tasmania when he said: No-one can question the right of the community to expect continued provision of essential services and not be subject to hardship because of interruption to those services. Mr WILLIS —It is, of course, true that I made that statement in Tasmania last Saturday in a speech to the Tasmanian Industrial Relations Society. Of course, it has never been anything other than the position of this Government that we are concerned to ensure that persons employed in essential services maintain services as much as is possible so that the people who are dependent on those services are able to receive them. However, I think it must also be said that we are also aware of the point that in a democracy it is right that people in all walks of life have the right in the end to take industrial action to protect their industrial rights. We certainly say that people who are involved in essential services should have that right but they should exercise that right only in very exceptional circumstances. It is not the position of this Government that we would deny the right to take industrial action to persons employed in essential services, but with that right to strike, which we believe they should have in a democracy, goes an obligation and a duty. That obligation and duty is to exercise that right in a very discriminate way and to exercise it only when there is an absolutely essential need for it. My concern is that in some areas of the economy there has been an increasing acceptance by some employees in essential services of the taking of strike action when in previous years-and certainly decades-there would not have been such an acceptance. One has only to look at the hospital industry to see that there has been a growing use of industrial action in that area, which I believe is a matter of growing concern. I think it is a fact that employees in essential services need to be very cautious about the use of that right. We would support their having that right, but using it only in exceptional circumstances. I do not believe, as was implied in the honourable member's question, that better industrial relations in those industries will be obtained by taking the kind of draconian steps that have been taken by the Queensland Government. That will only lead to the suppression of industrial rights and we will not have good industrial relations. We may have very few stoppages, but we would have very bad industrial relations. We would have an embittered work force and bad productivity. That is not what would help this economy. We believe that the approach taken by this Government, which has been to adopt a co-operative form of industrial relations, has been demonstrably successful. It has brought about the lowest level of industrial disputation in l7 years-far below the levels that occurred under the Fraser Government. It is clearly the most appropriate form of developing industrial relations in this country. The actions of the Queensland Government, in the other direction, only act to undermine all of the gains which have been achieved by the approach we have adopted. Mr GAYLER —Has the attention of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism been drawn to recent Press reports of a statement made by the Queensland Minister for Tourism that the Federal Government's policies on air charter are restricting international tourism to north Queensland? Mr JOHN BROWN —I did see those reports. I was rather surprised, if not stunned, by the cover they were given in the Press. The truth about the matter is that the Government has received very few applications for charter flights from anywhere in the world. In fact, in total we have received four applications. I can tell members of the House-particularly the Queenslanders and particularly the honourable member for Leichhardt, who has an abiding interest in things relating to tourism in the north of Queensland-that the Government has acted very properly in every case. The first application came from Sterling Airways. It made an application last year to bring charter flights from Denmark and other parts of Scandinavia to Queensland. I can assure the House that this application was treated with full respect and with expedition by the Government. I have sighted some correspondence from Sterling Airways thanking the Government for its very prompt review of this application. Another application has been put to the Minister by All Nippon Airways from Japan. This application has also been treated with expedition and seriousness. It is interesting to note that this application has not at this stage been given official imprimatur by the Japanese Government. Certainly, we have had no indication that the Japanese Government is supporting it. Of course, that is a very necessary component of a successful application. There have been two other applications by East West Airlines. I think it is important to note that if the Queensland Minister for Tourism-who is certainly the most garrulous and probably the least effective of all the tourism Ministers in Australia-were half honest in discussing tourism in Queensland he would admit that what has happened in Queensland in the last two years has been a revolution in the tourism industry, almost totally because of the actions of this Government in promoting tourism in so many ways. I do not want to go through the gamut of areas, but something which it would be pertinent for the State Tourist and Travel Corporation to do would be to set up an information bureau at Cairns Airport. The Queensland Government is very gung ho about allowing charter flights to Cairns and it makes lots of noises about what it might do. Anybody who bothers to visit Cairns international and domestic airport will find that there is a self-help information bureau; one picks up a brochure if one can. I would have thought that if the Queensland Minister were sincere about developing tourism in the north of Queensland-upon which the economy of that State hangs so seriously-he would do the sorts of things for which the State tourist commissions are set up. This Government has certainly fulfilled its charter to bring more people into Australia and to promote greater tourism within Australia. It behoves the Queensland Government, particularly that garrulous Minister, to do something about fulfilling his charter as a State Minister and to stop trying to score political points about this Government and this Minister. I think our Government's record stands up greatly to examination. Mr PEACOCK —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations whether he is aware of reports that the Australian Council of Trade Unions intends to extend its hit list to over 200 companies. I refer the Minister to the concern expressed in a telex sent to the Prime Minister by the Board of the Confederation of Western Australian Industry (Inc) on Friday which stated, inter alia, in relation to the hit list: Your Government's credibility is on the line. We urge you to take the strongest possible action to bring about responsible behaviour by the union movement. Failure to do so will, in our view, spell the beginning of the end of the union movement in this country and the credibility of your own Government. In view of these concerns, does the Government intend to continue its policy of surrender to the ACTU? Mr WILLIS —The Government has made it quite clear that it does not support the campaign of industrial action being undertaken by the ACTU in relation to this matter. The Government has, of course, proposed a means by which all of that industrial action could be avoided. I was very pleased to see that this morning the head of the Confederation of Australian Industry, Mr Williams, endorsed the fact that there should be discussions. He said on the AM program this morning that basically there is something to talk about and that it would be tragic for Australia if it became necessary for legislation ultimately to determine an industrial dispute. He also said that, without a doubt, there should be discussions. I believe that that, on the part of the most senior spokesman for business in this country, indicates an awareness by the business community that if there is to be a resolution of this matter it has to come about through negotiations between the parties involved. We believe strongly that Mr Williams is right in taking that approach and that that is what all parties should be seeking to bring about. The intransigence of the Queensland Premier makes that very difficult but I think that, once it becomes realised more widely by the Australian community that business believes that the only way to resolve this dispute is by negotiations, surely there will be greater pressure on the Queensland Premier to accept that that is the way to resolve this matter and that his continued refusal to do so demonstrates on his part a determination not to resolve this matter but to keep unnecessary industrial confrontation and disputation going. That must be the only conclusion one can reach if he refuses to undertake negotiations which even the business leaders are saying would be appropriate. I was rather amused to see that the Leader of the Opposition has a new definition of the right to strike. Last week honourable members will have heard the Leader of the National Party of Australia say to a gathering of kindred souls in Victoria that it was not true that the Queensland Government had removed the right to strike because there was still a right to strike; it was just that one was dismissed and lost all entitlements if one did so. The Leader of the Opposition, who now takes his orders from the Leader of the National Party, says the same thing. In a Press release on the weekend he said that the legislation does not prevent employees in the electricity industry exercising their right to strike but it does provide the employer, because it is an essential industry, with the power summarily to dismiss any person who goes on strike. What a great definition of rights that is! It is like saying that all Russians have the right to go into Red Square and protest but they will finish up in the Lubyanka if they do. That is the definition of rights that the Leader of the Opposition has; it is not a definition of rights anyone in this country would accept, apart from members of the Opposition who are simply using this whole exercise as an attempt to develop maximum political mileage and pursue a course which is making the resolution of this matter much more difficult. Mr MOUNTFORD —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Do the preliminary results of the Australian Medical Association's plebiscite indicate that the overwhelming majority of Australia's doctors support a full return to normal services in New South Wales public hospitals? Do these results show that the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Barker are completely out of touch with the mainstream of the medical profession, as well as members of the general public who demand that this essential service should be restored? Dr BLEWETT —Nearly 6,000 replies have been received from some 32,000 doctors in this country in relation to the AMA plebiscite. Nationally, 8l per cent of all doctors polled favoured a return to work. In New South Wales the vote was 73 per cent in favour of resumption of normal services. Even among those who have currently withdrawn all or part of their services there was a 55 per cent vote in favour of a return to work. This comes on top of decisions made by various specialists last week to return to their hospital jobs in New South Wales and reflects the overwhelming view of the medical profession in Australia that the Government has offered a fair and generous peace package to settle the dispute in New South Wales. This has been accepted by the AMA, by most health organisations and by the vast majority of doctors. There remain the militant surgeons who are still prepared to sacrifice their patients in their dispute with the Government. It should be pointed out that these people, having already brought the whole medical profession into contempt by their continuing attitude that their patients should be treated as pawns in their political dispute, are now going further in besmirching the profession because they now allege that their professional colleagues are simply ballot riggers. It is about time that the friends of the surgeons on the Opposition benches began to give them the same advice as the Liberal leader in New South Wales has been prepared to give them, and that is to get back to their jobs and stop making their patients suffer. I remind the Opposition Leader again of what he said last week on the Queensland situation: No responsible citizen can support the industrial muscle and blackmail that is being used against Australian citizens. When the essential services of the community are being held to ransom by a group of people who disagree with a government policy, then a government has no option but to move and move firmly. Until the Opposition Leader is heard making similar comments about Dr Shepherd and Dr Aroney and their ilk, he will continue to be regarded as a man of double standards-- Mr Porter —We want a fair and equitable hospital system. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker continuously ignores requests from the Chair to cease interjecting. Dr BLEWETT —As I was saying, until the Opposition Leader is prepared to say the same things about Drs Aroney and Shepherd and their ilk, he will be seen as a man of double standards, with one standard for wealthy surgeons and an entirely different set of standards for ordinary working trade unionists. Mr LLOYD —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In view of the Minister's statement last Thursday and again today that the Government did not condone the Australian Council of Trade Unions blockade of Queensland, did the Minister for Aviation confer with him prior to the issue of the notice of air movements-or notam-of last Wednesday that flight notification, flight planning and processing of aircraft movement services for regular public transport and regular cargo flights entering and exiting the State of Queensland would not be available on Friday? Were any efforts made to provide those services? Will the personnel concerned be paid for that day? Mr WILLIS —It is my understanding that there was no refusal of any flight plans for commercial flights by air traffic controllers. There were, of course, no scheduled flights to Queensland, but not because of the actions of air traffic controllers in not receiving flight plans. There were private charter flights, and internal flights operated normally, but my understanding is that there was no such action by air traffic controllers. Mr Lloyd —I am quite happy to give the Minister the document-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has not the call. Mr KEOGH —I draw the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to recent claims that the Federal Government is moving at tortoise pace towards improving training opportunities for young people. Will the Minister inform the House what progress the Government has made in this important area in response to recommendations of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs? Mr WILLIS —My attention has been drawn to the statement in this morning's Melbourne Age that the Government was moving at tortoise pace towards the development of new training arrangements for young people. I think that is a grossly unfair statement by the editorial writer in the Melbourne Age. The fact is that the Government is very concerned to develop new training arrangements for young people. We have now received three reports this year which have recommended to us the development of training arrangements-the report of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on youth policy and the Bureau of Labour Market Research report on youth employment patterns. All of those reports said that the development of traineeships for young people was the appropriate way for the Government to go in improving the employment prospects for young people. We have therefore been embarked on a course of rapidly developing traineeships, but it must be understood, of course, that that cannot be achieved overnight. What the Government is talking about is the development of a new form of program for young people commencing employment in this country outside of apprenticeships and other present structured training arrangements, which is a major development and must be introduced with the agreement of all major parties and with a full understanding by everyone of what is involved. That is something which cannot be done very quickly. What we have done is to embark upon a two-phase development of this arrangement. Firstly, we have virtually concluded the process of consulting all the relevant parties. We have one further round of discussions to go through the Australian Education Council. There have been discussions with the organised employers and the trade unions through the National Labour Consultative Council, with State governments and with the training and education sectors, and with that other one to come in a few days time we will have completed the first round of consultations. Following that, we will move to the second phase-developing specific detail of the number of traineeship areas for next year. A pilot program will be operating in l986 in a number of industries. Those industries may differ from State to State, but the program will mean that several thousand traineeships will apply, we hope, for l986. I have been very encouraged to this stage by the in-principle support which has come from all parties. Of course, there is a lot of detail to develop and a number of problems to overcome, but there is strong support from all sections consulted to this stage and I can assure the editorial writer of the Melbourne Age that the development of the traineeships is a matter of very high priority, that work is proceeding as rapidly as is possible and that we will have a good pilot program operating in l986 in that area. Mr SINCLAIR —In light of the answer just given to this House by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, will the Minister for Aviation advise why the notice of air movement to which the question of the honourable member for Murray referred was issued; and are the personnel concerned being paid for that day? Mr PETER MORRIS —I do not have the details with me, but to the best of my knowledge a notam was issued. I am checking on that and I will provide the honourable member with a detailed response later in the day. Mr Lloyd —Who authorised it? Mr MORRIS —I said that I do not have the details. I will be happy to provide them to the honourable member later in the day. Mr CHYNOWETH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What part is Australia playing in investigating the hypothesis of a nuclear winter resulting from either a limited or large scale nuclear exchange in the Northern Hemisphere? Mr HAYDEN —Most of the research being carried out in Australia which has a bearing on the nuclear winter hypothesis has been carried out by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Atmospheric Research. Recently the Division proposed two new study projects, one involving a study on interhemispheric exchange relating to the likely environmental effects of a nuclear war in the Northern Hemisphere on Australia's climate and the other concerning research into transport into the Southern Hemisphere of particles injected by Northern Hemisphere nuclear war. Both these projects are being considered for funding by the Government as part of the Government's program to mark the International Year of Peace, l986. It may be of interest for honourable members to know that a resolution was adopted at the latest session of the United Nations General Assembly, which Australia supported, which requests the Secretary-General to compile and distribute as a document of the United Nations appropriate excerpts of all national and international scientific studies on the climatic effects of nuclear war, including nuclear winter, published so far or which may be published before 3l July l985. This compilation of studies is to be examined at the next General Assembly meeting in l985 in connection with the item dealing with the prevention of nuclear war. Australia will be making a contribution to this compilation of studies based on research carried out by Australian scientists in this area, including those of CSIRO. Finally, the question of nuclear winter has been considered in a number of non-government meetings in Australia in recent years. Mr Tuckey —I don't think you even understand what you are saying. Mr HAYDEN —I feel sorry for the honourable member. He was born rather dull and I have news for him: He has been going steadily backwards ever since. Mr N. A. Brown —Tell us about the drover's dog. Mr HAYDEN —If it were a cat the honourable member would know more about it, I understand. The question of nuclear winter has been considered in a number of non-government meetings in Australia in recent years, notably the symposium at the Australian National University in 1983 on the effects of nuclear war and the biennial meeting of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science in l984. Mr HOWARD —My question, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, relates to the forthcoming taxation summit. Can the honourable gentleman inform the House when invitations to the taxation summit will be issued? When will the Government's White Paper on taxation be issued? Finally, will the White Paper indicate the Government's preferred option for taxation reform or will it merely restate the differing and, indeed, antagonistic views within the Australian Labor Party on that subject? Mr HAWKE —I am very glad that the honourable member asked the question about invitations because I was fascinated to see in this morning's Press that in this division-ridden Liberal Party that we have in Australia- Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I can understand that there is a certain amount of hilarity and reaction on occasions such as this. However, it can go too far. I invite honourable members to remain quiet. Mr HAWKE —As on so many other matters in respect of which Liberals are so divided, they seem to be divided on the question of tax and whether they should go to the summit or not. I see that the meeting that they had down in Melbourne, which, admittedly, did not get quite the coverage that another meeting did, passed a resolution that they should attend the tax summit. What do we make of these people? We have the Leader of the Liberal Party saying: 'No way; we will not go'. Then we have his Victorian Branch saying: 'Yes, we should go'. So, we will be sending honourable members opposite an invitation. We hope that they in fact have the good sense to play, at long last, a constructive role in Australian politics, that instead of their perpetual negativism they will come along and constructively say what should happen in this area. We look forward to having honourable members opposite there. I will be in the chair and I assure them that they will get the call. Invitations will be issued, I think, within the week. The finalisation of the White Paper is going ahead now. I would expect-I say this subject to correction-that the White Paper would be issued so that those going to the summit would have it for approximately a month beforehand and thus have a very good opportunity to examine it. The third part of the honourable member's question asked whether we would be asserting the position of the Government. I understand his asking this, because it has been evident over many years that those opposite are slow learners. It is surprising, however, that they have not yet got the message on this matter. I repeat, in the hope-perhaps vain-that on this occasion they might get the message, that the Government, in its White Paper, will have a number of alternative packages setting out possible ways of dealing with the existing inadequacies of this country's taxation system. We shall not go to that summit with a closed mind, saying: 'This is the position. We have made up our minds'. I have made it quite clear that we want to hear the views of those at the summit. Fortunately, as distinct from those with closed and/or empty minds on the other side of this House, it has been made clear by those who wish to come to the summit that they have very much to contribute and they want to do so in a constructive way. This Government will pay them the courtesy, the tribute and the honour of listening intently to what they have to say. Out of the processes of the summit this Government will do as I have always said it will do, namely, accept the ultimate responsibility of making the decisions in this matter. Mr LINDSAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Aviation. I draw his attention to recent Press reports that in future the Government will require investment in airports to be on a sound commercial basis. Are these reports correct? If so, what action is being taken to implement this policy? Mr PETER MORRIS —My attention has been drawn to the reports, which generally are correct. The House should recognise that there is a huge public investment in airports and airport infrastructure. It follows that that investment should be used efficiently. It should maximise economic performance so that we get all the revenues we can, in terms of commercial opportunities that could exist at airports and around airports, at the same time as we minimise expenditure. If airports are not managed on an efficient commercial basis, the losses incurred by the infrastructure eventually feed into aviation cost recovery. We inherited from those opposite a deficit of $200m per annum on the provision of aviation infrastructure services. If it is not met there, the loss feeds into the fare structure. Every airport developed on the basis that it cannot pay its own way will eventually result in the forcing up of domestic air fares. Those opposite reached the stage where, in the dishing out of airport promises, one could recognise the old cry made by, I think, a former member for Wakefield who used to say: 'There must be an election in the air. I can feel a dam coming on'. That was changed very astutely by those opposite. Mr Goodluck —One did not come on in Tasmania. Mr PETER MORRIS —It is all right for you. All right? Mr Goodluck —You are just a yapper. Mr PETER MORRIS —That is the way it breaks. Yep, yep, yep yep, yep! Do you feel better now? Mr SPEAKER —Order! When one is in the chair one has to make a judgment about what is good natured-repartee and what is not. I have accepted that the exchange between the Minister and the honourable member for Franklin was one of a good-natured kind but I ask them to desist. Mr PETER MORRIS —It came to the stage under the Government of those who now sit opposite that the word 'airport' was substituted for the word 'dam' and we could say: 'I am sure there is an election in the air because I can feel an airport coming on'. That cargo cult approach to airport investment had to be stopped. No one better than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition recognises that. He is the man who says that the deficit has to be reduced, that government expenditure must come down. He understands that very well. I know that he lectures his colleagues on that issue. If we do not have a wise program of airport investment it means that we starve those airports of essential upgrading. One excellent example of that and of the achievements of those opposite is Townsville Airport. If ever there was an airport facility that was inadequate and below standard it is Townsville's domestic terminal. Why is it that way? It is because in the past money has been pumped into monuments for politicians rather than into services infrastructure for the passengers who use the air services. That situation has to change. There has to be a much more commercial approach to the development of airports and much more rigorous economic discipline in respect of airport investment. We will be asking: Is the airport expansion needed? Who is going to use it? Who is going to pay for it? If we are to have lower taxes, lower deficits and reductions in government expenditure, airports is one area at which we have to look. That brings me to the issue of Darwin Airport. Mr Everingham —What about the Prime Minister's promise? Mr PETER MORRIS —What about the honourable member's promise? If ever there was a legacy left to an unfortunate Chief Minister it is the legacy that has been left to Chief Minister Tuxworth in the Northern Territory. If we look at honourable members opposite and the former Chief Minister of the Territory, we say: 'What did they do about Darwin Airport?'. I can tell honourable members what they did. They managed to keep the World War II hangar, with its bullet holes in the roof, in service for 40 years. That is a great achievement! They did nothing about giving Darwin a new airport other than to make promises and to break them. I have waited here in vain, week after week, day after day, for the honourable member for Murray, the honourable member for the Northern Territory and the Leader of the National Party of Australia to ask me a question about Darwin Airport; but no, there has not been a question. The honourable member for Herbert has recognised the problem that we have inherited with respect to airport investment and asked a question. I thank him for the opportunity to answer, because the people of the Territory need better airport facilities than they have received from the 30 years of government by the conservative parties. I have had to defer the letting of any further contracts at Darwin Airport. Even though $8m to $llm has been spent up there already-we are probably locked into $llm-if we go beyond the existing contracts we will be in for another $90m. If one considers that Darwin Airport involves an investment overall of $l00m plus and that it handles fewer passengers than Townsville Airport-- Mrs Kelly —And Canberra Airport. Mr PETER MORRIS —Well fewer than Canberra, yes. If we take the investment at only l0 per cent we are looking at a $20 per passenger impost just to service the investment at Darwin Airport. We have had to look at the matter again. The threshold question is: Should the new facility and terminal be built on a site other than the existing site? That threshold decision of earlier years has to be looked at again. We need to look at options for a lesser-standard facility. As I have said, airports ought to be functional for passengers, not monuments to politicians, as we saw happening under conservative governments. We will be looking at that in respect of the Darwin question. There have been discussions in respect of Darwin between myself and the Minister for Defence. As soon as I am in a position to announce a decision in respect of further activity there I will do so. Mr TIM FISCHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Aviation and concerns a related aspect of aviation, namely, safety. Is the Minister aware of the varying degrees of operational capability of radar systems at Australia's major airports, particularly at Sydney, due to the antiquated nature of much of the equipment. Is he further aware that where there is more modern equipment, at Perth, showing automatically the height of aircraft, a Department of Aviation instruction exists saying that controllers must ignore the accurate heights shown? What action is the Minister taking to upgrade radar standards in the interests of aviation safety and to review that instruction? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. It follows directly from what I was saying just a few moments ago. There is a deficiency in the technical facilities for aircraft movement within Australia because the Department of Aviation has been starved of money in order that monuments to National Party Ministers could be built. Opposition members-Oh! Mr PETER MORRIS —Honourable members opposite might not like the answer but they are going to cop it. The Department has been starved of money to put into essential technical capital infrastructure works, which primarily concerns radar-radar investments and the updating of radar equipment. Presently the program being followed, with the limited funds that are available, is such that we are replacing the oldest facilities first. That is why Perth is getting more modern equipment before, for instance, Sydney. But the equipment that is being replaced in Perth is much older than that in use in Sydney. What am I doing about it? I am doing what I just explained a while ago. I am deferring action on Darwin Airport as part of my approach to tackling the overall problem of trying to contain expenditure, to find the resources to put into what I see as essential investment, to make the system work more efficiently and, most of all, to make it safer. If the honourable member's colleagues whom he has now joined had followed a similar course in earlier years, he would not have needed to ask the question. Dr KLUGMAN —I think I am about to ask my first question of the Minister for Aviation. Am I to understand that it is the Government's intention to run airports on a commercial basis? If so, is it the Government's intention to publish and debate a cost-benefit analysis before deciding on a second airport for Sydney rather than the much more rational extension of Kingsford-Smith Airport? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. Mr Everingham —You're sorry you started them now, aren't you. Mr PETER MORRIS —No, I am not sorry that I started them now. I am pleased that I started them now. It is the Government's intention, wherever possible, to place the management of airports on a much more businesslike and commercial basis. They represent a major investment for the Australian people. They have not been operated on a commercial basis. Opportunities for revenue gathering and for improved efficiency and productivity have not been taken in the past. The major means that we will be following to achieve that objective in respect of the principal airports will be the establishment of a national airports authority. We are well down the track in the preparation of the initial work for the establishment of the authority. We will certainly be looking at the proposal put forward by the honourable member for Prospect. He asked whether we really need a second Sydney airport if we are to operate the existing investment on a commercial basis. Mr Lloyd —I think he really meant a second runway at Kingsford-Smith. Mr PETER MORRIS —I did not know that I had so many advisers in this place. Perhaps we should have a meeting when Question Time is over. I would appreciate the honourable member's advice. We are in the process of preparing for the authority. The method of operation and the management of the airports will be the same. We will put them on a much more businesslike basis than was experienced under the administration of those who now sit opposite. I believe there is still capacity at Sydney Airport that could be utilised if better management were made of existing available times. There are different ways in which that could be done. At the moment we are embarking upon a $l6m program to upgrade the taxiway systems to reduce movement times on the ground. There needs to be an improvement to the international terminal, and the domestic terminals need to improve their operational activities. We are determined that we will decide on securing a site for a second Sydney airport at the end of this year. We will determine the site but the actual development of the site will depend upon the need for the use of that site. I go back to the words of the honourable member. He used the words 'cost benefit'. Certainly, when we make a decision to invest in a second site it will need to be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. In that way we will ensure better use of the taxpayer's dollar and a far more efficient system. Mr COWAN —I address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the recently conducted Morgan gallup poll, which shows that by far the greater percentage of Australians do not favour a change in the design of the Australian flag, will he give an assurance that there will not be any change at all to our national flag? Mr HAWKE —We intend to be in government for a very long time but I am not presumptuous enough to answer for eternity. The Government does not have this item on the agenda and I do not see it emerging on the agenda. Mr GORMAN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. What has been the reaction of the housing construction industry to the Government's changes to the first home owners scheme? Mr WEST —I am happy to inform the House that the reaction of the industry groups to the changes I announced to the scheme last Thursday has been extremely positive. The Housing Industry Association, the Real Estate Institute of Australia and other industry organisations have made it very plain in their public comments that they see the need both to reduce the deficit in monetary terms and still to stimulate the housing industry in Australia. They have publicly praised this Government for the measure that it has taken. This is in marked contrast to the attitude of the Opposition. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said earlier today that he has perceived some divisions in certain areas of the Australian Labor Party. He has obviously completely missed the fact that his statement in the taxation legislation debate last Thursday showed a division in the ranks of the Opposition on this issue. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong, said he agreed with what I said last Thursday on budgetary and economic grounds. This shows a remarkable and complete division in respect of what the honourable member for Denison said. He used colourful language, for example saying that it was a shameful exercise, that it was a deceit and that it showed gross economic and social irresponsibility. Here is a direct and absolute division between the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition spokesman on housing. Quite frankly, it shows the depth of political opportunism to which the honourable member for Denison will sink. He seems to find it mandatory to jump on every political band-wagon about the place if he perceives there might be some measure of political kudos to be gained. The Opposition seems quite incapable of a cohesive and united position. I have also been asked whether the effect of changes on the industry will be very great. To my great satisfaction I received information today that tells me that the dwellings commencement figures for the December quarter of 1984 for private other dwellings are up 43 per cent on figures for the December quarter of 1983. I said last Thursday that the Indicative Planning Council said we would have 147,000 starts on housing construction this year as a result of the increase in the lending and home approval rate. Now, in addition, the increase in the commencement rates induces my Department to inform me that this year we may not get just 147,000 housing starts but 150,000. Better still, this will be in a non-inflationary situation because for the month of January the building materials price index showed only a 0.3 per cent increase, which is far less than the underlying rate for the consumer price index. We are not only getting increased commencements and stability in the housing construction industry but also achieving this in a non-inflationary way. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964, I present the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies annual report for 1983-84. I also present pursuant to section 34C (6) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 letters relating to the delay in tabling the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the report of the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee concerning Australia's diplomatic representation in Africa and adjacent Indian Ocean island states. I appreciate that the Committee, and particularly its Sub-Committee on Middle Eastern and African Affairs, has found time to give attention to this important aspect of Australia's relations with Africa. Since I took up the Foreign Affairs portfolio, I have been concerned to ensure that my Department's resources are deployed in a manner consistent with Australia's national interests. As regards Africa, this has meant a readjustment in diplomatic representation to reflect the fact that Australia's relations with and interests in Africa lie predominantly, though not exclusively, in east Africa, the Horn and southern Africa. In this respect my views coincide with those of the Committee. The House will also be aware of my concern to develop Australia's relations with its Indian Ocean neighbours. In January 1984, the Government adopted guidelines for a comprehensive and integrated Australian policy approach to Indian Ocean issues based on recognition of Australia's interests in the region and its status as an Indian Ocean littoral state. Under these guidelines the Australian Government seeks to give greater attention to the development of relations with Indian Ocean island countries and, to a lesser extent, East African states. I am pleased to note that the Committee's report is in line with these objectives. The Committee has made three major recommendations concerning Australia's diplomatic representation in Africa and the Indian Ocean. The Government has already implemented two of those recommendations. In January 1984, the Government approved the opening of a resident High Commission in Mauritius, and the post has been in operation since March 1984. The High Commission is accredited to Seychelles, Comoros and it is intended that it will be accredited to Madagascar. It will be the focal point for Australia's bilateral and regional policies concerning the Indian Ocean island states. Following the 1984-85 Budget discussions the Government approved the opening of a post in Addis Ababa. The post was established in December 1984. This decision recognised the strategic importance of Ethiopia in the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia's role as host to the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and the Organisation of African Unity, and the value of having a resident diplomatic presence to deal more effectively with the Ethiopian Government and relief agencies in meeting both the short and longer term problems arising from the tragic famine affecting the region. It has been possible to open the additional posts in Africa, the Indian Ocean and Budapest as a result of the reassessment of the actual and prospective operations and purposes of all our missions. The decision to close the High Commission in Accra was not easy. Australia values its good relationship with Ghana and has no wish to give the impression that it is not concerned with or interested in the issues of the area. I have assured the Ghanaian Government that Australia looks forward to maintaining close relations though the accreditation of a non-resident High Commissioner. The opening of a new mission in Addis Ababa-the seat of the OAU and the ECA-demonstrates the Australian Government's continuing interest in Africa. The implications of the Accra closure, together with the question of our representation in the Francophone countries, will be kept under review. These decisions are the result of a rigorous reassessment of the overall functioning of our overseas posts. This reassessment is continuing generally, though it has not yet reached any conclusive stage. I conclude by once again thanking the Committee for its useful and relevant report. I believe the Committee is to be congratulated on the work it has performed in recent years on Africa, which has complemented the Government's own consideration of Australian relations with this region. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —by leave-The statement is welcomed by the Opposition, but only as far as the statement goes. We are very disappointed that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) today has not taken the opportunity given to him to outline the Government's attitudes and the effect of the implementation of its policy in this very difficult and sensitive area of the world. It seems to me that there was a perfect opportunity today for the Minister to deal with some of the great problems of the area under discussion. I am glad that the Minister has complimented yet again the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on its role in bringing forward reports of this nature. As we all know, the Joint Standing Committee over a long period of years has had the reputation of looking at these problems in great detail and coming up with sound and sensible suggestions. I am glad that the Government has seen fit to adopt many of the recommendations contained in this report. What the Minister has failed to do today is to outline the Government's views on what it perceives as Australia's role in regard to the long-term solution of many of the problems in this area of the world. He has failed to mention what the needs of the area are. One perhaps would have thought he could have mentioned the need for more indigenous production of agricultural food crops. This is, of course, a matter of tremendous concern not only to voluntary agencies throughout the world, including Australia, but also to many of the government agencies involved in this problem. Surely the Minister does not feel that by opening up a few diplomatic posts the long term needs of the people in the region will be solved. We must not forget that what prompted the Sub-Committee to inquire into diplomatic representation in Africa was the allegation of misappropriations in Ethiopia. Unfortunately, the Minister in his statement today has not reassured the Parliament or the people of Australia that there will be no more examples of Australian aid to Eritrea being commandeered by the Ethiopian Government as was recently the case. Obviously, the Australian taxpayers and the overseas aid agencies need to know that the organisation of Australian relief is of a high standard and this can be done only through some positive action by this Government-positive action which, I am afraid, is conspicuous by its absence. As I have already mentioned, the problems of Ethiopia are of tremendous concern to us all. In fact the coalition views with very great concern the stories filtering out of Ethiopia and this led to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) visiting that country late last year. He reported to the International Democratic Union that what was occurring was a famine of potentially catastrophic proportions. It is a result of poor rains, poor soil, poor water management, overcultivation and deforestation. The effects of all this have been exacerbated by foolish and short-sighted government policies in the area. The Minister, by ignoring the opportunity given to him today, has shown that the Government has an insular approach to the region. Of course we do not need to look any further than the Government's approach to the problems of the Middle East; it has decided to withdraw Australia's peacekeeping forces from the Sinai even against the advice and the wishes of the two governments involved-those of Egypt and Israel. This inept decision was taken even though Egypt and Israel expressly asked this Government to keep the forces there. Of course that decision was the Government's response to factional pressures within the Australian Labor Party. It is amazing how many issues come back to a factional dispute within the Labor Party. I do not need to remind anybody in this House of the appalling scenes which were the order of the day in Victoria over the weekend, where 'Tomato Flavoured Labor Bloodbath' was the headline in some of the newspapers. I am sure that Community Aid Abroad and other organisations which have workers in this area of the world to which the Committee has addressed itself would have liked to hear more from the Minister on what future assistance will be given to the area and where the Australian Government sees its future direction. As I have said, as far as the Minister's statement goes, it is fine; but it did not go very far at all. It is important to recognise that Australia is a two-ocean continent which needs independent diplomatic representation. I, like many other members of this place, have been concerned at the inadequacy of the information we sometimes receive on current trends in countries overseas, and the reorganisation of our representation, hopefully, will do something to improve that situation. Obviously many benefits will accrue to Australia and its people by the rearrangements that have been made to our posts in Africa and adjacent areas. As I have said, I hope that this will enable members of this Parliament to be provided with up-to-date information on the area. The statement does not go very far at all. It is not constructive about the longer term issues confronting the area. It is a benign statement which adds nothing whatsoever to our store of information. The only thing that can be said about it in its favour is that it does pick up some of the recommendations in the report of the Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. In that sense it is to be welcomed; but it is to be deplored because of its inadequacy of research, its inadequacy of new material and its inadequacy in presenting a long term solution, as the Government sees it, to these problems in this part of the world. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker,Mr Lamb,Mr McArthur and Mr Shipton. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that . . . 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the brumby declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House follow the example of President Nixon in the USA by declaring our wild horse protected from industry and indiscriminate slaughter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gorman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the brumby declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House follow the example of President Nixon in the U.S.A. by declaring our wild horses protected from industry and discriminate slaughter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lindsay and Mr Mountford. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21 March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill to repeal the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21st March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be replaced before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill in the Senate for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill in the Senate to repeal the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to include private psychologists services in medicare, when those services are conducted by clinical psychologists recognised as qualified by the Clinical Board of the Australian Psychological Society. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Enquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Charles. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: (i) The financial situation of students enrolled at Australian post-secondary institutions is already extremely difficult and any increase in the financial commitments of students would gravely worsen their financial difficulties. (ii) The imposition of post-secondary tuition fees of comparable levels to those imposed prior to 1971 would force many currently enrolled students to discontinue their studies and deter many persons willing and able at present to undertake post-secondary study from doing so. (iii) Those students and potential students from social groups currently under-represented and disadvantaged in the education system would be most severely affected by the reintroduction of fees for post-secondary education. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. post-secondary tuition fees not be re-introduced for any category of students. 2. any form of Stamp Duty or similar system of the 'user pays' principle in education not be introduced. 3. emphasis should be on increasing access to education by, among other things, increasing student financial assistance. 4. the visa charges upon private overseas students be removed immediately. 5. the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs immediately clarify the government's attitude to the reintroduction of post-secondary tuition fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Mr Cross. 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 we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words 'Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. 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 citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Citizenship Act contains provisions for an Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors, and affirmation of Allegiance, to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors. That the said Oath of Allegiance and Affirmation of Allegiance are supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled will ensure that the present Oath of Allegiance and Affirmation of Allegiance are retained, and will strongly oppose any attempts to remove all references to God and the Queen from the Oath of Allegiance and any attempts to remove all references to The Queen from the Affirmation of Allegiance. 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 the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will set aside a National Park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals be undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jull. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's great farm potential is being shackled by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of agriculture to compete on world markets, are increasing food costs for Australian families and creating widespread unemployment in both the country and cities. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian farmers to unlock farm potential so the nation as a whole can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kerin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Federal Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- That we the undersigned request Commonwealth and State co-operation and financial commitment to- (a) Providing an infrastructure and making aircraft available for the fighting of bushfires in New South Wales: (b) Further, we request the Commonwealth Government to retain the surplus Grumman Tracker Aircraft (approximately 17) and associated spares, for the purpose of conversion to firefighting aircraft for use on the above project. And your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will respond to our plea. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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: 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. 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 you 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. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The effect on the family farm and all Australian farmers of the failure of the Government to contain the cost-price crisis facing agricultural industries. 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 HUNT(Gwydir)(3.08) —I raise this matter of public importance in the knowledge that tonight the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) once again meet the National Farmers Federation to discuss the cost-price crisis facing Australian farmers. Prior to the last election the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that a summit conference would be held with the representatives of the rural industries to discuss the cost-price squeeze facing farmers and affecting the terms of trade of agriculture. Unfortunately, the recent get-together with the National Farmers Federation proved to be an abortive exercise because of a dispute between the Government and the NFF regarding the basis upon which the Federation had calculated the cost of the tariff to agricultural export industries. A working party has since been thrashing around in an attempt to find an agreed basis for assessing the cost of tariff protection to the agricultural export industries. No doubt a new figure has been found less than the $19,000 per farm originally submitted by the NFF-a figure established upon information which was provided by the Industries Assistance Commission and information which, as I understand it, was used to calculate the cost of tariff protection. Mr Braithwaite —Is that $19,000 a farm? Mr HUNT —Yes, indeed. But it does not matter how the Government representatives play around with the figures; the truth is that the terms of trade per farmer have been declining for years. I do not totally blame the Hawke Labor Government for the problem-I think that it would be wrong to do that-but I do blame the Hawke Labor Government for an acceleration of that decline, which is increasing as the Hawke Government withdraws support for agriculture and its level of protection declines faster than for other sectors of the economy. The decline in terms of trade is averaging about 2.4 per cent per annum. While the overall level of effective protection for secondary industries has declined from 36 per cent to 25 per cent since 1972-73, its has fallen twice as fast for agriculture, from an estimated 28 per cent to 8 per cent. I recently obtained the most up to date figures that I could obtain from the Industries Assistance Commission on the net subsidy equivalent per employee expressed in dollars for a few selected heavily protected industries. They make interesting reading. For instance, the net subsidy equivalent per employee for the footwear industry until l982 was $l6,388 per annum; for the passenger motor vehicle industry it was $l6,587 per annum; for the clothing industry it was $l5,l56; while for the dairy industry, which is so often depicted as the most heavily protected industry, it was $6,824 per annum. I mention these facts because there is a perception that farmers generally have been heavily subsidised and protected. This perception is not correct for many of the export industries in the agricultural sector. I name the wool industry, the meat industry and the grains industry and I could go on naming a whole host of industries. Of course, some of them have to receive protection because of the degree to which they have to compete with subsidised export surpluses which are dumped from countries that oversubsidise their agricultural industries. I refer to the European Economic Community. I am not making a plea for protection or subsidies. Both forms of assistance over the years have weakened the vitality, efficiency and competitiveness of industries where they have been extensively used. There are grounds for short term and emergency assistance in special circumstances; however, prolonged industry assistance not only causes a misallocation of resources but ultimately weakens an industry's ability to operate with efficiency and to compete for markets. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the clothing, footwear and textile industries. However, it is essential to be even-handed in dealing with protectionism or reducing assistance. It is no use advocating the application of free market forces unless those forces apply to every sector of the economy, including the wages sector. Unfortunately, the Hawke Government has not carried forward its rational, economic approach in freeing up the financial and exchange system to the wages policy area. Most members on this side of the House support that approach and have given public support to it following the tabling in this Parliament by our Government of the recommendations of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System, a report that was commissioned by the then Treasurer, the Hon. John Howard. On the one hand we have a free financial and exchange rate system, the proposed dismantling of the pooling system for dairy products and the lack of short term assistance for the sugar industry. But these industries are suffering because the competing world market is absolutely flooded with surplus subsidised products from some of our competing nations. On the other hand we have the assistance for the steel division of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and a centralised, institutionalised, inflexible indexed wage fixation system that gives special financial privilege to the real master of this Government, the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This inconsistent, one-eyed, lopsided policy can only damage the export industries which have to compete on hard fought world markets. The agricultural industries remain the most important of the export sectors of the Australian economy. The farmers account for between 35 per cent and 50 per cent of Australia's export earnings, depending on seasonal conditions. At a time when we require increasing export revenue to pay our fast growing foreign debt-now standing at about $60 billion-agricultural profitability becomes all the more important to the national well-being. The honeymoon is over for Australia. We are going to be put to the test in international competition as never before. The honeymoon is over for the Hawke Labor Government. The honeymoon is over for the honourable member for Werriwa, the Minister for Primary Industry. The Ministry must respond to the case being put by the National Farmers Federation. The Minister must accept that. The depressed condition of agriculture is being exacerbated by high inflation relative to world prices. A record high in real interest rates is eroding the ability of agriculture to compete and this very important fact must not be avoided. Interest rates are high in real terms-I think that they are amongst the highest in the world. Since l980-8l our terms of trade have fallen by 2l per cent while those of the United States have fallen by only 10 per cent. Our inflation rate is nearly twice that of the United States. The breaking of the drought in l983 and the massive increase in farm returns from a low base following three to four years of drought gave the unfortunate perception that farmers' problems were over. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Australia's farmers and their families are in real difficulties. In some industries they are worse off than in others. However, thousands of farming families are living on incomes that are well below the poverty level. For instance, 30 per cent of growers in the sugar industry are facing economic disaster. In the dairy industry 5,000 to 6,000 producers will have to leave the industry if the present Kerin plan is implemented without amendment. There are serious problems facing dried fruit growers, the vine industry, the wine industry and the rice industry. The jaws of the cost-price vice have gripped the efficient wheat and grain industries. The main area in which the Hawke Labor Government can assist producers is that of farm costs. There is little that the Government can do to improve world commodity prices, but there are areas where the Hawke Government can assist in reducing the burden of costs. An across-the-board cut in tariffs to reduce the extended protection being afforded by the devaluation in import competing industries could be applied immediately. The National Farmers Federation has sought a 10 per cent reduction. The Government could extend immediate help in other areas. It could abolish export inspection charges, which are not payable by agricultural exporters in competing countries. It could replace the l5 per cent tariff on imported headers with a bounty, thus removing a $l2m to $l4m burden from farmers' pockets to protect 260 jobs in a farm machinery company in Victoria. I cannot give a better example of the way in which the farmers of this country involved in the grain industry have been exploited by this type of cost. It is no good the Minister or the Prime Minister talking in sympathetic terms about farmers' problems when in fact they continue to ignore the imposition of this burden on the pockets of farmers. We do not mind seeing 260 jobs protected in Victoria, but they should be protected at the community's expense and not, as is being done in this case, at the farmers' expense. There should also be a reduction in government expenditure and low Budget deficits, as well as a reduction in the level of interest rates. The wage fixation system should be replaced with a more flexible system. There should also be an immediate restoration of the full off-road diesel fuel rebate-the Government is robbing the farmers of this country of $25m to $30m in a sneaky way. The declining terms of trade for agriculture-that is, the ratio of prices received to prices paid-is now standing at about 2 per cent to 2.4 per cent. It will be claimed, of course, that the devaluation of the Australian dollar will help to overcome the problem. It will give some short term assistance to some industries, notably the beef and wool industries; however, unless this Government supports discounting the indexed wage fixation system for the devaluation there will be further serious inflationary problems ahead for export industries, in fact for the Australian community. Unless the tariff is adjusted for the 2l per cent devaluation there will be a further surge in critical input costs next financial year. In spite of the devaluation, the gross farmer product at constant l979-80 prices is expected to fall by 4 per cent in l985-86. If the inflationary effects of this devaluation flow on in wages increases, there is no doubt that our agricultural export industries will be further disadvantaged by increased inflation and a further drop in our competitiveness. The Australian farmers and their families are becoming increasingly restless over this Government's failure to match its rhetoric with action. Australia's l70,000 farms contribute more than $ll billion to gross domestic product every year. Australian farm industries are world leaders in efficiency and rural output has more than trebled since the early l950s. Yet, today, these industries face perhaps their greatest ever crisis. They are locked in the jaws of a cost-price vice which is accelerating the decline of their international competitiveness. In the late l970s these industries were plunged headlong into one of the worst droughts ever experienced. In l982-83, farm income per work year of family labour fell below zero. On average, there was simply no net income to families. Despite this, the primary industries showed their typical resilience and relatively few producers were forced off their properties. Of course, this was due to the policies of the Fraser Government during that drought. However, there is now a threat of a further drought in much of eastern Australia. In spite of the breaking of the earlier drought, income per work year of family labour remains below $l0,000 a year and continues to fall. Current predictions suggest that it will fall to about $7,000. This Labor Government has failed to act decisively to reduce farm costs. It has turned around and attacked these industries in the blind hope that its rhetoric about concern for farm industries will blanket the real impact of its decisions. The Minister was reported earlier today to have said that farm costs had risen at a slower rate in the last few years than during the term of the previous Government. He made no mention of Australia's inflation rate, relative to world rates, which was significantly less than the international level for a large part of the Fraser Government's period of office, but remains above those of many major competitors. He made no mention of changes in world commodity prices. As primary producers over a wide area of Australia face the prospect of another crushing drought, they cannot do so with any confidence because of the disgraceful way in which the Government has treated the rural community. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(3.22) —There were elements of responsibility in the comments of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). It is a pity that they were confused with a bit of muddle-headedness. I understand that the honourable member for Gwydir, who is a gentleman, has to do things every now and then to keep cockies' corner quiet, but today's performance takes the cake in terms of logic. He said that he is against the cost-price squeeze. That is really like saying that he is against taxes or nuclear war. Nothing much is new in what he had to say. When I was a farmer through the l950s and l960s, I was concerned about the cost-price squeeze. I joined the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in l97l. One of the major work programs of the BAE then was the cost-price squeeze. The word that the honourable member did not mention is 'productivity'. To the rural industries' credit, the thing that keeps the primary sector going is productivity increase. A lot of cognisance should be taken of that by our policy makers. I continue to say that the best thing that any Commonwealth Government can do for the farm sector is to get the economy right. If I have time, I shall answer some of the honourable gentleman's-- Mr McVeigh —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Standing order l07 requires that, for matters of public importance, eight members of whichever party is proposing the matter be present. There are only three Labor members present. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the Minister for Primary Industry. Mr KERIN —The honourable member for Darling Downs also thought this was being broadcast, I assume. The problems-- Mr McVeigh —I take a point of order. I am the member for Groom. Can the Minister now show me common courtesy? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will take note of the fact that the honourable gentleman is the honourable member for Groom. I should like less interruption, thank you. Mr KERIN —I must say that I did not know from where the honourable member came. I am amazed that the Opposition has the gall to propose such a matter of public importance: The effect on the family farm and all Australian farmers of the failure of the Government to contain the cost-price crisis facing agricultural industries. I am amazed because, quite frankly, the record of the conservative parties, containing the so-called farmers party, the National Party-even in the last Government there were six farmers in the Cabinet-was appalling. If I were the honourable member for Gwydir I would not be seeking to draw attention to the fact that the previous Government was the conservative party that failed. The National Party was involved too. Key Ministers were members of the National Party. They failed the rural sector. Under Mr Fraser and the honourable member for Bennelong, Mr Howard-high tax Howard-encouraged by the then right honourable member for Richmond, Mr Anthony, and the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), the family farm in Australia was brought almost to the point of extinction. With the general rate of inflation raging, farm costs increased by an average rate of over 17 per cent during the reign of the farmers Cabinet. There were six farmers in the Cabinet and through that period, between 1977 and l982, farm costs doubled. Honourable members opposite come in here today and criticise this Government which is getting the economy right. The farm income of family farms in high tax Howard's last year as Treasurer was minus $2l0. Under this Government, the general rate of inflation has been more than halved. The rate of increase in farm costs has been pulled back to around 5 per cent per annum. Farm income on family farms has increased to over $l2,000 in l984-85. We are working to ensure that farm incomes continue to improve. The figure was minus $210 in the last year under good old Malcolm and it is $l2,000 under us in l984-85. Members of the Opposition come in here grizzling and complaining about the obvious-that there is a cost squeeze on. Their record in this regard stinks. The problem faced by Australian farmers is twofold: There is the problem of internal costs and, secondly, the prices received for the commodity. I guess the problem faced by Australian farmers is that Australia is a democratic, pluralist society and there are non-farmers in it, that is, people not contained by and dependent upon Australia's l74,000 farm units. These people, rightly and wrongly, also make demands on government. All governments, including the high protection Liberal Party governments, are very much aware of that. Australia's primary production represents about 5 per cent or 6 per cent of total gross national product and contributes the same amount to our employment. Its enormous value to Australia is its contribution to exports, about 40 per cent or so. While no one denies that costs are a major problem, just as big a problem is prices received, and these are shrinking. The problem for the rural sector is that it is 70 per cent exposed on international markets, and it is up to 90 per cent exposed in some commodities. The problem is that we are price takers on those world markets. World commodity markets and agricultural products are notoriously thin and they are more and more exposed, damaged, by agricultural subsidisation and protection by the industrial giants. What phonies the members of the National Country Party are. I think that is the latest name for the Party in this place. The National Country Party has been in power for all bar five years since l949, always in coalition and always with at least six farmers in the Cabinet. We must face the fact that farmers, like lawyers, are always over-represented in the Parliament as a proportion of the population. The National Country Party is not a party of principle or policy, certainly not rural policy. It is a user party. Sometimes its members are radical populists if it suits. Sometimes they are socialists if it suits. Mr Slipper —I raise a point of order. I would like the Minister to take note that the correct name of my Party is the National Party of Australia, not the National Country Party. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The Minister did correct himself by saying 'the National Party'. Mr KERIN —The name of the Party keeps changing from State to State. It is the National Party, rightoh. Occasionally it is a free trade and market oriented party, but not very often. What it is always doing is leeching on to the Liberal Party, which takes no interest at all in rural policy. The only place where the National Party-I am not sure what it is called in Queensland-is not interested in leeching on to the Liberal Party is Queensland. The Queensland Premier is paranoid about having to go back into coalition with the Liberals. Queensland, of course, has the real cockies government. It is a government of popular prejudice, ignorance, division and insularity, which has an enormously high internal cost. The National Party does not have any agricultural policy. Mr Slipper —I raise a point of order. As a National Party member from Queensland I take strong exception to the terms used by the Minister with respect to the National Party Government in that State. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr KERIN —Is it the pea and thimble or the pea and slipper? The National Party really does not have an agricultural policy when in government because it simply acts as a party of government, nothing else. It has no policy in opposition but opposition itself. At present the Leader of the National Party is not particularly interested in rural policy. He is not interested in the sugar industry. He hopes that it will continue to suffer so that he can get its votes and kick a few heads. That is the approach of the Leader of the National Party. He is not interested in the dairy industry or its problems or in the policies being put up, but only in the fact that there is a political opportunity to kick heads. I must point out how interested the National Party is in agricultural policy. All through l984, when the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), then the honourable member for Darling Downs, was Opposition spokesman on primary industry, he asked me two questions without notice and put four questions on agricultural issues on notice. That was his interest. Then, at election time, his Party came out with a pathetic policy. What is the record of the conservatives for all the time they have been in power, nationally and in the States, with cocky Cabinets, gerrymanders, malapportionment and a parliament full of rural legislation? As I have already said, costs doubled between l977 and l982. They allowed a wage explosion in l98l-82. The fuel tax take went up by 300 per cent in the time they were in office with their import parity policy. The overall costs to the Australian consumers went up by 230 per cent and to farmers by l30 per cent. The honourable member for Gwydir talked about Commonwealth debt. Under dear old Malcolm Fraser it went up from $20 billion when he came into office to $39 billion by the time he got out. The Opposition parties all but doubled the international debt for this country, and we wear that round our neck today. It has gone up by another $7 billion under us, but the rest of the debt comes from the States and local government. Of course, the previous Government was a taxer, not an axer, but it always posed as an axer. Inflation was up to record levels when it went out of office. What did honourable members opposite do in the trade area? They sabotaged the beef industry in Japan in l977. They also sabotaged our sugar industry in the International Sugar Agreement in l977, brought in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade subsidies code and signed the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand. That is what they did for trade. They did not have any wages, prices and incomes accord to try to hold down the high cost of wages in this country, they did not go for bank entry, they did not float the exchange rate that will give our farmers an extra $525m this year and they did not bring in foreign exchange markets. No, they just sat there because they do not have any policy ideas either in government or in opposition. Let us compare the performance of this Government with that of the Government of which the honourable member for Gwydir was a member in terms of the number of key components of farmers' costs. It was the Fraser Government that introduced the policy of import parity pricing for fuel in l978 and sent fuel prices skyrocketing. Between l978 and the end of l982 fuel prices increased by over l30 per cent. Under this Government, fuel prices have increased by only l4 per cent. There it is-l30 per cent compared with 14 per cent. A major factor in the increased import parity price for fuel now is the decline in the value of the Australian dollar. However, let me point out that the decline in the value of the Australian dollar, as I have already said, brings some significant advantages to Australia's primary producers. The devaluation is likely to add directly about $500m, or l2 per cent, to the net value of rural production in l984-85. Let me now turn to wage costs. When the honourable member for Gwydir was a member of the former Government, wage costs spiralled, increasing by over 50 per cent. Under this Government, they have increased by roughly 11 per cent. Here is the comparison again-50 per cent for honourable members opposite and ll per cent for us. The Opposition would again subject the family farm to spiralling wage costs. It wants to throw away the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and bring in some crazy market-directed system whereby we would have seven arbitration systems. That would create absolute chaos. That is in contrast to the Hawke Government's carefully structured approach to wages policy. The Opposition's policy is a leap into the unknown. The Opposition proposes a system of centrally determined minimum wages and voluntary agreements between employers and employees covering other increases in wages or improvements in working conditions. That is a disastrous recipe. We would have one sector chasing the other on some mad ratchet basis. The l98l-82 experience of the metals round offers a clear indication of what can be expected in this approach. Award wages grew by l6.9 per cent in the year to March l982, inflation during 1982 was over 10 per cent, employment fell by l86,000 people during l982 and there were historically high levels of industrial disputation during that period. That is what honourable members opposite want to go back to. The Hawke Government has done more than any other government to reduce the burden of costs on Australia's family farms. This Government recognises, as do the major farm organisations, that what matters most to farmers in Australia is the capacity of the Government to manage the economy. This Government has shown that it is more aware than any conservative government of the contribution that the rural sector can make to the Australian economy and of the need to ensure that the sector's potential to contribute is maximised and is not thwarted by careless economic policies such as those resorted to by the conservatives. Mr Hunt —Like the tariff on headers? Mr KERIN —Who brought in the tariff on headers? It was the National Party. Tonight the Government will be sitting down with the National Farmers Federation-and the fishing industry-to discuss the issue of farm costs. At the first such meeting the NFF produced a farm costs balance sheet. There was some uncertainty over the way in which the NFF had arrived at its figures. It now seems to have become one of the myths in the land that, in a four-and-a-half-hour meeting, the discussion about the load of secondary industry protection carried by the farm sector-that is, exporters-took about five minutes. When there was such a disparity between the two figures, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) suggested, and Mr McLachlan of the NFF agreed, that we set up a technical working party to look at that issue to one side. Then the meeting got on with discussing the issue of farm costs themselves, wage determination, et cetera. Now we have the figures agreed to by the working party. There again there is a slight disparity, between $3,000 and $6,000 per farm. What I am saying-I am sure that the honourable member for Gwydir will agree-is that it does not matter whether the figure is $2,000 or $20,000; the principle is the same. High levels of secondary industry protection cost exporters, whether they be rural product or mineral exporters, rather than consumers. But the problem is-I referred to this earlier-that there are other people in the Australian society. When the Whitlam Government cut tariffs by 25 per cent across the board the then Leader of the National Party, Mr Anthony, described it as a cowardly act. The Liberal Party piled in saying that it was absolutely disastrous. The National Party realises that the Liberals are the high protection party. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(3.37) —Rarely have I risen to follow the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in a debate as disappointed as I am this afternoon. The Minister for Primary Industry enjoys a reputation, even on this side of the House, as a man of integrity. But this afternoon we have heard from him figures that do a former employee of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics no justice at all. In fact, the Minister for Primary Industry, knowing better than he says, has had the audacity to say 'Under the Fraser Administration farm costs rose by l7 per cent', carelessly choosing to ignore the fact that the figures he chose apply to a time of drought and world-wide inflation. He has paid no regard to the simple truth, namely, that the figures he plucked out of the air applied while world-wide inflation was rampant and while Australia was below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. Today the inflation rate in Australia is twice the OECD average. It is that very point that we bring to the Minister's attention this afternoon. In this debate the Minister has been anything but sensitive to the dilemma facing farmers. For example, he has chosen casually to attempt to drive a wedge between the role played by the National Party of Australia and the role played by the Liberal Party of Australia. I suspect that he is nothing more than unduly sensitive after the disastrous performance of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party in its State Conference and is more than a little envious of the unity and co-operation enjoyed by both parties on this side of the House. Furthermore, the Minister has chosen to use the very figures that plagued Australian farmers at the height of a drought and not the figures that reflect what is happening to Australian farmers today. We stand here to represent an emerging poor in the Australian community. It has been popular in this place to look at urban poverty and ignore the reality of rural poverty. This debate was seriously introduced on the eve of a conference between the National Farmers Federation, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Primary Industry in order to focus the Government's attention on what we see as a major problem. But it has been trivialised by the Minister for Primary Industry. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has focused on the issue of the cost-price squeeze that is plaguing every Australian primary producer. It would not have been as urgent a matter of public importance were it not for the fact that last Friday at this time we had to suffer the indignity of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) declaring that the assets test had been justified because it had netted l2 millionaires. I was appalled, not simply at what that statement told us about the assets test but also at what it told us about the Federal Cabinet. In other words, the Federal Cabinet knew nothing of what was happening in rural Australia. What this Federal Cabinet is doing to farmers through the assets test is indefensible. We have heard a Cabinet member defending that stand. Worse than that, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), by way of interjection, asked: 'How can you have $400,000 as a farmer and be poor?' Mr Simmons —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I understand that the matter of public importance before the House this afternoon relates to farm costs. It is not a consideration of the effects of the assets test. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —There is no point of order. Mr ANDREW —I reassure the honourable member for Calare that I have a comment or two for him a little later in the debate. In fact, what the Cabinet is doing to rural Australians, through its ignorance of the problems facing rural Australia, in applying the assets test has a great deal to do with what it is doing to the problems facing rural Australians, through its ignorance of rural Australia, when it looks at the cost-price squeeze. The simple dilemma facing rural Australia, whether it be caused by the assets test or the cost-price squeeze, is the dilemma of earning only 2 per cent on invested income. When that is the case there is no room for price rises. That is the reality facing every farmer. That is the reality we want to stress in the House this afternoon. If the Government recognised that reality it would not have introduced this iniquitous assets test. The dilemma with rural poverty is that it is so difficult to identify early. Farmers in difficult circumstances tend to say: 'Oh well, we will kill an extra wether or grow a few more vegies. We will not buy a car this year. We will postpone purchasing a new header'. The cost-price squeeze does not really show up until it is almost too late. That is the point we are at now. The reason for raising this matter of public importance is to alert the Minister to the dilemma before it is too late. How many honourable members opposite have spent time in rural Australia in electorates such as those represented on this side of the House and seen how the farmers of this nation are currently living? Many of the dwellings in my electorate-one of the relatively fortunate electorates in South Australia-would not do justice to the living standards expected by public servants in this community. The very farmers who are asked to bail us out of our national debt are being squeezed out of existence by rising costs. It has been said, and it was said by the Minister, that part of the relief for those rising costs will come as a result of the change in the exchange rate. If the Minister will pardon me, I say 'bully' to that. I quote from a speech by the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), recorded in Hansard on l7 April. It states: One headline in the paper stated: 'Dollar's fall softens farm income drop'. This is very good news for the rural sector. It indicates that there will be a record level of farm export earnings in 1984-85. There will be an increase of 9 per cent on the earnings of the previous financial year . . . Taking into account the expected decline in farm income in Australia this year, which was predicted to be l7 per cent, the depreciating dollar has in fact reduced this rate of decline to l4 per cent. Thank you very much! In other words, the honourable member for Calare is telling the farmers that the situation is not too bad: They are going broke but now they will go broke a little more slowly. That is simply not good enough. If that is the attitude being portrayed on the other side of the House it cannot be tolerated on this side of the House. It will lead to the extinction of the farming community in Australia. The reason for this debate is to alert the Government to this tragic fact. I mentioned earlier that the inflation rate in Australia, of which the Minister is so proud, is almost twice that of the United States of America. Do we expect our farmers to continue to be competitive in the face of that sort of onslaught? Whilst it is true that the exporters welcome the fall in the value of the dollar, nevertheless, farmers, for the 3 per cent gain which was acknowledged by the honourable member for Calare, face rising fuel costs, rising costs in imported chemicals, rising fertiliser costs, rising ship costs and rising machinery costs. Mr McGauran —And wages. Mr ANDREW —The honourable member for Gippsland highlights the wages issue. It was also mentioned by the honourable member for Gwydir. One of the major problems facing farmers is the rigidity in our wage fixation system which makes it impossible for farmers to negotiate what they see as a realistic wage. The most progressive, resourceful, productive members of the Australian community are currently under attack. It is that attack which we bring to the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry. The uncomfortable truth is that in the last three years farm costs have risen more rapidly than has the consumer price index. In that environment farmers simply cannot survive. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(3.47) —It is always of interest to me to listen to members of the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia speak on this subject. In speaking on this matter of public importance, first of all we have to look at its wording. It refers to the effect on the family farm and all Australian farmers of the cost-price crisis in the economy. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) pointed out in his speech that this is nothing new. There was a cost-price squeeze in the Australian economy for all the 27 years of conservative rule. I can remember it when I was working on the land. It is certainly not something that has appeared suddenly because we have a Labor government. It is certainly an important issue for the rural sector. In that context, the debate should not focus solely on the allegation by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). I want to record that he said that he does not blame the Hawke Government entirely for this. That is very gracious of him considering that in the short period in which this Government has been in power we have seen a marked improvement in many of the rural sector indicators! The major problem we are still grappling with is the ongoing problem of the policies adopted by the previous Government. It is good to see that at least the honourable member for Gwydir in his speech did not entirely blame the present Government. We on this side of the House clearly recognise that the export sector is of vital importance to the economy of this country. We are not fools. We understand how the economy works. More than that, we have recognition in the community and in the rural sector that we are about running a proper economy. The National Farmers Federation wants cuts in protection. Three industries in Australia at present are in diabolical trouble-the sugar industry in Queensland; the dairy industry, in Victoria and Tasmania in particular; and the dried fruits industry. All these industries are looking for some sort of protection. There is a real anomaly in the argument of the NFF and the National Party. On the one hand, they want the complete free-enterprise approach; on the other hand they keep coming in here and saying that if a government takes an approach based on that economic rationale there is something wrong with it. We cannot have it both ways: We cannot have the type of economy which is for the good of export industries and at the same time try to argue a case in opposition to it. That is what is happening at present when the National Party tries to score political points in relation to those three industries which are in real trouble. The honourable member for Gwydir mentioned export inspection charges. It was a policy of the previous Government to obtain at least 50 per cent of the recovery cost of export charges. I do not remember honourable members opposite ever speaking against that in this Parliament when they were in government. It is a policy which has been continued by this Government. The honourable member said that other countries were not introducing that type of approach. New Zealand and the United States are both introducing meat export inspection charges. Therefore, his argument is totally incorrect and he ought to get his facts right before he comes in here and says that this Government is adding costs to the export industry that his Government did not add and which other countries are not establishing. I move on to the comments of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), who attacked the Government. He mentioned the big issue of concern to his side of the House at the moment, that is, the assets test. The main problem that I, from this side of the House, see with the assets test at the moment concerns land valuations. That brings me to the subject which I want to talk about-on-farm costs. The first thing I wrote down on my list of points for this debate on farm costs was land prices. Anybody who is in the rural sector knows that the people who get into difficulty, in any industry, when there is a downturn in export price are usually those people who have paid an excessive price for their land. The honourable member for Wakefield talked about a return of 2 per cent on capital. A 2 per cent return on capital can also be related to the fact that perhaps land prices are overvalued for the capacity of the land to earn. The economy of the country is out of kilter when, as land prices in some areas clearly indicate, the price of the land and the farm itself far exceed its earning capacity. This has been so for a long time. This is not something new which has occurred under the Hawke Labor Government; it has been so for a long time and it is something which has been argued for a long time under previous conservative governments. It is part of the system at present. The honourable member, who came in here bleating about issues causing problems on the land, will see, if he goes out and looks at the real world, that most of the problems are caused, first of all, by land prices being far in excess of the earning capacity of that land. A farmer in difficulty in the three industries I mentioned previously would have serious difficulty at the moment if he were paying interest rates on land that was too dear in the first place. I move on to consider some other on-farm costs. Let us look at fuel costs. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates an increase of 293 per cent-nearly 300 per cent, as the Minister said-in fuel costs since September l975. Who was in charge from September l975 on? Malcolm Fraser and his Government were in control through that period. We also hear, of course, of the terrible problem of wages. Wages increased by some 50 per cent under Malcolm Fraser over that short period. I will not stand here and say that wages have gone up by only a certain percentage under the Hawke Labor Government. I am saying that under the Hawke Labor Government wages have gone up at a rate similar to that under the Fraser Government and that they reflect the economic management of the country. Under the Hawke Labor Government the worker has had only an ll per cent wage increase, but he is willing to accept that ll per cent increase because of the better economic management of the economy that is reflected in that increase. The reason we had massive increases in costs in the period of the Fraser Government was that it was that Government's philosophy that each industry should go out and bargain on its strength. That is the National Party approach. That Party believes that we should grind what we can out of the market while we can. I must admit that the rural sector has learnt that philosophy from experience. Get the maximum out of the market this year because, in the export world, we may not get as much next year. When that philosophy was imposed on the wages sector we had industries in Australia which had the capacity to pay. Like any good union leader in Australia, the rural producer said: 'These are the rules; this is what the Government says we abide by: Let's do what the National Party always does-let's get out of the market what we can'. In some industries in Australia we had enormous wage increases simply because they were the rules of play. This did not always flow through to every person in the community, though. Some people in the community did not have the strength to go out and get that wage increase. As inflation expanded, of course, these people did not retain their buying capacity. That affects the rural sector as much as any other sector, because we then have a depression. That depression that the Fraser Government's economic policy created has had a bigger impact on the rural sector than anything this Government has done in the last l8 months to two years. I refute the arguments put forward here today by members of the Opposition when they say that the cost-price squeeze is anything other than an ongoing fact of history. We are taking better measures at this stage to overcome that problem. The protection debate is a valid one. We do not argue against the claim that there is a cost against the exporting sectors when we have high protection for some industries. Which Government introduced the new motor vehicle package? Which Government introduced the new steel industry plan? Is the National Party suggesting that we do not want a manufacturing base in Australia? Can honourable members imagine the outcry from the old Country Party leader, old Black Jack McEwen, if he had heard some of the arguments put forward today? The manufacturing base in Australia is a very important base. I can assure honourable members that there are not too many people in the farming sector who would honestly believe that they could afford to do away with that manufacturing base. When we had the 25 per cent protection cut by the Whitlam Government the farmers benefited, although we would not think so. I do not think that in any period of Australia's history more has been done in one stroke to assist the farming sector and less support has been received for that assistance from anybody in the rural sector than at that time. This is why this Government is now going for specific industry packages. We cannot afford to have just one industry versus another in the protection argument. Industry protection has to be done on the basis of our looking at specific industries and working the problem through. This means that we have to look at the sugar industry, the dairy industry and the dried fruits industry on a similar basis. If we are going to have economic rationale this cannot apply to one industry and not to others. I say to this Parliament that the Government knows exactly where it is going. It is putting the economy on the right path, and I believe the record is on the board to show that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the first report for 1985 of the Committee, relating to the construction of new Commonwealth Offices, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Consideration resumed from 17 April. Consideration of Senate's amendment. Senate's amendment- Page 2, clause 4, proposed new sub-paragraph 6(1)(c)(iii), line 32, after ''trade unions'', insert '', tertiary education institutions, research institutes''. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(3.58) —I move: That the amendment be agreed to. The Government accepts the amendment made by the Senate to the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill. The Government accepted the findings of the review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs on the need for the Institute to liaise, consult, co-operate and promote co-ordination of activities and services with departments, authorities and agencies at three levels of government and also with a wide range of community groups, voluntary agencies, the media and employer, employee and other organisations. This approach acknowledged the vital interest and responsibilities of the wide span of organisations which have a valued and effective role in migrant, multicultural and community relations issues. AIMA'S role in co-operation and co-ordination will ensure that the complementary activities of these various bodies are integrated and co-ordinated and not duplicated. The addition of tertiary education institutions and research institutes to the list of groups and organisations named in sub-paragraph 6(l)(c)(iii) is therefore supported by the Government as a sensible addition to the Bill. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(3.59) —As was indicated in the Senate when the amendment to the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill was moved by the Australian Democrats, the Opposition certainly does not oppose the amendment. The amendment merely adds to a list of organisations with which the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs and government will co-operate and discuss matters relating to multiculturalism a number of other institutions beyond those already mentioned. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has mentioned those-various voluntary agencies, the media, employer and employee groups, and other organisations. Of course, other organisations obviously would have included tertiary education institutions and research institutes. I do not really think that the addition adds anything to the Bill. But, if somebody feels happier that tertiary education institutions and research institutes are included as groups and organisations, the Opposition has no objection. For that reason we certainly do not oppose the amendment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 27 March, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(4.02) —The National Welfare Fund Repeal Bill l985 has been brought forward as a result of the Auditor-General's report of l98l and the action that was commenced after that by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle when she was the Minister for Finance. By way of background, the National Welfare Fund was established by the National Welfare Fund Act l943 as the vehicle for making various welfare or social service payments as were directed by any law of the Commonwealth to be made from the Fund. Initially the amounts paid into the Fund were provided from general revenue. In l945 the Parliament passed the Social Services Contribution Act and the Payroll Tax Act to provide revenue, specifically earmarked by virtue of a complementary amendment to the National Welfare Fund Act, which appropriated the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of the National Welfare Fund. In l950 the social services contribution was merged with income taxation. The National Welfare Fund Act was amended to ensure that the income of the National Welfare Fund would be approximately the same as if the social services contribution had remained a separate levy. The lack of real nexus between the earmarked revenue of the National Welfare Fund and the payments from it resulted in a substantial buildup in the Fund's credit balance. In l952 Parliament amended the National Welfare Fund Act to provide that future payments from Consolidated Revenue to the Fund would in any financial year be equal to the amounts paid out for welfare and social purposes. A standing appropriation from Consolidated Revenue was provided to enable the payments to be made into the National Welfare Fund. The balance then standing to the credit of the Welfare Fund, some $750m, was recycled within the Commonwealth public account by investment in internal Treasury bills-that is, by transferring moneys from the trust fund of which the National Welfare Fund is a part to the loan fund, to the extent necessary to cover any temporary revenue deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The procedure whereby a temporary shortfall in revenue of the Consolidated Revenue may be met by payments from the loan fund is authorised by the Loan (Temporary Revenue Deficits) Act l953. Interest received on such investments increased the National Welfare Fund's balance to some $450m by l976, at which point the then Treasurer announced that the Government had decided that the balance should be repaid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund pursuant to section 62A of the Audit Act. Since that time there has been no continuing balance in the National Welfare Fund. All expenditure from it has been precisely matched by payments into it from Consolidated Revenue pursuant to the standing appropriation inserted in the National Welfare Fund Act l952, as amended. The raison d'etre for the National Welfare Fund, namely, as a vehicle for the receipt of specifically earmarked revenue levies, pending their disbursement for welfare and social security payments, was effectively removed in l952 when the earmarked revenues were replaced through an amendment to the National Welfare Fund Act via general revenue payments to the National Welfare Fund which previously matched the expenditures from it. The Auditor-General, in his report on the financial statements prepared by the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June l98l and upon other accounts, stated that he had sought the views of the Department of Finance as to whether it would be appropriate to seek the amendments to the National Welfare Fund Act and complementary legislation to abolish the Fund, as he considered that it served no useful function either as a control mechanism or as a holding account for future expenditure. He stated: Its continuation as the hub of the accounting process entails significant and unnecessary accounting work. As reflected in the Auditor-General's report, the Department of Finance replied that the question of the abolition of the National Welfare Fund had been under notice for some time. The reply indicated that the National Welfare Fund is now no more than a channel through which certain welfare payments are made and that it facilitates neither the recording, transacting nor accounting of such payments. As such, the Fund is an anachronism and superfluous. There are quite a few things in that category. Payments from the National Welfare Fund require daily matching payments to the Fund for the standing appropriation of Consolidated Revenue under the National Welfare Fund Act. This involves a significant burden on spending departments and the Department of Finance, in processing more than 5,000 journal entries a year between the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the National Welfare Fund and effectively corresponding the reconciliation process. There is, of course, a similar audit burden. The National Welfare Fund process in regard to the standing appropriation does not result in any greater degree of control or accountability than if welfare and social security payments were made direct from the separate standing appropriations under the legislation which authorises the payments. Indeed, the control over individual types of welfare and social security payments can be complicated by having to operate through the Welfare Fund. The superfluous journal entries necessary in the present system, together with the associated reconciliations, are demanding on the staff and resources. The final expenditure process is, of course, essential and identical, whichever alternative is used. It is also, effectively, largely processed through the Department of Finance's computerised cheque writing, conciliation and ledger system. The journal entry process under the National Welfare Fund system is, of course, spread over the full year and is shared among three departments-Social Security, Health and Housing and Construction. The Department of Finance and the Auditor-General's Office are also involved, but to a lesser extent. One is also doubtful as to whether the abolition of the National Welfare Fund would enable significant, if any, staff savings. It would remove an ineffective administrative process and enable a far more effective utilisation of present staff resources. The Opposition supports the Bill. Mr GEAR(Canning)(4.08) —In speaking to the National Welfare Fund Repeal Bill l985, I am cognisant of the historical connections that our actions today have with those of the wartime Curtin Government. It was that Government which introduced the National Welfare Fund Bill of l943 to provide finance for a number of social security benefits, including initiatives for maternity allowances, funeral benefits for pensioners and a sustenance allowance for the dependants of invalid pensioners. When we look at that Bill of l943, a number of principles embodied in the legislation of the day maintain their relevance today. The benefits were available to all. It was felt at the time that the social stigma certainly felt by people at the lower end of the spectrum needed to be addressed at the time. Certainly one aspect that comes to mind is the provision for funeral benefits for pensioners, because of the social stigma that was attached at the time to people having a pauper's funeral. When one reads the speeches of l943 and looks at the words that were used in those days, one can see that the overriding social conscience of the then Government was to make sure that that social stigma, to the largest extent possible, was alleviated. Another principle was the ability to pay. Of course, by paying the benefit out of Consolidated Revenue it was taken from all taxpayers. However, some of the benefits up to that time relied on private contributions, and people who were at the lower end of the socio-economic scale of the day could not afford them. While I was reading some old speeches I came across a speech by a Mr Pollard, who was in 1943 the honourable member for Ballarat. He had this to say about the Bill: Behind all the opposition to this bill is the fact that the tax by which the necessary funds are to be raised is to be levied in accordance with the taxpayers' ability to pay. If we bring our minds back to l983 when this Government brought in Medicare we will see that the very same principle applied. We recognised that the ability to pay should not be the principle by which people receive medical treatment. It should not be based on the fact that some people can pay more than others. If we adopt that principle we will be looking at people who will receive better treatment than others for their medical condition solely because they are wealthier. Another significant fact is that the Opposition of the day proposed a flat levy in exactly the same way as the medical system required prior to Medicare. A second feature of the Bill of the day was that the money that was not expended was invested for the future. That was a radical departure for the government of the day. It indicated to me that that Government was willing to look further into the future, certainly more so than governments which have followed it. I will speak briefly on the relevance of that to the age pension. The Superannuation Act 1943 in some ways was the embryo of a national superannuation scheme; it certainly had some significant points going for it. If this scheme had continued we may today have had a national superannuation scheme instead of the age pension system. In l974, 5.75 million people in Australia were in civil employment and 29 per cent of those had access to a superannuation fund of one kind or another. Thus honourable members can see that the provision of superannuation entitlements is not universal in Australia. It was not in l974 and it certainly is not now and that is something that needs addressing. An Australian study on superannuation showed a great imbalance. This private study covered 583 private businesses within Australia. Fifty-six per cent of the males in those businesses were covered by superannuation, whereas only 22 per cent of the women were covered; so there was a great imbalance. There was also a great imbalance according to which end of the spectrum one worked at. For example, 9l per cent of the executives, 72 per cent of salaried people and only 32 per cent of the workers had access to superannuation. Certainly the proponents of the l943 Bill were very much more aware of the age spread than were the governments which followed them. Australia does have an aging population. I am sure that what was in the mind of the Government in l943 when it brought in the National Welfare Fund Bill was that services for the aging population would have to rely on investing money for the future rather than paying it, as we do now, from taxes collected in the year in which benefits are paid. In l88l only 2.5 per cent of the population was over 65. By l98l, l00 years later, that figure had risen to l0 per cent; and, if we project into the future to the year 200l, in excess of l2 per cent of the population will be over 65. The fundamentals of the l943 National Welfare Fund Bill should be addressed again in this place when we start to look at social security provisions for the future. In l938 the conservative Treasurer of the day, Mr Casey, was concerned at the cost of pensions and made a 40-year projection. In that year he predicted that in 40 years there would be l.28 million pensioners. In actual fact there were l.38 million pensioners. So his prediction was fairly close; he was within 2 per cent. He predicted that the cost of those pensions in l978 dollars would be $476m but in actual fact it amounted to $3,229m. So when he came to estimating the cost to revenue of those pensions he was out by a massive 680 per cent. That gives honourable members an idea of the sorts of figures we are working with. Once again I go back to the principle involved in the National Welfare Fund Bill l943 of investing money so that in the future we can draw on money that people have earned in the past and that money will build up into a significant amount so that we can afford real benefits for people as they retire. We should also be able to afford social security provisions for welfare people as they need them. Another point about that Bill was that it was opposed by the conservatives of the day. However, that is nothing new. Just about every major reform that the Australian Labor Party has brought into this House has been opposed by them at one time or another. So in that regard nothing has changed. We are coming up for another reform this year. As we all know, the tax system is long overdue for reform. We will see how the Opposition plays its cards on that one. In Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gave us a fairly good indication of how we should view that. When speaking on the National Welfare Fund Bill Mr Morgan, who was the then honourable member for Reid, had this to say about the Opposition's tactics: When it was proposed 30 years ago to establish the Commonwealth Bank the argument advanced against it was that it was a 'phoney scheme' and a 'confidence trick'. Some other terms used by Opposition members to describe the National Welfare Fund Bill l933 were 'Frankenstein monster', 'nebulous and hollow sham', 'fundamentally unsound', 'fantastic', 'too visionary', 'a wildcat scheme', 'the time is not right' and 'a confidence trick'. Mr Kerin —They never learn. Mr GEAR —The conservative parties never learn; they are still saying the same things today. It will be very interesting when the tax reform comes up because to see the back of a Liberal one has only to mention the word 'reform'. A sniff of reform in the air and the Liberals are gone. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has already said that if he were given an invitation to the tax summit he would not attend. Mr Kerin —They are very worried. Mr GEAR —I think they should be worried because the Liberals realise that if we do reform the tax system they will be in opposition for a very long time. In l950 and l95l the formula by which money was paid into the account was changed. It was based on payroll tax with an amount paid from Consolidated Revenue which rose proportionately to the increase in payroll tax. That year the amounts were $l0lm from general revenue and $26m from payroll tax. The formula was that as payroll tax increased so too did the amount paid in from Consolidated Revenue. In l952 that scheme was changed to what we have today, so that a sum equal to expenditure was paid into the account from Consolidated Revenue. The Government did not get rid of the Fund; what it did essentially was to make sure that the money that was paid out of the account in any year was matched by money paid into the account from Consolidated Revenue. It is this problem which we are addressing today. We are getting rid of the National Welfare Fund so that payments can be made straight from Consolidated Revenue and not through the Fund. While I am on this subject, I address a question to the Minister who will be wrapping up this debate. I refer to a statement recorded on page 638 of Hansard of l952. Sir Arthur Fadden, the Treasurer of the day, in his second reading speech had this to say, among other things: The amendment of section 5 of the National Welfare Fund Act embodied in the bill will ensure for the fund an annual appropriation from Consolidated Revenue equal to expenditure from the fund; it will preserve the existing balance of #l85,000,000 in the fund and will permit the balance to grow each year by the amount of the income from its investment, which it is estimated will be #l,800,000 . . . I work that out to be roughly one per cent a year. Whatever became of the #185m which the Fund had accrued until 1952? The National Welfare Fund Repeal Bill 1985 is no more than a tidying up of messy bookkeeping procedures, because all benefits come from Consolidated Revenue. I have appreciated the opportunity to participate in the debate. It gave me the opportunity to read the history of and debate on this Bill, which was a significant advancement for people at the lower end of the socio-economic structure. This happened in spite of the many demands of the war effort and the ever present, and still continuing, obstruction of conservative forces, which are at this moment waiting in a destructive way to sabotage this Labor Government as it sets itself the difficult task of reforming a tax system that penalises those very same people. We do not run away from the fact that it is a difficult task, but we can draw some strength from the Curtin Government in 1943 which confronted the problem and won some justice for the people of the day despite the many demands on that Government. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(4.21) —I wish to take part in this debate. The winding up of the National Welfare Fund, which is the purpose of the National Welfare Fund Repeal Bill, is an opportune occasion to look at the history of that Fund and to identify some of the opportunities that have been missed to establish for Australians a viable retirement income policy. The National Welfare Fund was set up in 1945 to hold income from a special tax levy to pay for social services expenditure. For a period of five years taxpayers paid tax and a levy in accordance with an Act of Parliament which many taxpayers still remember. It was entitled the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Act. In 1950, however, after only five years the levy was merged into general tax rates and lost its special significance and function of financing age and other pensions. As I shall point out a little later, I think it is a great pity that the levy was so merged and that there was no attempt to hypothecate out of the general income tax a rate in the dollar sufficient to finance and pay for the ongoing year by year commitment to social security. From 1952 the legislation provided that an amount equal to the amount paid out of the Fund be paid into it from general revenue. With this change, the Fund's assets ceased to accumulate. While there was a levy, if the levy exceeded the pension payout, the assets of the Fund accumulated. Once the levy ceased there was no accounting mechanism which tied expenditure on pensions to income tax collections. The funds that had accumulated up to the time when there ceased to be a levy were left in the Fund. They were invested in internal Treasury bills. Those bills bore interest so the Fund tended to increase over the years. While the Fund was still used for the purpose of financing pensions, it was replenished to the full extent of annual pension costs by transfers from general revenue. However, the amount in the Fund accumulated as a consequence of interest received from the investment of the accumulated balance of the Fund. In 1976 it was decided that the so-called 'historical balance' would be paid into Consolidated Revenue. The honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) asked where the money had gone. As I pointed out, it was invested in internal Treasury bills. The bills were redeemed and the money, simply by book entry, was absorbed into Consolidated Revenue. The amount at that time was some $470m. The National Welfare Fund Repeal Bill, which is now before the House, simply aims at removing an accounting requirement-an empty shell. It is a Fund with no money in it, except that which it receives each year, an amount equal to that which was paid out each year. That is the purpose of the Bill. I think it is a pity that the levy or hypothecation concept has not been used over a long period to identify that proportion of our income tax used to meet the cost of aged pensions. If the amount equal to the commitment for age pensions had been hypothecated out of income tax, we as a society would have some better comprehension of the cost of providing senior citizens with an adequate income. Since the Hawke Government came to office, the continued evolution of Australia's age pension scheme into a universal flat rate non-contributory age pension scheme has received a number of setbacks. The anomaly-ridden assets test has been imposed. The Labor Party, by imposing the assets test and by abolishing means test free pensions for those over 70, has blocked the emergence of what would have been a national superannuation scheme. If such a scheme had been allowed to develop to the point where universal flat rate pensions were payable to all at the age of 65 or at pensionable age, it would have provided maximum encouragement and reward for self provision at levels of income above the flat rate pension. There is overwhelming public support for the introduction of a universal superannuation scheme which not only provides everyone with a guaranteed adequate income but also rewards those who choose to save for retirement by postponing expenditure during their income-earning years. In contrast to the government run earnings related pension schemes which have been proposed from time to time, a universal flat rate pension scheme would encourage the natural growth of existing occupational superannuation schemes rather than have an adverse effect on their development. Such a flat rate universal social security pension would provide every Australian with security as to his or her minimum income entitlement on reaching retirement age. As a result, a climate would be created in which everyone who wished to do so could, by forgoing current expenditure, divert current earnings into the accumulation of either wealth or entitlement to future pension payments. The Government regulation and control of occupational superannuation schemes and other forms of provision for retirement should be kept to a minimum. It is, however, desirable in my view that, like life insurance companies, superannuation funds should be required to meet reasonable prudential standards. Tax incentives are often used to encourage provision for retirement through superannuation funds. Where this is done, it is highly desirable that no such tax concessions, whatever their form, be made available unless the funds satisfy certain reasonable conditions. The availability of these tax concessions should be conditional on superannuation schemes containing provisions relating to vesting, preservation and portability. Only by requiring preservation of benefits until retirement, other than in exceptional circumstances, only by encouraging portability and only by requiring fair and reasonable rules relating to the vesting of employer contributions can the Government be assured that by forgoing revenue the members of superannuation funds will be better off and more appropriately provided for in retirement than otherwise would be the case. It is not in the Government's interest only that these standards be required of superannuation funds; in the ultimate it is in the interest of taxpayers that those who benefit from the concessions provide for their retirement and not for other needs. The purpose of that forgoing of revenue is achieved by those who save in superannuation schemes having the funds available when they reach retiring age, not when those funds have been dissipated well before retirement. Except to the extent that the aged survive by running down their assets, incomes for the aged can be provided only by transferring current purchasing power from the employed work force. This is true whether the transfer occurs through the use of taxes collected largely from the employed work force or through money received by the aged as part of the profit share they derive from their invested savings. Instead of concerning themselves with the well being of all who have reached retiring age, over the last 40 years governments have too often focused their attention only on what in the jargon is described as public sector social expenditure on the aged. If government attention had been directed not only to public sector but also to private sector spending at this time, means test-free pensions would not have been abandoned, the assets test would not have been reintroduced and we would have been continuing the movement towards the introduction of universal means test-free pensions for our senior citizens. In many countries the viability of current systems of social security is being questioned. The growth of outlays seems to be outstripping the community's capacity or willingness to pay through taxation. In Australia, social security outlays during the decade of the 1970s grew at an annual rate in real terms of l0.5 per cent per annum. This was twice as fast as the annual growth rate in real terms of the gross domestic product. When we look for the causes of this we find three: The first was the demographic change which occurred over this period, the second was the result of policy decisions to improve benefits and extend eligibility and the third was the impact of adverse economic conditions. Australia's population is slowly aging. More people are living longer, but probably of greater impact is the decline in the rate of population growth due to the fall in the birth-rate and the introduction of restrictive immigration policies. In l980, about ll.7 per cent of the population was of pensionable age. This percentage is expected to increase to about l3.7 per cent in the year 2000. The ratio of the aged to the working age population will increase from l8.5 per cent to 2l.7 per cent at the end of this century. On the other hand, the ratio of dependent children to the working population is expected to decline. Because of this and the expected continuing rise in work force participation rates, the standard of living of the working population will not need to be cut back in direct proportion to the increase in age dependency. However, it is important to note that the public sector-private sector mix of social expenditure on the aged is not the same as the mix of that expenditure on children. Unless the objectives of government policies are to create a social and economic climate which results in a greater degree of private provision for retirement, the aging of the population will result in an increase in public sector and a decline in private sector social expenditure in the support of those in the community who are dependants. Such a change in the mix of private and public sector social expenditure implies increasing tax burdens and a considerable increase in average tax rates for the years ahead. The alternative is for government to encourage a greater degree of private provision for retirement. A greater reliance on the private sector for income security would reduce the financing problem faced by the public sector. It would also give private individuals when they reach retirement the satisfaction that they have provided for themselves a degree of self-reliance, a feeling that they are not dependent upon the taxpayer. Even if this were to be achieved, however, it is important to recognise that, from a macroeconomic point of view, social expenditure on children and social expenditure on the aged is a burden in respect of all children and in respect of all aged, and is a burden on the economy, whether the expenditure is public expenditure or private expenditure. The critical thing for the quality of our provision for the dependent sectors in the community is the mix between public sector and private sector expenditure. It is my view that we should be spending much more time putting in much more effort in devising ways and means whereby people can themselves provide for their children and can themselves provide for their retirement. This can only be achieved by having a taxation system which is fair to those who are looking after dependants-a system which fully and adequately recompenses them for carrying the burden of looking after people who would otherwise be dependent upon the taxpayer, thereby increasing public sector expenditure. In Australia, the use of public revenue to finance social security is an important element of our income maintenance system. The flat rate benefits provided by the present Australian system do not necessary imply a low level of earnings replacement. On the contrary, for many low income earners the replacement rates are quite high. The Australian system has the advantage of catering better for the needs of persons who have never been attached to the work force in any way than many of the much vaunted schemes from overseas that provide benefits only to those who have contributed, whether as tax or levy payers or contributors in other ways. The imposition of the social security levy, which was abolished some years ago and which was the mechanism whereby the social welfare fund was replenished with its funds in the first five years of its operation, did not work because the amount of the levy was not adjusted to raise the amount needed to meet the Government's annual pension commitment. Like the Medicare levy, it was nothing more than an additional form of taxation bearing no relationship to the costs incurred on Medicare or on pensions for the aged. It would have been a good idea if the proportion of income tax required to finance the social welfare fund had been identified year by year for the last 40 years. Full hypothecation of the cost of providing pensions to the aged would have given the taxpaying public a greater understanding of the extent of the resource transfers necessary to provide for the aged. If during l984-85 that proportion of income tax needed to fund all pensions payable to persons of pensionable age had been hypothecated in this way by way of a flat rate levy, it would have represented 6.5c out of every dollar in respect of which a taxpayer now pays tax. If the rate of hypothecation out of the taxes paid were to be the same as the progression as is contained in the current rate scale, those who are paying 25c in the dollar would have been paying 5.2c of their tax of 25c in the dollar by way of social security levy for the aged and those paying 60c in the dollar would have been paying l2.4c out of the 60 cents in the dollar by way of their contribution towards providing incomes for the aged. If there were a universal means test-free eligibility for the aged pension, the flat rate levy required would be 7.2 per cent and, if such a levy was to be on the progressive scale as set out in the current tax schedules, it would be 5.8 per cent for the 25c in the dollar taxpayer and l3.9 per cent for the 60c in the dollar taxpayer. Recently the social welfare policy secretariat commissioned a most interesting study. It revealed that, if single persons of pensionable age were to be paid pensions or to have available to them income equal to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings and if married couples were to have incomes equal to 42 per cent of average weekly earnings, the cost of these income transfers would have amounted to an estimated 6.46 per cent of expected total employed earnings. The burden of these transfers is expected to rise to 7.4 per cent of total employed earnings by the year 2000. If the retiring age were in fact to become 60 years for men and women, and the income entitlement of single retirees were to rise to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings and that of married retirees were to rise to 50 per cent of average weekly earnings, the proportion of expected total employed persons' earnings required to finance these transfers would be nearly l0 per cent. In conclusion, I make a plea to this House and to the Government to examine the total question of income transfers to the aged. If the Government wants to achieve a reduction in the public sector burden of providing incomes for the aged it must pay much more attention to giving encouragement and reward to those who seek to provide for retirement for themselves. The time has come when we should more constantly measure the total cost to the working population of those who are dependent in our society and debate the question of how we can most efficiently provide that income. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(4.4l) —As honourable members will be aware, the National Welfare Fund was established as a trust fund in l943. At that time it was proposed that a levy taken from people's taxable income be paid into that Fund out of which would be paid various social security benefits. I guess that in l943 there were people in the Parliament, as there are in the Opposition now, who believed that we should have a funded welfare system. Fortunately for the Australian people it took the national Parliament only a short period-that is, until about l952-to realise that it was not really possible to have a funded welfare system. Mr Rocher —They didn't try. Mr LEO McLEAY —Later on attempts were made under the Fraser Government and other conservative governments to reintroduce some type of levy funded welfare system. A member of the Opposition interjected a moment ago that the governments never tried to have a funded welfare service. I suppose that it is fair enough for someone who is quite wealthy, as are most members of parliament compared with people who are in receipt of social security benefits, to say that governments never try. However, governments throughout the rest of the Western world have not succeeded in this respect. That great proponent of monetarist policies in theory but not in fact, Ronald Reagan, at one stage was going to let the United States social security service go broke because it was not funded on a proper actuarial basis. He talked a lot but did nothing. Governments of both the East and West have realised that a measure of a government's capacity to assist its people and a measure of a government's civilisation are its ability to take care of those in society who are least able to care for themselves. The propositions put forward by members of the Opposition about a funded welfare system go hand in hand with a system of tax deductibility for the contributions that people of thrift-and we hear a lot of talk about people of thrift-put aside for themselves. It is very easy for people on good incomes to put aside money for their future retirement. However, it is very difficult for people on very low wages or, indeed, as we are seeing in Australia and other parts of the Western world at present, people on no wages, to put aside anything. These people would have to pay more under a funded system. People on good incomes can afford to contribute to such a system because they receive tax deductibility in respect of their superannuation payments. I must say that as a member of Parliament-and no doubt, you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would agree with me-the largest single tax deduction that I have is my superannuation payments. The largest single tax deduction that I had when I was a public servant was my superannuation payments. Some people are fortunate enough to be able to invest up to $l,200 a year in superannuation schemes which they can claim as a tax deduction. This is a pretty good investment for people who are being taxed at a high marginal income tax rate of 60c in the dollar because every year they get back $720 of the $l,200 that they have put away for their retirement. But where does the $720 come from? It does not come from all of their colleagues who are doing all right out of life because they are able to contribute $l,200 in superannuation payments. The money comes from the low income earners and people who cannot afford to put aside $l,200 per annum, or $24 a week, to fund their superannuation benefits which they will receive at some later date. I guess that all of us would like to feel that the whole of society was wealthy enough to be able to put aside $24 a week for retirement purposes and to receive a 60 per cent tax deduction. Unfortunately, many members tend to lose touch with reality when they come into this place. A vast number of people out there in our society do not have anywhere near that type of disposable income each week, each year, for the rest of their lives. So what the proposition put forward by the Opposition for a funded welfare service tied in with tax deductibility does is provide a very substantial tax benefit to those people on high salaries. The people who pay for that tax benefit are those on low and medium salaries. The poor unfortunates who are not receiving any income at all, other than welfare payments, do not even get into the race. Members of the Opposition would take us back to l943 and say: 'Well, we need to have a funded system'. It does not matter to them that even a Liberal government in l952 decided that a funded system would not work. Like King Canute, they really think that they can turn back the tide. We hear a lot of bleating from members of the Opposition who, in attempting to frighten governments into adopting a funded system, say: 'Well, of course, if you do not do something about this, the aging of the population is going to bury you all in the high cost of welfare payments'. But they are the same people who say that the family allowance is sacrosanct, that we have to keep paying a non-means tested family allowance to middle class and wealthy women. They do not want to look at the equity in that case but they are trying to make the aged contribute to a funded welfare system. There is no sense, justice or consistency in the argument put forward by most members of the Opposition in support of funded welfare services. I must say that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), has done a lot of work over a long period to convince his colleagues that they should advocate such a system. Fortunately for those who are not so well off in Australia, he has not been able to convince many of them. I hope that he will not be able to do so for some time to come. The Opposition has always taken the view that somehow or other-and I am sure that the honourable member's colleague who is seeking to interject will have something to say about this in a few moments when he speaks in this debate-there is something good to be said about people contributing to their retirement. I believe that people contribute substantially to their own retirement through the taxation system. I think that the tax system, as a mechanism for attempting to bring about some levelling up in society, is a far better way of funding welfare services than levies. I must say that I and some of my colleagues thought that one of the more successful propositions put forward by honourable members opposite when they were previously in opposition was to strike down the Medibank levy. As a result, that scheme had to be funded out of Consolidated Revenue. I had hoped that they might have done the same thing again, but unfortunately they did not. So there are inconsistencies in the point of view taken by the Opposition. There are misapprehensions, too, in the general population about what should be done with the welfare system. Many of those misapprehensions go back to the concept behind the National Welfare Fund Act l943, because people who are now aged and who have been contributing for many years to what they thought was that fund are of the view that everyone is entitled to a pension because everyone has paid taxes. It is very important that the Government is now repealing that legislation. It has not really been in effect since l952. No one has contributed since 1952 to any fund for pensions through the government system, but there is still the view, reinforced by some of the changes to the social security system that the Opposition made when in government, that people are paying into some levy fund and that they are entitled, by virtue of that, to a pension. We have this universalist approach in the community. The Opposition contributed to that when in government, as did some of my colleagues when in government in the past, by doing away with the income test on the pension so that some people, as the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) told the Parliament a couple of days ago, had assets in excess of $lm and managed to collect a social security pension. The guidelines for getting a pension provide that one should not have much income. However, people got around that by converting income into capital goods and then using them up as it suited them. Having no assets test on the pension contributed to this concept that it was the right of everyone to have a pension. I do not think it is the right of people, except for financial reasons-that they do not have the means to support themselves-to get a pension. There should be equity in the social security system, which should provide support for those in need and not for those who rearrange their situation so that the system is helping them-not because they are needy, but because they are greedy. The present Government has attempted to redress some of the more overt rorts involved in that system by bringing in the assets test and by providing for taxes on lump sum superannuation payments. Members of the Opposition have suggested that the Government should encourage more private superannuation schemes, but in the past the response of the employers and private superannuation firms to a privately funded superannuation scheme was to come up with lump sum systems. When that was coupled with the capital goods provisions of the social security system, people could retire on a lump sum of $l00,000 or $200,000 and still arrange their affairs so that they got the pension, when they should have been investing that money and getting a weekly income so that taxpayers did not have to subsidise them. As one of the previous Opposition speakers has said, we even had a means test-free pension for people over 70. We had the ludicrous situation of a former Prime Minister, a recognised millionaire, receiving the age pension. That idea comes from a party which believes that we ought to put equity into the system. The Opposition's idea of equity and the idea that ordinary Australians have of equity are quite different. The sort of system in which people contribute to funded schemes leaves itself open to the worst types of abuse. The private superannuation system has never voluntarily addressed itself to paying weekly pensions to people in the schemes. It has always wanted to pay lump sums because that suits employers and that suits it. Now that the Government has placed a tax on lump sum payments, some superannuation organisations are looking to fund annuities. They are saying to the Government: 'You have to help us more. You have to allow us to have indexed bonds so that we can fund this'. The response by the private superannuation industry, which members of the Opposition suggest can really help us fund the responsibility for the aged, has been to say: 'The Government has to give us another perk'. It is not good enough that the Government gives a tax deduction of up to $1,200 a year for those in private superannuation funds, in fact in all superannuation funds; the industry now wants indexed bonds. If the Government ever decided to allow private entrepreneurs and private insurance companies to run the Government's social security system, constant demands would be made on the Government to change the system, because these companies would say: 'We cannot go on any longer'. In my opinion, it is up to governments to fund and control the social security system. If governments ever step out and leave it to the market place, those who are less able to fend for themselves will be thrown on the scrap-heap once again. I do not know where we would find a private superannuation group that would fund the supporting parent's benefit or a private superannuation group or, indeed, a workers' compensation insurer that would fund sickness benefits. Too frequently, constituents have said to me that the doctor, or someone else in the workers' compensation field, has told them that they ought to get on to the invalid pension after they have received a workers' compensation payment. The lawyers never tell them that the workers' compensation payment is supposed to provide income for the rest of their lives. They use up a fair amount of it and find themselves a burden on the public purse. If the private insurers who run not only workers' compensation but also superannuation schemes were so socially conscious, one would have thought that they would have been saying to people on workers' compensation payments: 'Really, this payment is to help you out for the rest of your life. It is not to pay for your house, to buy a new car or to go on an overseas trip'. We have seen the failure of the private sector to address itself responsibly to being able to fund the welfare service in Australia. The moves that the present Government has made to put more equity into the system are to be commended. I find it repugnant that the Minister for Social Security had to tell us in the House last week that, through the assets test, the Government had discovered that l2 millionaires were receiving the pension. Some of the Opposition members then interjected: 'Only l2?' I think that one millionaire receiving a pension is a terrible reflection on the type of social security system that the Opposition would like Australia to have. The government is there to provide a safety net and to help those in need. This Government's move to repeal the National Welfare Fund Act l943 says once and for all that governments accept that, through Consolidated Revenue, they have an obligation to fund the country's welfare system. To my mind and, I am sure, to the minds of other members, to those in society who believe that, somehow, they are entitled to a pension because they have paid their taxes this will make the point that that is wrong and that the Government will put the social security system on a firm footing by funding those in need rather than those whose activity has been motivated by greed. The way in which private insurers, in both the workers compensation area and the superannuation area, funded their arrangements in the past pandered to those who were greedy. The tax system still provides a substantial benefit to those people who are in expensive private superannuation schemes. I am glad to see that we have finally got away from the ridiculous position which existed whereby some people in the country still held on to the view that somehow or other we had to have a market forces welfare policy in Australia. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(5.0l) —As honourable members are aware, the National Welfare Fund Repeal Bill is a machinery Bill, so my contribution will be brief. The purpose of the Bill is to repeal the National Welfare Fund. This Fund was established by the National Welfare Fund Act l943 and has served as a vehicle for the receipt of specifically earmarked levies or revenues, pending their disbursement for welfare and social service payments. Subsequently, the earmarked revenues were replaced through an amendment to the Act by general tax revenue payments to the Fund which precisely matched the expenditure from it; it became virtually a financial round robin. In 1981, the Auditor-General, quite appropriately, raised the question of abolition of the Fund as it served no useful function, either as a control mechanism or as a holding account for future expenditure. Its continuation as the hub of the accounting process entailed significant and unnecessary accounting work. Consequently, we have the Bill now before the House, a Bill designed to tailor and trim in some relatively insignificant way the grossly expanding government expenditure the Australian people have come to expect from this Government. I am one of those people in this House who fervently support the principle of smaller government. We must hack away at the fabric of government to reduce its size to an acceptable level as a matter of urgency. Quite frankly, it has become a monster. Why has it taken more than two years for the Labor Government to initiate this Bill designed to prune administrative costs? I suppose the Government could be called a financial Nero-fiddling while the public sector, like a bushfire, lays waste to the nation's wealth. If the Government were serious, surely other areas of expenditure should also be reviewed. To Labor's shame, its only solution so far has been to attack our senior citizens through the vehicle of its iniquitous assets test. The present administration is not making any real attempt to address the problem of overspending. The deficit continues to rise. There are suggestions of new taxes-capital gains taxes, property or wealth taxes, death or gift duties. The National Party of Australia, along with the rest of the Australian people, is implacably opposed to these new taxes. In the last 20 years government spending on education, health, social security and welfare has trebled in real terms. Under Labor it will rise even further in the future. It is a frightening situation. I do not deny that the path that needs to be taken is difficult. Labor, however, appears to believe in constant expansion of the expenditure balloon. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), in his second reading speech, said that the Bill is designed only to remove an inefficient and anachronistic process. It is perhaps too little too late. The National Party does, however, support the Bill as a tentative step in the right direction. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(5.05) —I rise to speak in support of the National Welfare Fund Repeal Bill. The Bill has been introduced to remove an inefficient and anachronistic process. As my colleague the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) has just said, the existing operations of the National Welfare Fund were criticised by the Auditor-General in his report for the period ended 30 June l98l as a mechanism that served no useful function, entailing significant and unnecessary accounting work. I wish to address my remarks to the historical antecedents of the Bill. Prior to the Second World War there was something like a quarter of a million people unemployed in Australia. The war effort, particularly under the Labor governments, saw this reduced significantly. However, the Curtin Government saw that there was a need to provide income security for the population of Australia. To quote Chifley: One of our aims is the securing for all improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security. I quote from volume l73, page 548, of Hansard. He went on to say: Measures directed to these ends must aim at ensuring a high level of employment, which is fundamental to economic advancement and social security. Further measures are necessary to ensure minimum social standards throughout the community. In other words, the Chifley Government's plan for economic advancement lay between two primary foundations: Firstly, ensuring that the level of employment was high; and, secondly, ensuring that those who could not earn income should not have to suffer the consequences of poverty. So even amongst the turmoil and hardship of the war, Australia, with a wartime Labor Government, clearly had turned its priority to the aged, the sick, the widowed and the other underprivileged sections of the community. The elimination of poverty and a high level of employment were fundamental to the advancement of the country. This breadth of vision is the political inheritance of this reforming Hawke Labor Government. This vision and difference in approach are what distinguishes Labor governments from those of the Liberal and National parties. It is relevant today, just as it was relevant during the Second World War. It is appropriate to recall the proud reforming record of the Curtin and Chifley governments in the field of social security, which was impressive. It made provision for widows' pensions in l942, maternity benefits for Aboriginal mothers in l942, reciprocity with New Zealand in old age and invalid pensions in l943, unemployment and sickness benefits in l944, pharmaceutical benefits in l944, hospital benefits in l945, tuberculosis benefits in l945, and the Commonwealth Employment Service. In l943 the National Welfare Fund Bill became an Act of Parliament. The moneys were to be transferred to the Fund from Consolidated Revenue to the tune of $30m, or 25 per cent of personal income tax, whichever was the lesser amount. In l946 a specific and separate levy on incomes was operated to finance the Fund. This was due to increasing outlays on social services. The Government felt that a new financial approach was needed. The Government proposed to charge all health and social services expenditure to the one fund-the National Welfare Fund. The Fund was generally and popularly described as being a non-contributory fund. That is true. Having listened to my learned colleague the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), I want to make a few explanations. A truly contributory fund is essentially one from which people receive what they put in. It is true to say that it was not a contributory fund. The beneficiaries were not the contributors. Rather they are the current pensioners and social welfare recipients. Indeed, tax returns showed the amount of income tax paid and a separate amount for the social security levy. Honourable members may understand that this system was liked by many as it clearly established the contributions being made towards a future entitlement for a pension although, as I have said, it was actually paying for the current pensioners. Many pensioners with whom I have spoken regret the changes made in l950 by the Liberal and National parties whereby the specific levy was merged with general income tax. Financing the Fund passed to payroll taxes an amount equal to updated l950-5l levy contributions. Income tax returns no longer showed the two separate amounts. In l952 the Fund was financed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Payments into the Fund equalled appropriations from the Fund. The Fund became an accounting mechanism only. In l976 the accumulated balance was paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The mechanics of the Act no longer serve any useful purpose. Its repeal is timely. But what of the goals and ideals which were enshrined in the initial legislation? What of the vision of Chifley and Curtin? Today we have a similar situation where a Labor Government has been called to meet the challenges of the nation at a time when the Liberal and National parties completely betrayed the trust of the nation. This Hawke Labor Government is determined-- Mr Hodgman —Socialist. Mr PRICE —The Hawke Labor socialist Government which, I am proud to say, cares about the pensioners and all the people of Australia, is determined to ensure a high level of employment as being the most fundamental step to economic advancement and social security. The poor have been made to bear an inequitable burden in this recession. Notwithstanding the outstanding progress made by this Government, too many remain jobless. According to the Australian Council of Social Service, in excess of two million Australians are experiencing poverty-a poverty in which they are the victims not the villians, and a poverty in which they are trapped. Within the Australian Labor Party I stand as a firm advocate of reform, and in particular reform of the taxation system. I want to raise a matter concerning social security but relating to taxation. I speak of the double taxation of welfare recipients. It should be remembered that both welfare benefits and pensions are below the poverty line. Any long term beneficiary will fall into and remain in poverty. I think that point should be brought home to the honourable member for Fisher and the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). Secondly, if a social welfare recipient tries to alleviate his or her poverty through part time earnings he or she faces an implied marginal tax rate of up to and in some cases in excess of l00 per cent. For example, an unemployed adult without spouse or dependants receives $8l.l0 per week. He lies roughly $40 below the poverty line as defined by the University of Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. If this individual takes on a casual or part time job to supplement his meagre income he may earn up to $20 a week without the Department of Social Security acting to reduce his benefit. However, the Australian Taxation Office imposes a marginal tax rate of 25 per cent. Now, if our recipient earns between $2l and $70 a week, not only will he face a 25 per cent marginal tax rate on his earnings but also the Department of Social Security will impose a marginal reduction of 50 per cent. That is, for every dollar he earns he loses 25 per cent to the Taxation Office and 50 per cent through a reduced benefit from the Department of Social Security. To cap the situation off, if he earns in excess of $70 per week, not only does he face a marginal rate of 25 per cent of his earnings but also the Department of Social Security will reduce his benefit on a dollar for dollar basis. So we have an implied effective marginal tax rate in excess of 100 per cent. In other words, a person earning an additional $l26.l0 per week is no better off than a person earning an additional $70 per week. This is a scandal. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table showing net income for an unemployed adult without dependants. Leave granted. The table read as follows- TABLE OF NET INCOME FOR AN UNEMPLOYED ADULT WITHOUT DEPENDANTS Amount of unemployment Net Amount that benefit Amount of tax Net benefit additional Amount earnt the paid paid at to the benefit of over above Amount of unemployment according to various unemployment earning unemployment unemployment benefit amount Total gross gross income benefit income over benefits benefits is reduced earnt income levels recipient and above (in $ (in $ (in $ (in $ (Columns (in $ (in $ unemployment per week) per week) per week) per week) 1 and 4) per week) per week) benefits 0 81.10 0 81.10 81.10 0 81.10 0 10 81.10 0 81.10 91.10 0 91.10 10 20 81.10 0 81.10 101.10 3.18 97.92 16.82 30 81.10 5 76.10 106.10 4.43 101.67 20.57 40 81.10 10 71.10 111.10 5.68 105.42 24.32 50 81.10 15 66.10 116.10 6.93 109.17 28.07 60 81.10 20 61.10 121.10 8.18 112.92 31.82 70* 81.10 25 56.10 126.10 9.43 116.67 35.57 80 81.10 35 46.10 126.10 9.43 116.67 35.57 90 81.10 45 36.10 126.10 9.43 116.67 35.57 100 81.10 55 26.10 126.10 9.43 116.67 35.57 110 81.10 65 16.10 126.10 9.43 116.67 35.57 120 81.10 75 6.10 126.10 9.43 116.67 35.57 126.10 81.10 81.10 0 126.10 9.43 116.67 35.57 * It should be noted that the unemployed adult receives absolutely no benefit for earning in excess of $70 per week. The effective marginal tax rate is 100%. In other words, for every dollar earnt, a dollar is lost due to the reduction in Unemployment Benefits. Mr PRICE —I thank the House. It should be noted that the unemployed adult receives absolutely no benefit for earning in excess of $70 per week. The effective marginal tax rate is l00 per cent. In other words, every dollar earnt is lost due to the reduction in the unemployment benefit. Tax is also paid on any increase in total income up to the point where the l00 per cent rate applies. I wish to offer another example for those who may be sceptical. At July l983, 462,000 families had one or more members who were unemployed. Of these families some 83 per cent were married couples and 64 per cent included families with dependent children. For those who feel that working class wives should not work, the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty found that the number of families in poverty would double if wives did not engage in the said work. It is actually the single parent families that are worse off, but I am choosing married couples as my example. I cannot condone what is being imposed on the poor by the Department of Social Security and the Taxation Office. A table provided by the Office of Youth Affairs shows in respect of an unemployed beneficiary with a working spouse and three dependent children aged 17, 16 and 13 years respectively, that if that spouse seeks to gain extra dollars the effective marginal tax rate for $20 is 50 per cent, for $70 it is l00 per cent and for $l04.l7 it is l25 per cent. Just as useful work was done by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Social Security, which I might add was established by the Menzies Government prior to the introduction of the National Welfare Bill, this iniquitous situation now needs to be reformed and remedied. I appeal for action to be taken and at the very least for a select committee of the House to be established to inquire into this situation of double taxation of pensioners and social welfare recipients. I commend to the House the work of the Joint Churches Fair Share Working Group in Victoria and the Ecumenical Unemployment Task Group, the New South Wales section of Fair Share. I wish to quote from their publication entitled 'A Fair Share, Christians responding to poverty' the words of Sister Toni Matha, a social worker involved in the welfare program of the Catholic Church. She said: As a world we have known about the plight of Ethopians for ten years. How much agony and how long does it take for all of us to stop and take action about our brothers and sisters who are in need? Do we have to wait until the Australian scene is as desperate? It's not that the question is too big. It's probably because we are asking the wrong one. There is fear in our hearts and we sidestep the issues. Why do we reject? Why do we have prejudices? What is the fear that is there? I suppose it's the same type of fear that was in the hearts of the Priest and the Levite as they were walking along the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. They found a man lying on the ground. They didn't stop. They crossed the road and walked on because probably they asked in their hearts 'What will happen to me if I stop?' It was the good Samaritan who asked the other question: 'What will happen to him if I don't stop?' I ask all honourable members to ask themselves not what will happen to them if we address the problems of institutionalised poverty but what will happen to Australia if we do nothing. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(5.l7) —I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the National Welfare Fund Repeal Bill. I reiterate what was said in the second reading speech: The purpose of the Bill is to streamline accounting procedures for payments in the welfare and social services area. In future these payments will be made directly from standing appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The new accounting procedures have been designed only to remove the inefficient and anachronistic process. They are consistent with other initiatives by the Government to improve financial management. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. Debate resumed from 19 April, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Before the debate on this Bill is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1984-85. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(5.l9) —Before the debate was interrupted last Friday, I referred to a definition in the Concise Oxford Dictionary which tells us that a trilogy is 'a set of three tragedies to be performed in immediate succession'. I went on to say that the trilogy of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is surely about tragedies. What is promised is that we are again to be saddled with tragically high expenditure and taxation and a tragically high deficit in the year to come, and perhaps the years to come. After two years of record taxation, expenditure, deficits and borrowing, the trilogy merely promises more of the same. Essentially it will enable the Government to avail itself of indexed revenues, indexed expenditure and, consequently, indexed borrowings, that is, indexation in the best traditions of the trade unions and centralised wage fixing. Spending and taxing at the same levels as last year and the year before will do absolutely nothing for risk taking and wealth creation in the private sector. On top of those debilitating developments which work counter to confidence and employment creating commitment is the backing and filling of the Prime Minister. His lack of resolve in dealing with New Zealand in the wake of the ANZUS crisis is one recent example. Another example was the unholy mess culminating in a lack of minuscule support for the United States of America in its conduct of the MX missile tests. Even more recent was the humiliating exercise by this discredited Prime Minister in his efforts to explain his indefensible version of the strength of our economy. It took three consecutive television appearances to try to convince Australia of what it already knew-that is, that the Prime Minister and his Government are at a loss to know what to do about circumstances which cause investors to value the Australian dollar at its all time lowest against all major currencies. None of the three abysmal television performances by the Prime Minister convinced or reassured anyone. Our dollar not only looks like the proverbial brass razoo; it is just as worthless. Those failures of the Prime Minister on television were immediately followed by the outrageous deception by the same discredited man who sought to make a virtue of our cascading dollar. Like his promise made during the December election campaign that interest rates would fall if his Government were re-elected, only to see them immediately increase, the Prime Minister made his unintelligent prediction that employment would increase by a preposterous l00,000. Never mind that the international community had discounted our currency by 30 per cent all because of judgments it had made about the economic incapacity of the Hawke socialist Government. The Prime Minister was predicting a falling dollar-led economic recovery. We have all heard about a consumer-led recovery and an investment-led recovery. Now the text books are apparently to be rewritten at the whim of the Prime Minister who talks about a falling currency-led economic recovery. Mr Braithwaite —And a Public Service-led recovery. Mr ROCHER —We may have a taxation-led recovery too. There has been some suggestion in the past about a consensus-led recovery and a summit-led recovery but all these inanities pale when compared with the latest nonsense that we can expect a falling dollar-led recovery. That bit of nonsense aside, it has to be reckoned that the value being placed on our currency has a lot to do with the declining authority of the Prime Minister and his Government over political, international and domestic economic events. It is certain that the prevailing imperatives of the Government are politically inspired. Although some exporters can expect to benefit from the savage devaluation of our dollar, that advantage will be offset by interest and borrowings repayments to be made on overseas loans by most, if not all, exporters of minerals. Against that, the cost of imported goods must escalate. The outcome will almost certainly be significant consumer price index increases, which will inevitably lead to further wage increases. The Government will be powerless to counter those wage increases because of its lack of resolution and absence of authority over its union masters. The inflationary spiral is to be given new life by dispassionate independent judgments about the value of our dollar and, undoubtedly, predicated on the perceived and real lack of performance by the Hawke Government. Its readiness to yield to political pressures applied by Australian Labor Party factions and minority groups has helped to create an aura of political instability which will be remedied only by a concerted effort during the remainder of its term. If, as Oscar Wilde said, a little sincerity is a dangerous thing and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal, and if the converse is not true, it might be expected that this Government will last for a long time. However, the Government has not shown any sign of possessing the gumption to govern in the interests of all Australians and it must be concluded that we will remain leaderless under the socialists until after the next election. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(5.25) —I say, at the outset, that the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) should acquire himself a good research officer who has at least a scant knowledge of economics should he proceed to make such speeches again. At least then he could get some of the statistics right. I am reliably informed that the honourable member is a far better tennis player than he is an economist. What irritates me consistently in this place is the ability of those opposite, bare-faced and bald chested, to come into this place and lecture us, the Hawke Labor Government, about Budget deficits. Mr Hodgman —The Hawke socialist Government. Mr PUNCH —The present Opposition, including the high-spending member for Denison, was the highest spending, biggest Budget deficit government per capita in the history of this country. This Government has reduced the Budget deficit from a projected $l0 billion to $6 billion this year and we will keep doing it for the economic health of this country. Honourable members opposite should do a crash course in first grade commerce at the high school level before they lecture us about economics. They do not know a thing about it. Their knowledge is not worth a brass razoo. The Opposition talks about the declining dollar. For years upon years those opposite were guilty of performing like the imperialists of the l940s, who sat on their verandahs in Calcutta hoping that tragedy would not befall them and that things would not change. That is how the Liberals administered the dollar. They held it at an artificially high level for many years. One by-product which we have today is a manufacturing industry that is falling around our ears. This Government is battling hard every day to try to bring about its recuperation. In terms of what I have risen specifically to say in the House this evening, I draw the House's attention, most suitably on the Appropriation Bills, to the release last week by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of the December quarter l984 national accounts figures. When talking about economics we should look at those figures. They show that the recovery not only is continuing in our economy but also is broadening and privatising. The recovery that we induced in the public sector of the economy is now spreading to the private enterprise field, as we promised, and the economy is growing stronger every day. This reflects how solid the underlying economic structure of this country has become in the short time in which we have been in government. If honourable members opposite want any further proof of what I am saying they should look at the very marked fall in the underlying rate of inflation. Let us look at the gross domestic product. These are the facts. I know that they do not like facts. Gross domestic product in the last quarter rose by l.2 per cent in real terms and the non-farm gross domestic product by a significant 1.4 per cent. Those opposite, including the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the aspirant for the leadership of the Liberal Party, who persistently come into this House and say that all the good fortune in the economy is due to the lifting of the drought should look at the non-farm gross domestic product growth figures for the December quarter l984. If the honourable member for Bennelong wants to argue the facts I will be only too pleased to hear from him. Let us look at private consumption. A l.l per cent increase in that area of growth reflects the consumer-led recovery we promised would come about under our economic policies. The previous Government's fight inflation first policies brought this country to its knees. In the accord and everything that goes with it and in our policies we promised a consumer-led recovery. That recovery is here and is growing. One of the catchcries we hear from the temporary Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) is 'Simon says'. He was in this chamber last week talking about 'Simon says' with the child-like mind that he has. He said that wages will run away from us again. Why do not he and his staff of thousands look at the real unit labour cost index? If he wants any proof about labour costs the figures are there for him to see, but I have no doubt that he does not want to see them. Those figures show a decline in the real unit labour cost index to 101.6. That compares most favourably with the December 1982 quarter figure of 108.4. That was the last full quarter for which those opposite were in government. We remember that they were fiddling while Rome was burning. That now brings us very close, in terms of real labour costs, to the levels of 1966-67 and 1972-73. Enough of this rot about wage costs running away in this quarter and the accord failing. Let us look at the corporate profit share. This will be a nasty little tinge for those opposite. The December quarter figure shows that the corporate profit share has risen to 15 per cent. How does that compare with the December 1982 figure, the last quarterly figure for the Liberal Government? Not surprisingly, it was l2.2 per cent. That is the trough, the pit. That is where that Government put private enterprise in this country. We have now got it back up to l5 per cent. Significantly, information released by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last week shows that the expectation for the future is of continued growth in our economy. Of course, this has not happened by some sort of miracle-although I dare say that God is on our side more often than he is on the side of those opposite. This has been as a result of the greatest infusion of effort and planning in government economic policy in this country for many years. It is not as a result of the crisis management of those opposite, running from one Cabinet Minister's resignation to the next and deciding who will be the next leader. There has been none of that. This has been as a result of economic planning that involved the unions and private enterprise and has put the Government on the track of serving people rather than dictating to them. If honourable members opposite want examples of our planning let us look at how this Government has gone about restructuring industries-dragging them up from the pit into which they were put by honourable members opposite-into some semblance of competitiveness which is now manifestly working to their betterment in this country. I cite the steel industry, the car plant industry and others that will follow. Of course, we are now attempting to restructure our export potential. Only last month this Government received the Ferris report of the National Export Marketing Strategy Panel commissioned by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) when he was Minister for Trade and presented to the present Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins). This Government is actually looking at tapering exports to their full growth and potential to assist manufacturing industries in this country. Of course, we will soon be restructuring the tax scales in this country to make the tax structure an incentive one rather than one which taxes all except the rich mates of honourable members opposite. Central to all this economic planning and policy shift, of course, has been the prices and incomes accord. It has brought about the lowest strike rate in this country for l6 years. That is the reality in every State in Australia, bar Queensland. The reality in Australia today is that the average unionist is financially better off, despite real labour costs falling and increased employment prospects rising. Of course, that is a state of economic health that exists in every State in Australia except-honourable members guessed it-Queensland. There is no doubt that the Liberal-National Party coalition is setting out quite determinedly not only to undermine the prices and incomes accord but to destroy it. Let us look for a few moments at the motives of those in Queensland. The National Party Government under that maniac Joh Bjelke-Petersen wants two things. First of all-- Mr Braithwaite —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I believe that that is a reflection on the Premier. I do not think the honourable member should be using that language. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I do not think that is a point of order, but I think it was an unfortunate remark to make about another parliamentarian. I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr PUNCH —At your behest, Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the remark. Two motives loom largely in the Liberal-National Party coalition policy across this country. First of all honourable members opposite want industrial unrest in Queensland to continue. They do not want a resolution of the industrial dispute in Queensland. I bet honourable members opposite every night sit in the Caucus room watching television, hoping for another juicy reel of the industrial dispute and hoping that it will continue. They are concerned about unrest in industrial relations, not peace. Of course, the second thing they want is for the industrial dispute in Queensland to affect the prices and incomes accord of the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. They would like to see the Queensland situation haemorrhage the prices and incomes accord. They are hoping not for industrial peace but for more trouble and are aiming for it at every opportunity. As we all know, 1975 was a bleak year for this Parliament. In that year those opposite tore up the Constitution which had provided political stability to this country for so long. Ten years later, in 1985, they are trying to tear up the basis of the economic stability brought to this country by the prices and incomes accord. The repressive laws in Queensland are designed to provoke industrial disputation, not promote industrial peace. The repressive laws in Queensland are designed to drag down the Australian economy to the level of the falling Queensland economy, which is easier than the hard slog of finding new economic policies for Queensland. Those repressive laws are designed to act as a cover for the Queensland electoral redistribution and the flagging Queensland economy. They hope that the redistribution will save the National Party Government in that State from electoral annihilation. I challenge those opposite to state where they stand on these industrial laws, on the street march laws and on the electoral redistribution which will probably mean that the Australian Labor Party will need in the order of 55 per cent of the vote to win the next State election in Queensland. I ask honourable members opposite to state what is the difference between the Queensland Government's motives and those of the military regimes of South America or the communist regimes of eastern Europe. I specifically ask honourable members, such as the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), who have deserted their principles on these issues concerning the Premier of Queensland, whether it is right that Catholic priests and Anglican and Uniting Church Ministers should be arrested for standing beside picket lines. I ask whether it is right that journalists and photographers working for news organisations who report on or film industrial disputes and the like in Queensland should be arrested. I ask those opposite whether they believe in the freedom of the Press. If they do, let them stand up in this House and distance themselves from and condemn the Queensland Government. The reality is-it is a sad affliction that will befall this economy if we let it-that trade unionists and trade unions in general in Poland have far greater rights today than do many trade unions and trade unionists in Queensland. Undoubtedly it can be said that at least in Poland amid an industrial dispute, under the law of the gun and the military regime, the Western Press is free to report what is going on. In Queensland it is not. I call on honourable members opposite to condemn what is happening in Queensland and ask them to go back to their principles. All of those activities, I believe, are designed to haemorrhage this economy for political purposes. While honourable members opposite question industrial disputation and our wages policy I draw the attention of the House to the fact that they have no real wages policy. There is no real alternative Opposition wages policy. However, the Opposition attacks our policy. The Opposition says that we are ACTU dominated and led. I draw the attention of honourable members opposite to one issue, that is, the foreign banks. The ACTU did not support us on the foreign banks issue. However, this Government went ahead and foreign banks are now setting up in this country. For eight years those opposite talked about foreign bank entry into this economy. They did nothing about it. Were they ACTU dominated? The answer has as much sense as those opposite would seek to portray. On most of the major economic issues that this Government has undertaken, deriving from the National Economic Summit Conference in April 1983 and those policies flowing from it, along with the National Labour Consultative Council, the employers of this country have had an equal say with the ACTU. I wonder whether honourable members opposite would say that the employers involved are ACTU-led as well. The harsh reality is that for 30 of the last 35 years those opposite have ruled this country. The long term afflictions that this country has, the long term problems that this Government must struggle to overcome, and is overcoming, are a direct result of the appallingly poor policies that those opposite have instituted for the best part of three decades. I refer to the disproportionate level of tax that working and middle class taxpayers in this country must pay, the structural problems that afflict our balance of trade and the inbuilt Government indebtedness. Those opposite talk a lot about the Government debt. Let us trace back dollar by dollar how that Government debt came about. Honourable members opposite might be severely embarrassed. This Government will solve these problems over time. This Government, indeed, has a duty on behalf of the people of this country to solve them and we will do so; but they cannot be solved overnight. Expectations, probably of all Australians, must be lowered. In closing, I make this appeal: If honourable members opposite are really concerned about the good health of this country in economic terms, and if they are really concerned about maintaining the industrial peace that this Government has brought about, they will reappraise their position on a range of economic and industrial issues-not the least of which is the current crisis in Queensland-and the way in which they have gone about their role in this chamber in the last week. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.43) —Today is a black day in the history of Australia. What do we have? We have the Hawke socialist Government which is totally untrustworthy in regard to defence and foreign affairs and absolutely incompetent in regard to economic management. It is like the Whitlam Government all over again, except that it is worse. The present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the present Treasurer (Mr Keating) make Whitlam and Cairns look like a couple of country boys. The Hawke socialist Government is a socialist government; let there be no mistake about that. It is the highest taxing, biggest spending government Australia has ever seen in peacetime. The Prime Minister is a self-confessed socialist and, in addition, a prisoner in the cell of the pro-communist Socialist Left. He is the most dangerous Prime Minister ever to be inflicted upon Australia. It must be said that the Prime Minister of Australia is no longer trusted by the United States of America and by the Western alliance. In Washington he is now known as Robert the Reneger, as the direct result of his disgraceful sellout over ANZUS and the MX test. Under his supervision the Australian dollar has dropped like a stone. Yet he keeps saying: 'Trust me'. His international credibility is plummeting and with it plummets Australia's reputation. In foreign affairs the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has been an unmitigated disaster. The 'world's finest Treasurer of l984', Mr Keating, will find his gold medal repossessed by the end of l985. In foreign affairs Australia has become a sick joke and at home the economy is heading for a disaster in l985-86. We are threadbare overseas and we are heading for bankruptcy domestically. In the housing and construction area the Hawke socialist Government has already broken every-and I repeat 'every'-major promise it made in l984. It promised last year that interest rates would go down; in fact, they have gone up. It promised that the first home owners scheme would be maintained; in fact, its throat has been cut. It promised that housing commencements would rise; and they are just about to drop. It promised to bring industrial peace to the construction industry; but today guerrilla activity is worse than ever. It must be said that the Hawke socialist Government is without doubt the most anti-Tasmanian government since Federation. I acknowledge the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). The honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) is on his way to the chamber. The Hawke socialist Government hates Tasmania because the people of Australia's smallest but most beautiful State have elected five Liberal members to the House of Representatives at five consecutive Federal elections. Last year as punishment we found the Commonwealth capital works program for Tasmania slashed, causing a loss of over l,000 jobs. Now the Government is planning to cut $40m from Tasmania's grant for l985-86. It has broken every single promise it has made to Tasmania, except one. It did stop the dam, to its eternal discredit. That decision alone, as the honourable member for Franklin will confirm, cost Tasmania 3,500 jobs. It is not surprising that the Prime Minister's lowest approval rating in the entire Commonwealth of Australia is in Tasmania. Quite bluntly, Tasmanians do not trust him, and with very good reason. Tasmanians can see through this self-styled president of an Australian socialist republic. Most Tasmanians do not think he will even last the distance to lead the Australian Labor Party into the next Federal election. If, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a betting man you are interested, I can tell you that the bookmakers in Tasmania are laying odds of six to four on that Robert Hawke will not be Prime Minister of Australia after the next Federal election. I will go into a little more detail and put a little flesh on the skeleton of the speech which I have just outlined. Mr Deputy Speaker, I said to you that the Prime Minister is no longer trusted. In Washington he is called Robert the Reneger. Why is he called Robert the Reneger? Because in his own words he admitted that he was a reneger. An article in the New York Times appeared under this extraordinary headline: 'Australia balks on accord to aid in U.S. test of MX; Premier'-that is, Mr Hawke-'cites split in Party'. That was the front page headline of the New York Times, read by millions of Americans. This is what appeared in the article: Australia's Prime Minister Mr Hawke, said today that he had told the United States that because of a revolt in his own Party- listen to this- he would probably have to renege on a pledge. No wonder he is called Robert the Reneger. He used the words that he would 'probably have to renege on a pledge'. What did he do when he came back to Australia? He said: 'I am not like my socialist brother and colleague, Prime Minister Lange of New Zealand. American ships are welcome in all Australian ports'. He said to the people of Australia: 'You can trust me. United States ships are welcome in every Australian port'. Is that the truth? I put it to the House that it is not. I put it to the House that our Prime Minister, whilst publicly saying that United States ships are welcome in every port in Australia, has secretly been doing a Lange. The true position is that United States ships are very welcome in Australian ports, provided those ports are in Tasmania or Queensland. I now put it to the House-and I will produce evidence to support this-that the Hawke socialist Government deliberately and actively dissuaded the United States from sending the light cruiser USS Texas into either Melbourne or Sydney for fear that it would embarrass John Cain and Nifty Neville Wran. The plain fact is that when the USS Texas visit to Australia was planned the United States authorities were well aware that it was the l50th anniversary of Victoria's founding. They were also well aware that it is a very long way from Hobart to Brisbane. So it was thought that the USS Texas, being so welcome in all Australian ports, might call in at Melbourne and Sydney on the way from Hobart to Brisbane. What in fact happened? Do not take just my word for it; this is what a Government official told Australian Associated Press just four days ago. I quote from telex AAP ANS 252 with code NNNN171719 at the bottom. The story was about how five Tasmanian Liberal members of parliament-who are now all present in the chamber-publicly welcomed the USS Texas to Tasmania and said that the Americans would be very, very welcome to come any time. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Not only is the honourable member misleading the House; he is misleading the public. Not all the Tasmanian Liberal members are present in the chamber. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —The five Tasmanian Liberal members said: 'We believe in the ANZUS Treaty. We support it. We welcome the USS Texas. Ignore those small, unrepresentative, pro-communist demonstrators, because they do not represent the majority of Tasmanian opinion'. When the story came out in AAP it had this additional paragraph: A Government source today told AAP that USS Texas was scheduled to visit Brisbane as its next Australian port of call rather than Melbourne or Sydney where its presence could embarrass the Cain and Wran Labor governments. How true are those words! Can honourable members imagine the excitement at the Victorian State Council of the ALP at the weekend if, in the midst of everything else that was going on-the tomatoes, the left hooks and the right hooks-the USS Texas had been sailing up the Yarra? The Government kept the USS Texas out of the Port of Melbourne because it would-- Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr HODGMAN —Here is the man who abstained. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Melbourne had better have a serious point of order. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, again I draw attention to fact. It would be impossible for that ship to sail up the Yarra. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order and, if the honourable member for Melbourne insists on behaving in that way, the Chair will take action. Mr HODGMAN —I commend to the honourable member that he just trip back to the embassy and get better instructions because he is not doing very well with his interjections. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a serious point of order. I have not been to the embassy, unlike the honourable member who is constantly at embassies in this city. I have never visited an embassy in this country or in this city. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. No embassy was named. Mr HODGMAN —Of course, the Victorians are all twitchy; they are very twitchy. There have been left hooks, right jabs and tomatoes right through the weekend-democracy at work! However, some members of the Labor Party chose not to cast a vote. They preferred to abstain. They left the chamber and they did not cast a vote. That is very interesting. The plain fact is that the Prime Minister of Australia has been caught out secretly doing a Lange. Nuclear powered ships can visit any Australian port as long as they go to Tasmania or Queensland because it is all right with Robin and Joh but the Government certainly does not want John or Nifty embarrassed. Look at the Minister for Foreign Affairs, a latter day Walter Mitty. Name one good thing that William George Hayden, the honourable member for Oxley, has done since he was placed in the very important position of Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask honourable members to apply these tests: Has he strengthened the position between Australia and its allies? The answer is no. Has he given comfort to those who oppose us? The answer is yes. This is the man who was described by the official Chinese Press as a cat's paw of Vietnam. As my Leader said in the House a few weeks ago, we have a drover's dog running the country and a cat's paw in charge of foreign affairs. Last week it was all Mr Hu Yaobang. Well done, it was a magnificent visit. But Mr Hu Yaobang is head of a government which described the Minister for Foreign Affairs as a cat's paw of Vietnam. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in every area in which the Minister for Foreign Affairs has entered he has made an absolute muck of it. He has upset our closest allies in the Association of South East Asian Nations. He has upset and offended the United States of America, not once, not twice, but on a number of occasions, and at the same time everything he has said has been to the benefit of Vietnam, which is of course the puppet of the Soviet Union. Let us look at our defence situation. We have less defence capacity today than we had in l939. What does this Government do? It destroys 50 years of experience by abolishing the Fleet Air Arm. This is the Government which says that Australia, a maritime continent, does not need an aircraft carrier. We have an off-shore, over-water air capacity which is less than that which Argentina had in the Falkland Islands war. We have tanks the training time for which has been cut to one hour a week. We have a Navy that cannot go to sea, an Air Force that cannot fly and, to add insult to injury, the Government decides to tax the reserves. Does anybody in this Parliament really believe that this Government, having spat in the face of our allies, having let our defence forces run down, is fair dinkum about defending Australia? One could not possibly believe it. I turn to the economy. Remember the promises. I am obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are quite right. A trilogy is a three-part tragedy. Tragically for Australia, this tragedy will continue and get worse until this Government is thrown out of office . I repeat what I said last year, which infuriated the Prime Minister. I will work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to bring about the defeat of the Hawke socialist Government because this is the most dangerous and disreputable government that has ever been inflicted on this country. Mr Simmons —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 75, which relates to the use of offensive words to members. I remember in a debate last year reference was made to the Peacock-Sinclair fascist Opposition and that term was ruled to be offensive. Yet the honourable member for Denison constantly refers to the Hawke socialist Government. It is an emotional, trigger phrase and I find it offensive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will the honourable member for Denison defer to the honourable member for Calare and exclude him from the reference? Mr HODGMAN —I will for the time being, if it will make him happy. I too would feel offended if I were called a socialist. The last thing Australia wants is a socialist government. Do not for one moment let the honourable member for Melbourne get up and pretend that he is offended. Look at the economy. The rate of unemployment has gone up. Remember the headline of the year for l984-everybody in Australia should have it in his back room-'Good news! Home loan drop on way'. There is a photograph of the world's only two-faced ferret and the article states: 'Home boost', 'Treasurer Paul Keating' 'Home buyers-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison may not refer to the Treasurer in those terms. Mr HODGMAN —I am sorry; I withdraw. I looked at the Concise Oxford Dictionary and I found out that a ferret is a half-tamed variety of the common polecat. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Leave it alone. Mr HODGMAN —I withdraw. It is unfair to common polecats. The article states: Home buyers are set to receive a New Year bonus with mortgage rates strongly tipped to fall. Treasurer Paul Keating has predicted an across-the-board fall in interest rates flowing on to home repayments. Where is that promise? Prime interest rates went up in January. Home interest rates have now gone up in every major lending bank and the building societies are seeking an interest rate increase. This is at the same time as the rate of unemployment is going up. Do honourable members remember the old saying that somebody is only l9 bob in the pound? I am sad to say that we have a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who are only 63c in the dollar. Every morning I look to see whether the dollar will float. It has not floated yet and I doubt very much that it will. The value of the dollar plummets by the day whilst this Government, with absolute economic irresponsibility, does nothing at all to prevent it. Yet we have that economic genius, the Prime Minister of Australia, saying in Perth l0 days ago: 'Oh, because the dollar has dropped, it could produce an extra l00,000 jobs'! What about his promise in the Sydney Opera House, that Oscar winning promise, that there would be 500,000 new jobs for Australians within the first three years of his Government? That promise has been totally dishonoured. Let us look at the figures. It is correct to say, as the Australian Financial Review admitted last year, that l36,000 new positions have been filled but they are not jobs which have been created by the Hawke socialist Government. This 500,000 promise is an absolute con and I do not believe that anybody in Australia would accept for one moment that that promise is being honoured. The Prime Minister keeps telling us that inflation has come down. Of course it comes down when one rigs the CPI. But ask the housewives, the mothers, who have to go to buy food and provisions whether the inflation rate is coming down. They will say that Mr Hawke, with all due respect, deserves some specialised medical treatment if he thinks that inflation is dropping. So where does one turn? Interest rates are up. Unemployment is up. Mr Goodluck —What about the petrol? Mr HODGMAN —Exactly, the petrol. Do honourable members remember the wailing and weeping around Australia in l983? In l982 the then shadow Treasurer, the present Treasurer, went around saying: 'The Fraser Government has put a branch of the Tax Office at every petrol bowser'. What did the Prime Minister of Australia then say? He said: 'We will bring down the price of petrol by 3c a litre'. It has gone up by 9c a litre in the last six months. When will the Prime Minister honour that promise? If he thinks that the people out there who are filling up the petrol tanks of their motor cars do not remember what he said, he is in for a big shock. The honourable member for Franklin is circulating a petition which is being signed by thousands and thousands of Australians who will pin this Prime Minister on a clear and solemn promise that the price of petrol would drop by 3c a litre. Where do we turn in respect of Tasmania? The Hawke socialist Government must realise once and for all that Tasmania is an equal partner in the Federation. The smallest State in Australia is sick and tired of being pushed around by this self-styled, bullying president of an Australian socialist republic, this little Caesar, who is prepared to belt the smallest State and, as we have seen in recent times, is prepared to put the Federation at risk by tackling Queensland. I would like to see him take on one of his socialist Premier colleagues in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia or Western Australia. This is the Prime Minister who said that he would govern for all Australians. This is the Prime Minister who said that he would bring Australians together. Instead, he is forcing Australians apart. He is splitting the nation. The sooner he is rooted out of the Lodge the better for all Australians. Mr LEE(Dobell)(6.03) —It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate following my good friend the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). In the three months I have been a member of this House I have observed that every day the honourable member wears a red carnation in his lapel. Apart from being suspicious of all men who wear carnations, especially red ones, I am reminded of another gentleman who wore a carnation-however, I am told that it was a different colour, green in his case-Oscar Wilde. I am told that Oscar Wilde's final words on his deathbed were: 'Either this wallpaper goes or I go'. To draw the comparison, either the honourable member for Denison goes at the next election or the Liberal Party will be completely wiped out. The honourable member was Opposition spokesman on immigration for 20 months before the last election. His contribution in that portfolio resulted in Labor's greatest support ever among the ethnic community. I hope that, although there was a big swing against the honourable member for Denison at the last election, the next swing is not of such great magnitude that the Labor Party will lose him from this House. These Appropriation Bills which are now before the House will allow the Hawke Government to continue to encourage Australia's economic recovery. In March l983, when the present Opposition members were driven from office by the Australian people, the economy was in a shambles. Interest rates on bank housing were l3.5 per cent. Monetary policy was so tight that the building industry had been crushed. Manufacturing industry was shedding thousands of jobs. Unemployment had reached its highest level since the Great Depression. Presiding over this collapse as Treasurer was the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). To assist the House to form a judgment on that honourable member's performance, I now wish to compare Australia's current economic position with that of 26 months ago when the Fraser-Howard Government was in power. Under the Liberals inflation was l0 per cent. Today under Labor it has been halved to 5 per cent. Under Treasurer Howard in l982, l80,000 Australians lost their jobs. Under Treasurer Keating employment has already been expanded by 34l,000 jobs. Let us look at the levels of real economic growth which, in my opinion, is the ultimate test of any government's economic performance. Under the coalition we had growth in gross domestic product of a massive one half of one per cent in the year to September l982. Under the Hawke Government we had real growth of 4.3 per cent in the year to September l984. Under Treasurer Howard home approvals fell to a low of 8,600 in October l982. Under Treasurer Keating home approvals had risen to l3,500 in February l985. Under the Liberals new motor vehicle registrations fell to only 32,000 in February l983. Under Labor this had risen from 32,000 to 47,500 in February l985. This Government deserves full credit for the current economic recovery, and in particular the Treasurer is to be congratulated on the rapid turn-round in the national economy. I was very encouraged by the Treasurer's reply to my question without notice in this chamber last Thursday. The Treasurer advised the House that the December national accounts confirmed the underlying strength of the recovery. Gross domestic product rose by a further l.2 per cent in the December quarter; gross non-farm product rose by 5.l per cent over the year to December l984. Under the Liberals in 1982 the figure was 0.9 of one per cent. Under Labor in l983 we raised the figure to 2.6 per cent. The Treasurer's great success this year is that he has raised that figure again by 5.l per cent, a great achievement. Even the honourable member for Bennelong welcomed the economic growth disclosed by last Thursday's figures. Last Thursday, the Sydney Morning Herald quoted the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as conceding: 'This is good economic news for Australia'. This is a welcome change from the usual doom and gloom predictions we have come to expect from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and most Opposition members. Sometimes I think the Opposition would rejoice if the recovery faltered, but I am sure that the vast majority of Australians will join with me in congratulating the Treasurer on his success to date. Let us compare the standing of Labor's Treasurer with the alternative offered by the Liberals. Frankly, I am amazed that the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) continues to allow the honourable member for Bennelong to be shadow Treasurer. Not only was his performance as Treasurer in the Fraser years woeful, but he sought to deceive the Australian people on the state of the nation's finances during the l983 election campaign. Members will recall how, as Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong was advised by John Stone, his loyal departmental secretary, only five days before the election that the l983-84 deficit would be $9 billion. The honourable member for Bennelong conspired with Malcolm Fraser to have this information kept secret from the Australian people. They conspired to have this information kept secret because it proved beyond all doubt that under the Liberals the economy was out of control. The honourable member for Bennelong's recent statements calling on the Hawke Government to reduce expenditure and rein in the deficit should be judged in this light. He was the Treasurer who presided over the greatest blowout in the deficit in Australia's economic history. Recent Press reports suggest that perhaps the honourable member for Bennelong may be replaced as Deputy Leader of the Opposition by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack). Let us look at the income policy of the honourable member for Tangney, as he is the Opposition spokesman on employment and industrial relations. His great brainwave is that if the Liberals were returned to government he would abandon centralised wage fixing and would allow market forces to fix wage rates through collective bargaining. This great breakthrough in policy formulation is a great leap back to l982 when the now Leader of the Opposition in exile, Malcolm Fraser, sought to solve the wages explosion by allowing collective bargaining. I am pleased to see the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) in the House, as I am about to quote from a newspaper report of a top secret speech delivered by Malcolm Fraser at a testimonial to the former member for Bass. I quote from a report in the Australian which said that Mr Fraser 'admitted to mistakes during his prime ministership, including indirect ''responsibility'' for the l982 wages explosion which seriously exacerbated the recession'. What caused the wages explosion? It was caused by the simple fact that the Liberals did not have an incomes policy. The Liberals went to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and argued that centralised wage fixing be abandoned. Unfortunately, the Arbitration Commission accepted their arguments and centralised wage fixing was abandoned. As a result we had one of the greatest increases in wages and one of the greatest increases in the rate of inflation, for the simple reason that the Liberals wanted to abandon centralised wage fixing. The great brainwave of the honourable member for Tangney, the new spokesman on employment and industrial relations, is to go back to the failed and discredited policies of the Fraser years. I now turn to the level of funding for roads. I am well qualified to speak on this matter because, in my opinion, the roads on the Central Coast of New South Wales are the worst in any outer metropolitan area in Australia. The quality of the roads on the Central Coast is bad for three reasons: Firstly, we have had a rapid increase in population on the Central Coast of New South Wales in the last l0 years. At the moment we are averaging an increase of over 8 per cent each year. The second reason is that the Fraser Government cut back funding for roadworks during its term of office. The third reason is the Askin Liberal Government's failure to allocate funds to the Central Coast during the Askin Government's years in office. I will just say a few words about the performance of the Askin Government on roads and other matters. It should not be forgotten that two members of this House here today were in fact Ministers of the Askin Liberal Government. Mr O'Neil —Who were they? Name them. Mr LEE —I will leave that to the honourable member's imagination. It also should not be forgotten that the current leader of the National Party of Australia in the New South Wales Parliament, the Hon. Leon Punch, was also the Deputy Premier during the Askin days. Before the Askin Government came to power the Renshaw Labor Government commenced the construction of the F3 freeway from Berowra to Calga. During the ll years of the Askin Government construction of that freeway did not proceed one inch. There were no extensions to the freeway during the entire period of the Askin Government. It is so long since the Liberals have had an elected representative from the Central Coast of New South Wales that I sometimes doubt whether they know where the Central Coast is. Since 1976 the Liberal Party has not succeeded in having a representative from the Central Coast elected to the State Parliament or the Federal Parliament. I was not surprised that the Liberal Party had to go to great lengths to obtain a candidate to stand against me in the division of Dobell. It went all the way to the St George district of Sydney to obtain a candidate. Apparently, none of the members of the Liberal Party in the electorate of Dobell wished to run as a candidate. The Liberal candidate paid the people of Dobell the compliment of moving into the electorate one day before the rolls were ruled off. I now compare the performance of the Askin Liberal Government with that of the Wran Labor Government. The Wran Labor Government, in partnership with the Australian Government, has allocated funds to allow the following projects to be completed or to be near completion today: The first project is the upgrading of the Pacific Highway, for which $lm was allocated for a dual carriageway from the F3 motorway to Doyalson. Over $lm was allocated for a second carriageway from Elizabeth Bay Road to Kanangra Drive, Lake Munmorah. There was also the construction of a pedestrian bridge at Lake Munmorah Public School to allow the school children to cross the Pacific Highway. There was also the F3 freeway which was extended over nine kilometres from Wyong River to Wallarah Creek at a cost of almost $7m. Over l6 kilometres of freeway work was commenced, at a total cost of over $27m, which will provide a dual carriageway all the way from Wallarah Creek to Dora Creek, in the electorate of the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). In addition there was work on the F3 freeway from Calga to Somersby, which is costing over $l0m and which also includes work on the famous Moonie Moonie Bridge which I understand will be nearing completion next year. There was the construction of a new bridge over Tuggerah Lakes, for which the Federal Government provided $l.6m. There is also the Rutile Road from Budgewoi to Elizabeth Bay, which was also granted over half a million dollars by the Federal Government. Just over two weeks ago my colleague the Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) announced a new deal for roadworks funding throughout Australia. In my maiden speech I predicted that Peter Morris would be remembered as Australia's greatest post-war Minister for Transport. I stand by that prediction. The Minister's announced program demonstrates the farsighted approach that he has brought to his portfolio. For the first time, all federal funding to the States and local government for road works will be provided from a guaranteed and indexed share of fuel excise. I pay a compliment to the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) who introduced a similar program for the Australian bicentennial road development program. I am sure that members of the National Party will join with the Government in extending that policy to all funding for road works. This will provide a legislative guarantee that federal funding will be maintained in real terms for five years at the l985-86 level. This will allow the States and local government to plan road works with confidence as they will know how much funding will be available. Contractors will be able to make informed decisions on whether additional or improved plant and machinery should be purchased. I have heard that some State roads Ministers have criticised the Minister's announced program. I was concerned to read in the Gosford Star last week that statements had been made by the New South Wales Minister for Roads and that these statements led the Mayor of Gosford, Alderman Peter Coleman, to say that he was very worried that major roadworks in Gosford were in jeopardy. I will spend a few minutes examining the program of the Federal Minister for Transport, to see whether these worries are justified. First of all, let us look at the total amount of funds which are to be allocated to road funding. This year the Minister is proposing to allocate $l,245m for roadworks. That compares with only $685m in l98l-82, the last full year of the Fraser Government. That shows that in the period that Labor has been in office we have raised spending on roads by 82 per cent, which is a 36 per cent increase in real terms. That is something for which the Minister deserves full credit. This year there will be a total of $392m in Federal funding to New South Wales for roadworks. That compares with only $2l4m in l98l-82. Again that is an increase of over 83 per cent. Funding on the national roads program for New South Wales has increased by over 90 per cent from l98l-82 to 1985-86. Funds provided for local roads have increased by almost 60 per cent from 1981-82 to 1985-86. The New South Wales Minister appeared to criticise the Federal Minister most over the funding for arterial roads, so let us look at the grants for arterial roads. For l985-86 the Government is proposing to spend $l2lm. In l98l-82-the last full year of the Fraser Government-$46m, less than half that, was allocated. Again that is an increase of over 88 per cent. Since l98l-82 the New South Wales Government has increased its spending on roads from $378m to $548m in l984-85. New South Wales increased its spending by 45 per cent. Federal funding to New South Wales has increased from $2l4m to $392m, an increase of 83 per cent. At the federal level the funding for roadworks to New South Wales has increased by 83 per cent. New South Wales has raised its own spending on roads by only 43 per cent. Therefore, the question has to be asked: Is it time that the New South Wales Government lifted its share of spending on roads? The Federal Government has done more than its fair share. It has raised its spending by over 83 per cent. In the few minutes that are left to me I would like to touch on two matters. The Liberal Party in the electorate of Dobell, as do members of the Liberal Party in this House, sought to make a great deal of political capital out of the assets test. The Liberal candidate for Dobell sought to convince the pensioners in the electorate that all the information they put on their assets test form would go into a computer and that criminal elements would have access to it. This is complete rubbish. In fact, only 0.9 of one per cent of pensioners in the electorate of Dobell, which with 16,000 has the largest number of pensioners of any electorate in New South Wales, have had their pensions reduced or cut out. So much for the scare tactics of the Liberal Party. Finally, I wish to touch on the issue of local government funding. At the moment local government is allocated 2 per cent of income tax receipts. Mr Braithwaite —What are you going to do with it-wipe it out? Mr LEE —In case the honourable member is not aware of what happens, let me tell him what the problem is in respect of allocating 2 per cent of income tax receipts. When the Government of which the honourable member was a supporter ran the economy we had a recession which meant that local government's share of funding was cut back by a very large amount. Under good Labor economic management we have had a massive increase in income tax receipts. As a result, local government is expecting a big increase this year. I am sure that honourable members will join with me in hoping that the amount of money which is granted to local government will be maintained in real terms. I think it is time that we changed the way in which local government is funded. Instead of giving local government a percentage of personal income tax we should be giving it a set percentage of total tax receipts and so avoid the wild fluctuations that occur. Whenever honourable members opposite are in government the economy falls to pieces and there is a decline in income tax receipts. We want to make sure that there is not a fall-off in local government funding 20 years from now when, perhaps, honourable members opposite are re-elected to government. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(6.22) —The Appropriation Bill (No. 3) l984-85 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) l984-85 have been introduced for the purpose of appropriating additional expenditure. I thought that this so-called Labor Government was about saving money. However, it seems that it needs another $426m to continue running the affairs of the nation. I notice that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs needs another $4m. I would have thought that that was one area which had been allocated more than sufficient money to ensure its survival. The Attorney-General's Department needs another $7m. I imagine that that has something to do with legal aid and so on. The Department of Defence needs another $250m. The increased expenditure in this area is worth while because defence is one of the few areas in respect of which an increased allocation is justified. Under this Government, our defence forces are being run down. The Government is not interested in defence. It has knocked us out of ANZUS. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the socialist Prime Minister of New Zealand do not seem to be terribly interested in defence in this part of the world. The ANZUS Treaty is in ruins. It is a disgrace that the Government should have put us in this position. The Australian Labor Party has a tradition of defending this country, as was shown by the actions of Curtin and his colleagues during the last war. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his colleagues are not prepared to continue with the sorts of treaties that at least the United States Government wants to lock us into. However, I am pleased to see that more money has been allocated for defence. I think this is a worthwhile expenditure. The Parliament is being asked to approve additional expenditure of $426m for a whole range of things. We know that the total Budget deficit at the moment is $6.7 billion. I guess the amount that is being sought will take that figure well and truly past the $7 billion mark. Of course, the great tax summit is coming up. I would never know why the Government does not hold an expenditure summit. This Government seems to be intent on imposing more and more taxation on the people of this nation. Of course, I am one who believes that we should be looking at ways in which we can cut government expenditure and, as a result, cut taxes. I do not know of any individual who wants to pay more tax for any reason at all. I think we must start to look at ways of cutting government expenditure. We will have an enormous task on our hands when we come to office after the next election in looking at areas in which we can cut back on expenditure. There is no doubt that once this Labor Government is finished in office we will be looking at an enormous Budget deficit. It looks as though we are to have a mini-Budget in May. The so-called tax summit is a total charade because all the decisions have been made. I see that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) is sitting at the table-- Mr Ian Robinson —They took it off him. Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, they took it off him because he was not able to give any direction in that area. As I said, the tax summit is a total charade. We still do not know who is going to be invited to the summit. I hope that I, as someone representing 80,000 electors in the great electorate of Maranoa, get an invitation to the summit. I represent 80,000 people who are involved in producing some of the wealth of this nation. These people are not dependent on enormous amounts of handout money, as are people in areas such as the capital cities. The farm industries, the great mining industries, the oil industry and so on of this country more than pay their way. The oil producing area of Jackson and the mining area of Blackwater and others which produce vast amounts of coal are enormous revenue earners in my electorate. The Prime Minister seems to think he should have a summit on taxation. Every day he comes up with a new summit for something or other. Of course, we know that he fell off the top of a summit some months ago because he has never been the same since he backed down from the MX missile negotiations. That was a total farce. Even I thought that he had a bit of gumption. However, of course, from that day on he has been slowly backing himself out of office and he will not last at the next election. The amount of tax revenue for Queensland has been cut back by $250m. In fact, the amount of tax revenue for all other States has been cut back. The Hawke Government says that it will cut back expenditure. It will force the States to increase their taxes so that the Commonwealth will not have to take the responsibility and increase its taxes. The amount of revenue that every State is to get from the Commonwealth funding arrangements will be cut back enormously. Of course, the amount to be allocated to Queensland is to be cut back by $250m. Queensland has been very much in the forefront of events in the last few weeks largely because of the power strike that has taken place in that part of the world. The Electrical Trades Union people decided some months ago to go on strike. Of course, we have all been out of power. I personally have suffered from lack of power on my own property. We ran out of water for stock because of that dispute. We had to go to bed with a candle-and that was to give us light. Of course, we did not have power for irrigation and all sorts of other farm endeavours. All the small industries throughout Maranoa and the rest of Queensland were completely out of power. Mr Hodgman —Terrible. Mr IAN CAMERON —It is a shocking state of affairs. The Premier of Queensland is the only Premier who is prepared to stand up to the unions. The Federal Government is not prepared to back the Premier of Queensland against the unions. The Government has back-shuffled away-- Mr Hodgman —Robin Gray did something. Mr IAN CAMERON —Robin Gray is the only one who would be prepared to stand up with Joh. But at long last we have a Premier who is prepared to stand up to the unions. The Prime Minister wants to negotiate with Joh. However, the Premier of Queensland is not prepared to negotiate. We finished and settled this strike a month ago. The power came back on a month ago. The power has not been turned off since and it will continue that way. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr IAN CAMERON —When the sitting was suspended, I was explaining how I felt that it was unnecessary for the Labor Government to have a tax summit as today we heard the announcement that it is going to increase the price of fuel-- Mr Goodluck —It is not! Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, by 3.9c a litre. This will bring in another $642m in revenue. I put it to the Government that at this rate it will be unnecessary for it to have a summit if the tax take from fuel alone is to continue to increase. We have seen the dollar drop out of sight; it has been as low as US61c. Now that the Government is to review the parity pricing policy every two months, judging by the dollar's performance in the previous two months it could drop another US10c to US50c, which would give the Government at least another $600m to $700m in revenue. So it is really not necessary to have a tax summit. Our great white leader, the Prime Minister, told us that he was going to knock down the price of fuel by 3c a litre, but since he has come to office we have seen an increase of between 3c and 15c a litre in the price of petrol. It is terribly difficult for us, particularly the farming and business communities, to continue at this rate. Another matter of concern is the Queensland electricity strike. It is important to remember that all workers who were sacked have been offered re-employment under certain conditions. It is also important to remember that they are covered by a no-strike clause. We in Queensland argue that it is absolutely vital that essential services be maintained. Those workers are getting extra pay and better conditions to work in those areas. They are privileged workers because of the amount of pay and the conditions, leave and so on, offered to them to work in those essential service areas, six or seven days a week if they have to, to maintain power. It is most important for us to remember that. Another matter mentioned in the Bill is extra funds for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The Department of Communications has an allocation of an extra $12m. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is not here, but I ask him to make sure that the satellite receiving dishes in western Queensland receive an ABC program produced in Queensland, including weather forecasts. Presently people in western Queensland are getting a forecast from Sydney. Mr Speaker, if you were sitting at home in your electorate receiving a forecast from Queensland, you would not be very happy about it. On the other hand, many Queenslanders have to watch a New South Wales forecast in a Sydney-produced program. They do not know what is going on. They do not know what their weather is going to be. Cyclones and all sorts of things crop up in inland Queensland and people, particularly in the electorate of Maranoa, want to know what is going on. Under the ABC's present arrangements, they do not have a clue because the present Government is not giving them the programs that they ought to be getting through the ABC and the new National program. There is a lot of good in the new National program. There is also a lot of bad. The transmission we are getting in outback Queensland is being produced in Sydney, and it is not good enough. All the graft and corruption in New South Wales being beamed into Queensland is more than we can take. It is something that we clean living people are not prepared to accept. I put it to the Minister that this extra money, this $12.201m, ought to be spent on giving the good people of Maranoa at least a program that is produced in Queensland, particularly a weather forecast. Those of us who live in the bush like to see a proper weather map every day, particularly at this time of the year when we have cyclones and so on. No other State would accept this situation. But, of course, Queensland has to take second best. We will not accept it any longer. I am asking the Minister to do something about it. This afternoon the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) told us that he was going to make airports commercial and profitable. I interjected. I was not named in this case-- Mr SPEAKER —I find that hard to believe! Mr IAN CAMERON —I do, too, but I interjected and suggested that, if it is good enough to expect airports to pay their way, it is good enough to expect the buses in Canberra to pay their way. They run at a $50m loss a year. Commonwealth railways run at a loss each year of $50m to $100m. I put it to honourable members that, if it is good enough for those others in country areas to make our airports pay, it is good enough for those who live in city electorates to make sure that this cuts across the board and that not just airports suffer. As you would know, Mr Speaker, aircraft flights in inland Australia are most important for the every day carrying out of business in Maranoa, Riverina-Darling and other electorates. I mentioned import parity petrol pricing. I am opposed to our parity pricing formula and I believe-- Mr Hollis —Doug Anthony brought it in. Mr IAN CAMERON —I know that Doug Anthony brought it in. I was not very happy at the time he brought it in and I assure honourable members that I voiced my objection at the time to Doug Anthony and the Fraser Government. I still argue that it is not the right formula. I do not believe we should fix our price of fuel on the price asked by nomad Arabs in the desert who get together and rip out of us $30 or $40 a barrel for crude oil. Yet we agree with them, cap in hand, and adjust our price accordingly. When Keating became Treasurer-the greatest disaster ever to hit this nation-he floated the dollar and up went the price of our own fuel. Mr Slipper —And the dollar sinks. Mr IAN CAMERON —The dollar sinks 20c at least. It has gone down 25c since the dollar was floated. Of course, the price of fuel has gone up accordingly. I see the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) at the table. I put it to him that we cannot make gains. When the dollar depreciates those of us in export industries get a trading advantage against other countries. That is why our dollar is going downwards. But interest rates are going up and fuel prices are going up. The real price of money today is at least 12 per cent. I put it to the House that that is the most we have ever had to pay for money. If one wants to borrow $100,000 or more one will pay nearly 17 per cent interest today. The banks have put interest rates up 2 1/2 to 3 per cent in the last month. This Labor Government claims that we have only 5 per cent inflation. If we take five from 17, we get 12 per cent; and that is the real interest rate we are paying. It has never been higher. Although we have picked up something from the devaluation, the Government announced today that fuel prices have gone up 3.9c a litre, the greatest rip-off since we started driving motor vehicles and had to use fuel. We have never seen an increase of that magnitude. Of course, interest rates have gone up as well. I turn to farm costs. The great white leader, the Prime Minister, is meeting with the National Farmers Federation at this time. That is why Keating is not here. I hope he is meeting the farmers, otherwise I would expect him to be here. They are meeting tonight at 7.30. Mr Beazley —You are lucky he is not here. Mr Ian Robinson —Guns or butter. Mr IAN CAMERON —Guns or butter, yes. At least the Government is meeting the farmers, but I would like to see some action. After today's meeting I would like to see the Government do something about tariffs, interest rates and fuel prices. I would like to see this Government give the farmers and small business people across this nation a fair go. I would like the Government to look at some of these rapidly increasing costs which it claims it is reducing but which are going through the roof. I conclude my remarks by referring to the controversy surrounding football and cricket. When I was a kid I felt it was good enough for us to have a game wherever we wanted. This Government seems to think we cannot go to Africa and certain parts of the world to play cricket. I just wonder how hypocritical the Government can get. It has allowed the Pick and Pay shopping centre, one of the biggest shopping centres set up in Brisbane in the last 12 months, to be set up by a South African company. Yet the Government says that we cannot trade with South Africa. The Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr West, has accepted a contract for work to be done at Brisbane Airport by a South African company. Mr Speaker, I ask you: Just how much more hypocritical can one get than that? Barclay Bros Pty Ltd, a Queensland company which missed out on this tender, has been to see the Minister and has asked him to look at the fact that he has given the contract to an overseas company. This Government is so hypocritical that it does not know whether it is coming or going. I think it is ridiculous that Qantas Airways Ltd is only allowed to fly to Harare. It ought to be allowed to fly to Johannesburg. I believe that our footballers and cricketers should be allowed to play sport where they want to do so. We should not use politics to interfere in their daily lives. Mr Milton —Have you been to South Africa? Mr IAN CAMERON —I have been to black Africa. I have been to lots of African states. I can assure the honourable member that the blacks in South Africa live a whole damn sight better than the blacks in any other part of Africa. Mr Milton —That is sheer nonsense. Mr IAN CAMERON —It is not. If one goes to Rhodesia, Mozambique and Kenya-all those places-one will see that the black Africans in South Africa have a better standard of living than the black Africans in any other country. What about Ethiopia? The honourable member should go to Ethiopia and see how well people live there. They are all starving. The socialists are running Ethiopia and the people there are starving to death. Australian wheat farmers are sending wheat by the ship load every month in order to keep those people alive. Without our operation they would all perish and die. The South Africans are trading and keeping them alive too. They send aid from the southern parts of Africa to those countries. All the black African countries in Africa which are socialist controlled are an absolute disaster. Mr Hollis —Crap! Mr IAN CAMERON —It is not. Has the honourable member been there to have a look? Mr Hollis —Three weeks ago. Mr IAN CAMERON —What did the honourable member find? Did he go to Ethiopia? How many people are starving in Ethiopia? Millions of people are starving there. This Government is totally hypocritical. I ask it to let our sportsmen go where they like. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(8.13) —The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron)-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr FITZGIBBON —I exaggerated his title in exactly the same way that he exaggerated some of the truthful statements which he might well have made in this House. It has been an interesting afternoon. Some of the revelations which have been made here this evening are downright unbelievable. One would have thought that honourable members opposite were about to judge the academy awards. We had the marvellous sense of humour displayed by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) who is, as somebody appropriately said, the mouth from the south. We had the hamming by the honourable member for Maranoa who, because of his gutter ignorance, was turfed out of this illustrious chamber last week. We welcome him back. We hope that his manners have improved. We have had play acting, distortions of the truth and histrionics. I suggest honourable members opposite look up the meaning of that word. We have had downright lying. In all fairness, I must ask: How short are the memories of the honourable members opposite? Have they forgotten the incompetence, the ineptitude, of their own handling of this economy? I am delighted that the Appropriation Bills provide me with the opportunity to comment on matters which concern the nation in general and my electorate in particular. I am pleased that an extra $362.5m is being sought by the Department of Defence. This Government is conscious of the defence needs of this nation. I take time here to state that there is no truth whatsoever in the nonsense rumour circulated by the members of the National Party of Australia in my electorate that the Singleton Army Base is to be phased out over four years. I assure the people in my electorate that there will be a strong Army presence in Singleton while ever I am alive and beyond. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) will be making a statement on the Singleton Army Base in the near future. Mr Ian Cameron —You might not live long. Mr FITZGIBBON —Honourable members opposite should not make me read out what I have in my pocket. The Singleton Army Base is a welcome neighbour in the Hunter Valley. It is essential to the economy of both Singleton and the Hunter Valley. This Government will not be so stupid as to throw aside the very large capital which the Department of Defence has invested in the Singleton township. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on what it has done for my electorate in its budgetary considerations. Recently I attended the opening of two senior citizens centres in my electorate. Those who use the centres are most appreciative of what this Government is doing to improve their enjoyment of their senior years. On Saturday, a 60-bed nursing home was opened in East Maitland. The nursing home was built with the assistance of a Federal grant of nearly $1m. This Government is not just mouthing empty promises to the senior citizens of the Hunter electorate; it is providing essential services. I thank the Department of Community Services and the Minister for Community Services, Senator Don Grimes, for the attention being given to my electorate. Maitland had a desperate need for a nursing home and the Hawke Government had delivered the goods. The Hunter electorate appreciates equally the so visible assistance being provided by the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Peter Morris. The Federal Government's new Australian land transport program, which was announced recently, will greatly benefit country roads in the Hunter electorate. The national highway program will provide unprecedented opportunities for the people who live in or visit the Hunter Valley. The improved road system will provide a major boost for the Hunter Valley's important tourist industry. The potential of our wine and tourist industries is virtually untapped. There is limitless potential. People are aware of this. There is not one detractor of the wonderful and innovative promotion being achieved by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the Hon. John Brown. However, while agreeing that our roads are in need of improvement, the achievements of the Labor Minister for Transport are superb compared with the ineptitude and the neglect that characterised the coalition's handling of roads when it was in government. I make this point: In 1981-82, when we had a coalition Federal government, the amount spent on Federal local road grants was $161.6m The amount to be spent in 1985-86 is $257.7m, an increase of 59.5 per cent. In the last year of the Fraser Government $685m was spent on total Federal road grants. This year $1,245m will be spent, an increase of 81.8 per cent. In the last year of the Fraser Government-I am sorry to embarrass the chaps opposite; I bet they wish to hide under their seats-$302.7m was spent on national road grants. This year $560m will be spent, an increase of 85.1 per cent. Another instance is the arterial roads grant. Under Fraser $220.7m was spent; this year $526.9m will be spent, an increase of 94.4 per cent. How embarrassed the chaps on the Opposition benches must be to hear their incompetence and ineptitude compared with the brilliant successes being achieved by a Labor government. I spoke in this House last week, and I will continue to speak in this House, of the disgraceful lack of sewerage in my electorate. That significant urban areas are without sewerage in this last quarter of the twentieth century is, as I have said before, a national scandal. The last genuine attempt to address the national sewerage backlog was the Sewerage Agreement Act in 1973 under the Whitlam Government's national sewerage program. In its last year of government a total of $118m was given to provide an essential facility to those people who live not in isolated farm houses but in urban areas and are denied this essential facility. I will not repeat my quip about Fraser denying people the opportunity to pull the chain, but let me say that Fraser just showed the concern he had for people who live in unsewered townships. We should bury our heads in shame. Due to the work of this Labor Government, there will be one chance-in October, at a national forum on infrastructure. We hope that that will do something to overcome the serious sewerage backlog. Mr Hodgman —I am with the honourable member on this one. We should flush the Prime Minister out. Mr FITZGIBBON —I am glad that the Charlie Chaplin from the south, that master of histrionics, is in my corner. If we do not do something we may all end up in the unmentionable, and we will deserve to. I turn now to another national tragedy, a problem which is particularly acute in the Hunter Valley. I refer, of course, to unemployment. This Government has done marvellously in its efforts to create employment. It has performed brilliantly compared with the hopeless ineptitude of the Fraser Government. The Hawke Government's initiatives deserve to be lauded but it is essential that we keep up those efforts to get out of the abyss of despair into which we were plunged through the muganomics of the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) while he was Treasurer. The Government is keeping up its efforts. Thankfully, in the Hunter electorate today the Federal Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the New South Wales Minister for Employment, the Hon. Bob Debus, announced the project involving the building of parks and community centres at Landcom estates. These Landcom estates in the Hunter region will be provided with much needed community facilities. These worthwhile developments will also create employment. There will be a total expenditure of $2.1m and 110 jobs will be created. We are seeing more money from this Government than we would have seen in a decade from the conservatives on the other side of this House. I make mention of a further problem, one which is expanding and which requires vast expenditure if it is to be checked. However we look at the subject, there is no rational explanation of why Australia should have a housing problem. Yet in Australia 138,000 people are on the waiting list for Housing Commission homes. The cost of meeting that great need, at a cost of, say $50,000 per house, amounts to a staggering $6.9 billion. The Government has done well with such measures as the first home owners scheme but the housing problem remains a mammoth one which needs to be addressed urgently. The Federal and State governments must make a more genuine attempt to meet the housing needs of the people they represent. Years of government inaction have caused this situation. In this respect I am not talking about a Labor government, I am talking about a conservative government which has occupied the treasury bench for the greater part of this century since Federation. If the responsibility for the things that are missing to make our lives what they should be lies anywhere, honourable members opposite know where it lies. They should hang their heads in shame. Years of government inaction have left Australians with a housing problem second only to unemployment in magnitude and social cost. It is a tragedy that drug abuse, crime and moral decay have caused our society to degenerate to a level which sees the virtual collapse of the family as a cohesive social unit. Instead we see the ascendancy of a general aimlessness and a loss of purpose which makes supported accommodation a growth industry. Recently there has been action in this House in an attempt to remedy that unfortunate state of affairs. Unfortunately, we live in a less than perfect society, a society where there is a booming need for crisis accommodation. Twenty years ago most members of this House had never heard of a refuge or a rape or crisis centre. What a tragedy it is that we now hear those words daily. It is pleasing that this Government is moving positively to address the need for supported accommodation. A program involving co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States is needed sorely because the problem of homelessness is nationwide. All States and the Northern Territory are in dire need of crisis and youth accommodation. The Australian newspaper of 8 March this year cited a figure of more than 25,000 homeless youth in Australia with crisis centres and youth refuges unable to meet the growing demand-this in International Youth Year. There are young people today who, because of family breakdown, unemployment or other factors, are leading lives which can only be described as nightmarish. Their lives are frightening and the problems of youth homelessness are frightening. So enormous and complex are these problems that I have a great fear that although this Government is increasing funding by 100 per cent this year it will not be enough. It will serve only to attack the symptoms rather than the causes of homelessness. We must recognise that homelessness is an expanding problem. Vast sums will be needed to check that expansion. In the electorate of Hunter we have stories which match those coming from other centres throughout the nation. It is necessary for the community to realise that the young homeless are not bums and dole bludgers. Certainly there are drug victims who need help but needing help also are those young people who are victims of emotional and sexual abuse and parental rejection. The media, the churches, the welfare workers and even members on the other side of this House recognise the need for crisis accommodation. Adequate food and shelter are fundamental to human rights and we must make every endeavour to ensure the provision of these basics for survival in life. We do not want our young people, our women or any male to be forced to sleep in the streets. Every community must have crisis accommodation. It is not good enough when there is one centre for several communities, or none at all. We do not want to read stories such as those which appeared in the Sunday Mail or the Hobart Mercury this year about homeless youths sleeping in Life Line bins. Another such story appeared in the West Australian the following day. It told of homeless and distressed young boys and girls engaging in prostitution. Too often we read reports about needed crisis accommodation centres closing because of the shortage of funds. Never again must we read such reports. I know that every member of this House is able to relate a gruesome, awesome and tragic story about a man, woman or child who has had an unmet need for supported accommodation assistance. In the Hunter electorate and in every other electorate people are doing magnificent work to alleviate the problem and the terror of homelessness, but willingness and strong arms are not enough without financial assistance. Governments must make sure that they do not fail those who are out in the field trying to create a better life for those whose need for help is desperate. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.33) —I sympathise with the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) on the problems of homelessness and people having difficulty in finding accommodation. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) understands those problems. He is the Opposition spokesman on housing and his complete involvement in the Parliament is to try to devise policies and strategies to provide homes for individuals right around Australia. The proposals that the honourable member for Hunter has put forward require the Government to crank up more money to deliver the projects he has outlined through a land commission and housing commissions. Those projects will not work unless the country has an inherent wealth and prosperity. I regret to inform the honourable member that the country does not have that inherent wealth and prosperity under the current policies of the Government. I believe that the Government is failing in its commitment to three strategic economic policies. I put to my friends opposite that the accord, the trilogy and the tax summit are not substitutes. They are catch cries which were used at election time in order to attract votes. Let us try to analyse them. I have told honourable members of my search for the trilogy. I found it fascinating and hopeless. It denies a real assessment of what we owe. It leaves out, by its very formula, the deficit. It does not deal with gross national product; it deals with gross domestic product. In this process the deficit is left out of the calculation on wages and taxation. Whilst we can talk about the domestic product in the way in which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) does, all those formulas do not accept that part of government activity is creating deficits. If we look at Australia's total and natural wealth we have to deduct from the black side of the ledger the red side of the ledger, which is the deficit. Whether it be a domestic or an international deficit we must take it into consideration. To work out some sort of formula which only relates taxation and government expenditure to the deficit is internalising the problem. The Government is not prepared to accept in any of its calculations where Australia stands in the world. It is not prepared to look at the grave international situation today. One has only to look at the value of the Australian dollar. I know that this subject is abhorrent to honourable members opposite because they have rejected the value of the Australian dollar as a measure of how Australia is regarded by the rest of the world. They have refused to recognise that people assess Australia by evaluating the Australian dollar against other currencies. There has been a lot of talk in the last few days about where the dollar is heading. I believe that if the Premier of Queensland is not successful-I believe he has been successful so far-the Australian dollar will hit $US0.50 or less. Others will see that one State of Australia can be put under seige by the union movement, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Federal Government. If that State cannot deliver essential services, having been put under seige, Australia will be seen as a country not worth investing in. People will make that judgment about Australia if the Premier of Queensland fails. I think it will be a dreadful judgment. The Prime Minister needs the Premier of Queensland. What a strange quirk of circumstance. The Prime Minister of Australia, to be successful in his strategies on economic management, needs the Premier of Queensland to succeed. Mr Cleeland —Have you read this report? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Mr CADMAN —He is not worrying me in the slightest. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is irrelevant. He is worrying the Chair. Mr CADMAN —I am sorry to hear that because he is quite a good fellow at heart. The Government has substituted for real action and policies three catchcries. The accord was an agreement on a wide range of topics entered into by the Australian Labor Party and the union movement. It developed into a granted spectacle, the National Economic Summit Conference. The accord was presented to the business community of Australia as being the way forward for Australia. That accord is part of the problem we have today. It is the reason for the ACTU having a very strong say on the tax issue, for instance, and on what sort of tax system we will have in Australia. The accord is responsible for the ACTU saying, as reported in the Australian Financial Review on 26 March: 'The ACTU will negotiate tax reform direct with the Federal Government consistent with the Way Forward document (a refined version of the prices and incomes accord).' That is the position of the ACTU. The Government was locked into it early in 1983 and still the very basis of the Government's policy on economic matters is controlled by the union movement. I have mentioned the union influence on the forthcoming tax summit. It seems to me that unless that summit is a government and national objective it is not worth the paper on which the proposal is written. I do not see how it will become a national objective if a very limited group of people attend it. Mr Risstrom, who is supposed to represent all taxpayers in Australia, says that he cannot understand the tax summit and that it ought to take place over many months. Mr Cleeland —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr Risstrom represents the Australian Taxpayers Association. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Would the honourable member for McEwen wait until he is recognised by the Chair? I ask the honourable member for Mitchell to resume his seat and I call the honourable member for McEwen on a point of order. Mr Cleeland —Madam Deputy Speaker, as a member of the Australian Taxation Institute, I am not represented by Mr Risstrom. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr CADMAN —I am delighted to hear the honourable member for McEwen make that admission because Mr Risstrom will be the only representative of taxpayers at the summit. If the honourable member is here he will not have a voice because in fact Mr Risstrom will be speaking for him. No other member of parliament will have a say, no small business individuals or pay as you earn individuals who are not members of unions will be able to speak in that forum. Less than 50 per cent of Australians belong to trade unions. They will be represented at the summit by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I do not regard that as equitable, fair or a proper assessment of what Australia needs in taxation reform. Mr Risstrom himself has said that it is too difficult and that the discussion ought to take months rather than one day. He has rejected many of the proposals put forward by the present Government or those proposals which will be presented to the Australian people on that day in the discussion paper presented by the Treasury. I have a score sheet on how the Australian Labor Party and the rest of the community are looking at tax reform. This score sheet is fascinating. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) says that he would like a broad-based indirect tax. He favours a retail sales tax and would like to see a personal income tax rate of 20 to 25 per cent. He really has not made up his mind about a capital gains tax because he is from New South Wales. However, he does not want a wealth tax or gift and death duties. I would have to say that basically the right wing supports the Treasurer. The Centre Left supports a broad-based indirect tax, cannot make up its mind about indirect taxes and wants a low or smaller cut in personal income tax. It is in favour of a capital gains tax, does not feel sure about a wealth tax and would like gift and death duties. I understand that the Left-- Mr Cleeland —Can you spell 'wealth'? Mr CADMAN —I am sorry if I am out of date. This article was published only three or four days ago. I know the Australian Labor Party changes its mind from day to day but this is only a few days old. These people of the Left, party to that dreadful spectacle we saw over the weekend, say they do not favour a broad-based indirect tax. They do not know about indirect taxes, but I suspect that they are against them. They would like cuts in personal income tax for low income earners. They want a capital gains tax, a wealth tax and gift and death duties. Industry right across the board and employers and employees have various attitudes about taxation. I believe the Prime Minister has undertaken one of the most tenuous operations of his career to try to establish here in this chamber the environment for a decision which the Government itself should be taking. Ideas will be ventilated and gathered from a selective few. The Government will then make up its mind. In the old days when there was no consultation of this sort I can remember that for weeks and weeks representatives of interest and welfare groups, pensioners, parents and citizens associations and small businessmen would troop down to the Cabinet room and over lunch or dinner spend two or three hours explaining their views to the Cabinet. Now that we are to have consultation in a one day conference with all the vested interest groups here most of the individuals and important people in Australia will be left outside. I really am regretful that the Australian community does not understand that the Government's so-called consultation will be limited and confined to the elite and select. In fact, it will not tap the real chords of Australian thought. I think that is regrettable. In doing this the Australian Labor Party is losing contact in a policy sense with the most significant groups in Australia. It is all right for honourable members to say they are in touch with those views. I have seen Australian Labor Party members work unsuccessfully in this chamber to try to adjust the assets test. What those honourable members opposite fail to do as back bench members of the Australian Labor Party is to have impressed upon the Government the strength of their views resulting from contact with the Australian electorate and have policies changed. In the bad old days, as honourable members opposite would represent them, people were consulted by the Cabinet and by the Government. That is where the Government today will go astray in formulating the next Budget. It will have the experts, the whiz kids and the elite few decide for it. The tax summit will be an important economic factor which this Government has really nailed its flag to. The tax summit, the accord and the trilogy spoken of at the last election are the three economic factors which the Government should immediately be giving attention to. May I make some recommendations to the Government. I would scrap the tax summit because it is a fiasco. The Government will not come out of that with any worthwhile decisions at all. The Government knows all the facts that need to be known. If the Government does not have that collective wisdom on its benches it ought not to be in government. If honourable members opposite do not know what is happening in the community, what the needs of the community are and the way in which tax should be readjusted, they have no right to be members of this Parliament. Yet the Government, supported by the ACTU, will go ahead with the charade of the tax summit. The Government will be paying court to the ACTU. The Government will continue with the accord. However, I would scrap the accord also. The Government needs to give itself the freedom to say that Joh was right. In come areas of industrial relations the Government has to be able to set rules that can be abided by. In fact, the Premier of Queensland is the envy of the Premier of New South Wales, who, in regard to essential services, would like to do exactly the same things as the Premier of Queensland. However, he dare not do that. He does not have the courage, but he would love to pick up some of the elements of the essential services legislation currently operating in Queensland. Perhaps he would not like all of it. However, he will not tackle any of that problem. This Government needs to tackle those difficult problems itself. It must break with the accord and must break the control the union movement has over its policy. In regard to the trilogy, I say that until the Government is prepared to accept that Australia really is in debt it will not be able to establish an Australian dollar of real worth, value or recognition in the world. I suggest that the level at which this Government operates was outlined recently in a letter from the head office of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party to Federal members of Parliament asking them to provide stationery paper clips, pens and pencils, rubbers and biros to prop up the failing fortunes of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party. That letter appealed to all Victorian members of this House to assist it in that way. That is the level of government economic management. When the Prime Minister gets into trouble in regard to these sorts of issues he calls a few selective Press conferences which he hopes will gather back to him the aura of esteem and regard that he used to have. Let us deal just briefly with the other factor running against the Government. This concerns foreign affairs and our relationships with the rest of the world. I know that in the eyes of honourable members opposite it is a good thing that there is a Labour Government in New Zealand. That attitude is part of the problem that the Australian Labor Party has in regard to our foreign relations. We used to have a treaty called the ANZUS Treaty which was a broad statement of intention between three nations-the United States, New Zealand and Australia. One of the parties to that agreement decided that it wanted to vary the details of the contract. I suppose that is completely appropriate if that partner to the agreement wishes to vary the context of the contract. For weeks we saw the Australian Government trying to assess its position. Whilst in the United States the Prime Minister one day issued a joint statement with the Secretary of State and said that he was with the United States all the way and that whatever it wanted to do was all right with him. Within a few hours he had to retract that Press statement and issue a fresh one saying that he really did not mean that the strategic modernisation program was something that the Australian community accepted and that he was rejecting that part of the American formula. So after all this time we still do not have an effective agreement with the United States. We have the remnants of ANZUS, but there has been no tight negotiation to find out where we stand, nation to nation. Madam Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that if you, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and I were to enter into an agreement and the Minister for Defence decided at some stage that he wanted to vary that agreement, you and I would have to talk to each other to understand fully where we stood under the changed relationship. That has not happened in these circumstances. Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may continue the analogy, you have spoken to the Minister for Defence and so have I-the Australians have spoken to the New Zealanders and the New Zealanders have spoken to the Americans. But what needs to happen in more detail is that Australian and New Zealand need to understand where they stand and what are the precise circumstances which apply at any one time. What would happen if there were problems in the Cook Islands and the United States were required to bring a nuclear-powered vessel to the area? Where would the New Zealanders stand in those circumstances? Would we join them? What would be the relationships in those circumstances? Mr Cleeland —You tell us. Mr CADMAN —I cannot tell you. The honourable member is a member of the Government and he does not even know what the position would be. Government members do not have a clue. They do not know where they stand and neither do the people of Australia. The Australian people need to be sure in regard to defence matters. We need to know what our security arrangements are, where we are going and what are the circumstances of our relationship with others. There is no understanding at the moment between Australia and the United States. There is a tenuous coming together between Australia and New Zealand. I fear that that coming together between Australia and New Zealand will be at the expense of the defence vote. Australia's defence will be discounted so that we can conduct more exercises with New Zealand and so that we can prop up New Zealand in its defence effort. That is what will happen in the Budget. The Budget will be depleted. There will be no extra money to cover the changed relationship between Australia and New Zealand. There will be less money for the real defence commitments that this nation needs to have. Let me conclude by saying that this Government is not prepared to accept the circumstances of the world as it stands. It is not prepared to say that we need to have a strong commitment to world peace. That can be achieved only by a balance of power-not by a domination of the Soviet Union, not by showing favouritism to the United States, but by a balance of power. The situation at the moment is that the Soviet Union has a predominance and we are foolish if we do not recognise it. The Government must recognise the build up in Cam Ranh Bay in our South East Asian area. It must realise that for the first time the Soviet Union has a true external port from which it can operate into the South Pacific. The Government has failed to do so. All of the decisions of the Government-be they in relation to economic matters or foreign affairs-tend to be such that it operates for the day and for the popularity polls, and not from a sense of responsibility. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(8.53) —Consideration of the Appropriation Bills is a regular procedure for the Parliament. They arise each year at this time and they are intended to carry out the adjustments that become necessary in the course of time in regard to the detail of the Budget that was adopted in August of the previous year. The adjustments become necessary because of changes in costs and prices, changes in the exchange rate, and because of reappropriations and adjustments in government decisions since August of the previous year. In order to give legislative effect to the appropriation of funds for all of those purposes, it is necessary for us to consider these Appropriation Bills. They are extremely important to the Government and the operation of the Parliament. They concern matters of detail, but they are extremely important. In addition to the matters of detail contained within the Bills, of equal importance is the necessity for the Government on occasions of this kind to reassert the general objectives that were set in the Budget as a whole. I know that the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), the member of the Opposition who spoke previously, ranged over a very wide area that was of concern to him. But there was one particular point made by the honourable member for Mitchell in connection with the general objectives of the Budget and the general objectives of the Government's economic strategy and I would like to take up that issue first. The honourable member for Mitchell suggested that the Government should abandon the prices and incomes accord. I think I heard him correctly; I think he would stand by that position. I think it is a very unfortunate position for the honourable member to adopt. He was a member not only of the previous Parliament but also of the Parliament before that, when the Party to which he belongs formed part of the coalition government. He was a member of this Parliament for a considerable period before that as well. He was here during the time when the Australian economy was constantly deteriorating. The economic strategy which the coalition parties adopted-the coalition to which he belongs and to which he owes his allegiance-was responsible for bringing about in the coalition's last year of government, for the first time in probably 50 years, negative economic growth in Australia. Its economic policies were also responsible for bringing about a situation in which the inflation rate was continuing at 11.5 per cent and unemployment had reached 10.4 per cent. So both inflation and unemployment were high and growth was negative. There has never been a period in the history of the Commonwealth when any economic strategy applied by any government had such appalling results. What it has been possible for this Government to implement in the relatively short period in which we have been in government-and I believe it is one of the major factors contributing to the incredible and outstanding economic success of this Government-has been precisely the prices and incomes accord that the honourable member for Mitchell believes should be abandoned. Mr Slipper —This Government is a disaster. Mr ROBERT BROWN —That prices and incomes accord has made it possible for this Government to provide an expansionary economic strategy, to bring about economic growth and at the same time to bring down inflation. The combination of those two elements-significant economic growth and declining inflation-has not been achieved on comparable levels by any comparable country in the developed world. The results speak for themselves. It is completely unreasonable for members of the Opposition to make the claim, which they have repeatedly made and which was echoed a short time ago by way of a quite foolish interjection from one member of the Opposition, that this Government has in any way been deficient as far as its economic objectives or economic success are concerned. It has been unquestionably a government of great achievement. We need refer to nothing other than the national accounts figures for the December quarter. Real non-farm product, seasonally adjusted, grew by a strong 1.4 per cent in that quarter and provided total growth of 5.1 per cent over 1984. That is non-farm growth, or real economic growth in the non-farm sector. It is particularly relevant that in the first year of this Government, following those disastrous years of the Fraser Government-and the most disastrous of them all, the last year of the Fraser Government, when economic growth was negative, when Australia had gone into reverse, when the Australian economy, together with employment, were in states of free fall-we were able to achieve the highest level of growth that had been achieved in Australia in any post-war period and the highest level of growth of any member country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in the advanced Western world. Over the year we achieved an economic growth in real terms of 10 per cent, and year on year we achieved economic growth of 6 per cent. Of that 6 per cent 4 per cent only was in the non-farm sector. So this year there has been a further improvement when one sees that the real growth in the non-farm sector is running at a rate of about 5 per cent compared with 4 per cent in the first year of the Hawke Government. Therefore, the improvement continues and those quite outstanding results can be repeated over and over again. I also want to make a quick reference to the fact that not only has this Government been outstandingly successful in its achievements as a result of a constructive, integrated, co-ordinated and sensible economic policy which it has implemented, but a Commonwealth Government has been prepared to accept for itself an economic discipline of a kind which has never previously been accepted. I refer to the trilogy-well, it started off as a trilogy but has now become a quintet. I shall refer to why I now call it a quintet. Everyone is aware, or should be aware, of the original trilogy. First, we said that we would not increase Commonwealth taxation revenue as a proportion of gross domestic product. That commitment was clearly given. Secondly, we undertook not to increase Commonwealth expenditure at a faster rate than economic growth. Thirdly, we undertook not to allow the deficit to grow as a percentage of GDP. Dr Harry Edwards —Do you think you will achieve them? Mr ROBERT BROWN —I have no doubt that we will achieve them. The honourable member for Berowra is the most enlightened economic thinker on the Opposition benches. He should be down on the front bench because he makes a greater and more effective contribution than half the troglodytes who sit on the Opposition front bench now. He asks whether I think the trilogy will be achieved. Of course it will be achieved. Not only will it be achieved in this coming Budget in the next financial year; it will be achieved in terms of the nature of the commitment that was given. That was that it will be achieved in the next financial year as a result of the application of the Budget. That will be confirmed and we will be satisfied that it will be achieved. In addition, it will be achieved over the term of this Parliament on an average basis. They were the first three undertakings given by the Prime Minister in the lead-up to the last election. Since then the Government, through the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), has decided to apply an even more rigid economic discipline to the approach we are taking to economic policy and general budgetary or fiscal strategy. We have now decided as well not only to ensure that the deficit does not grow as a proportion of GDP but, in addition, to reduce the deficit in nominal terms. This year we were budgeting for a deficit of about $6.7 billion. Even if we were to maintain that level of Budget deficit because of the increase in prices, it would represent a reduction in the deficit in real terms. We have decided to reduce it even further than that. Assuming that the present appearance of the economy and international economic factors remain essentially as they are at the moment and that there is no need for any type of crisis response to another situation, we will bring the Budget deficit for the next financial year in aggregate down to about $6 billion to $6.2 billion, I would imagine. That will make a substantial contribution to the preservation of confidence in the economy. The last thing we have undertaken to do is to not allow the beneficial results to government revenue of the more recent depreciation to be used to reduce in any way or to ease the spending constraints that we have imposed on ourselves. Rather, those financial benefits to Commonwealth revenue from depreciation will be used either to reduce the deficit further or to reduce labour costs. In that connection I want to express a concern. The economic achievements of this Government have been more than substantial. They have been outstanding. The economic achievements continue to be made, and yet at present some newspaper editorials are expressing concern about a number of economic circumstances, and advantage has been taken of the opportunity to start to question this Government's economic credentials. I have doubts about what exactly motivates responses of that kind. I have said before that the facts speak for themselves and the facts undoubtedly indicate, in glowing terms, the outstanding results that this Government has been able to bring about as a result of the application of coherent, effective and, above all, successful economic policies. Mr EWEN CAMERON(Indi)(9.07) —The Appropriation Bills we are debating tonight concern money and the Government's responsibility to the people of Australia in money matters. I wish to speak up in support of the poor old Australian motorist who has been taken to the cleaners by successive governments and will, no doubt, continue to be taken to the cleaners by future governments. On 8 March 1979 I raised a matter of public importance in this House regarding motor vehicle emission controls. I referred to the importation by both Federal and State governments of a set of United States rules for motor vehicle emission control. I referred to the dumping of these rules on the poor old motorist with little regard for our unique demographic and meteorological conditions. I referred to the failure of governments to conduct cost impact studies and cost-benefit analyses, and a lack of regard for cost effective ratios. We now appear to be entering the next stage in this costly farce. Once again the poor old Australian motorist will be the meat in the sandwich. Recent newspaper headlines have highlighted the introduction of unleaded petrol on to the Australian market. The decision to introduce a national policy for more stringent emission controls was taken in 1981 by agreement between State and Federal Transport Ministers. The policy calls for the introduction of unleaded petrol at service station outlets in July this year. After 1 January 1986 all new passenger vehicles will be fitted with catalytic converters and will be required to run exclusively on unleaded petrol. The decision to change over to unleaded petrol was made in response to concern expressed by health authorities and conservationist groups which claim that pollution levels in Australian cities are too high. Emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide from motor vehicles contribute to photochemical smog in the atmosphere. Existing emission controls fitted to vehicles since 1976 are not performing adequately. However, a table of frequency of smog episodes, based on data obtained from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the New South Wales State Pollution Control Commission and the Victorian Environment Protection Authority show that in 1983 in Los Angeles, where about 50 per cent of cars had catalytic converters fitted, more than 80 days of the 90-day summer season had at least one hour when the ozone level was greater than 0.12 parts per hundred million. The National Health and Medical Research Council set that 0.12 parts per million standard in 1979. It has suggested that this level not be exceeded more than once a year. However, a warning is not issued unless the ozone level reaches more than 0.25 parts per million. According to the same table, in 1983 Sydney had approximately six days and Melbourne approximately 24 days with an ozone reading higher than 0.12 parts per million for one hour or more. While readings of this magnitude are not to be condoned, it is interesting to note that in Sydney since 1975, during the summer season the highest number of smoggy days peaked in 1977, with 40 days. Since that year Sydney has experienced fewer than 10 smoggy days in any one year. Melbourne's highest number of smoggy days per annum since 1974 was in 1983. In 1978 and 1981 there was only one day with an ozone reading above 0.1 parts per million. Los Angeles's lowest number of smoggy days during the nine-year period was 42 in 1983. One could be forgiven for drawing the conclusion from these statistics that fitting motor vehicles with catalytic converters and the use of unleaded petrol have very little to do with ozone levels. It would seem that governments acted too hastily in imposing the changeover to unleaded petrol in Australia. No consideration appears to have been given to the vast areas of Australia where pollution levels do not even remotely approach this figure. In my speech on a matter of public importance in 1979 I referred to this situation: The problem is confined to a few square kilometres in the centres of our largest cities and all motoring Australians living and working outside those areas are asked to pay for a problem which is theirs neither in manufacture nor consumption. Motorists from all over Australia are carrying this heavy cost day in and day out for the benefit of those who live and work in the centres of metropolitan Melbourne and Sydney, and even then possibly to ease a problem which exists for a very few days in the year. The imposition of these emission controls is, in the main, a direct result of traffic congestion caused by poor inner city traffic management and a lack of efficient trans-central business networks. Mark Grenning, the 1984 winner of the Committee for Economic Development of Australia prize for his thesis 'Australian Motor Vehicle Emission Policy 1970-96', alleges that policies chosen by bureaucrats and politicians were inefficient, that there had been an overstatement of our cities pollution problems, that inappropriate United States policies had been adopted and that there had been little consideration of alternative approaches. One recent media report states: 'Catalytic technology has been proven over ten years in the United States and Japan.' It may have been proven, but the question is whether it has been proven to be effective or ineffective. Late last year Mr James Creal, President of the American Automobile Association, addressed the annual meeting of the Australian Automobile Association. Alluding to lead free petrol, he said: With things going so well for you 'down under', why in the world would you want to follow our lead in matters as important as the environment? Mr Creal went on to discuss some of the problems which occurred in the United States when lead free petrol was introduced and problems which are now current 10 years later. He said that there is still debate in the United States as to whether taking lead out of one grade of petrol was a significant ecological benefit. Looking at the Los Angeles pollution levels, it would appear that it was not. Mr Creal went on to say that there were still questions as to the technology involved in cars needing unleaded petrol and that there were concerns about unleaded fuel as far as availability, price and quality were concerned. He warned about the potential for misfuelling and vehicle tampering and the consequent lowering of environmental expectations from these actions. A recent headline in the Age stated that there will be a maximum fine of $800 for deliberate use of leaded petrol in vehicles designed to take unleaded petrol. Maybe this pressure on the hip pocket nerve will reduce the incidence of this practice in Australia. Liquid organic lead alkyls are added to petrol to increase its octane rating. Lead additives allow high quality petrol to be produced with a minimum of refining, thereby saving Australia many millions of barrels of crude oil every year. Lead will be removed from petrol because it will destroy the metals used in manufacturing the catalytic converters. Government authorities determined the optimum octane rating for Australian unleaded petrol as 92. Vehicles manufactured after the January 1986 deadline will have lower compression ratios than present vehicles. It is interesting to note that in America the octane rating had to be lifted from the original 91 to 96 because of complaints regarding engine knocking. As the Australian decision was partially based on the need to cut down on the consumption of crude oil in the refineries and to cut down on costs, it seems likely that it was badly conceived. Australian motorists may ultimately have to pay more for their unleaded petrol in order to regain the level of vehicle performance being currently experienced. It does nothing to increase our confidence to read in the December 1984 issue of the Institute of Training Standards magazine: The new standard, AS 1876.2-Unleaded Petrol, is concerned primarily with the performance of unleaded petrol, particularly in terms of its anti-knock value. Requirements for properties such as distillation range and vapour pressure have not been specified because of the wide range of climatic conditions encountered across Australia and the necessity of varying these properties according to season and location. The original estimated cost of a catalytic converter was $250. That estimate has now risen to $400 and some manufacturers have suggested $750. According to the Petroleum Gazette of spring 1984 these converters are: . . . intended to last the life of the vehicle and should need no maintenance. Mr Creal, in his address to the Australian Automobile Association said: We're now into the third generation of catalytic converters. Those on late-model US vehicles are capable of reducing not only carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions, but also oxides of nitrogen which contribute to urban smog. Some believe catalytic converters forced US automakers into the computer age. To control emissions, some newer US cars are now equipped with computerised fuel injection, oxygen censors, electronic readouts and diagnostic capabilities. Though sophisticated, they are still fragile. And too many motorists-perhaps two of every dozen-drive round with their catalysts totally destroyed from fuel-switching or improper engine maintenance. We are seeing signs, too, that new catalysts may last no longer than 30,000 miles, instead of the 50,000-mile warranties they carry. American experience has seen a move to three-way converters, which are more expensive and more complicated than those being used now. Platinum, rhodium and palladium, which are used in manufacturing converters, are supplied primarily by South Africa and the Soviet Union. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that greater demand for these metals will lead to an increased price for them. A recent engineering report states that no catalyst so far in service lasts more than about 30 minutes at speeds in excess of 125 kilometres per hour. Whilst I acknowledge that the speed limit on Australian roads is 100 kilometres per hour, studies have shown that speeds on the open highway are generally above the posted speed limit and that towing of caravans, horse floats and boats, making the engine work harder, is commonplace. One source quotes examination of a catalyst which had failed after about 2,000 kilometres at 125 kilometres per hour. In the United States new emission testing equipment must be installed at all service stations as present emission measuring systems are inadequate. The New Jersey Department of Environment Protection reports about a 25 per cent failure in catalysts. The catalysts have been found to suffer from melt-down or casing failures. The melt-down is caused by the hydrocarbon part of the catalyst detecting a high level of unburnt hydrocarbon and attempting to deal with it. This causes excessively high temperature which in turn burns out the inner casing even when it is of stainless high temperature steel. The condition can occur for a number of reasons, including spark plug failure, incorrect mixture, failure of the oxygen sensor or a failed air cleaner. When catalyst failure is detected, the average catalyst replacement cost is about $US300, plus tax, plus labour. The actual air pollution figures in New Jersey are not showing an improvement. In fact, ozone levels are increasing and fuel consumption by new cars has increased over that being experienced prior to the introduction of emission controls. The possibility of ignition advance is negated by the fact that drivers in New Jersey do not appreciate a knocking engine, any more than I expect Australian motorists do. There is a problem with fuel quality in the United States. Uncontrolled use of methanol has occurred and the oil companies use it as blending stock without regulation. As there is a growing demand for unleaded super and other high quality unleaded gasolines there is a growing temptation to use even more methanol to boost octane at the expense of other qualities. The cost of methanol is well below the cost of conventional fuel and it can be purchased from many sources. Although data on fuel blending is supposed to be supplied on a continuous basis to the United States Environment Protection Agency for comparison tests, information is not supplied by jobbing blenders or corner garages. With the addition of only 12 per cent methanol, the fuel creates drivability problems which encourage motorists to top up with other fuels, including leaded fuel. The problems involved with the use of unleaded petrol are legion. To get back to our friend Mr Creal, why would we want to follow the lead of the United States in this matter? In 1980 the Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions, on whose report the unleaded petrol decision was based, estimated that the cost of changeover to catalytic converters and unleaded petrol would cost the nation $1,000m for the 10 years from 1986 to 1996. About half this is the cost of the conversion of facilities and half is for the motorist. All in all, it is proving a most expensive exercise with a doubtful result. A recent report by the Committee of Common Market Automobile Constructors to the European Economic Community Commission claims that high compression, lean-burn engines are better than catalytic converters for reducing harmful exhaust emissions. The submission points out that the European air quality in 1982 was very similar to that in the United States despite the use of catalysts and stringent emission control in that country. The estimated annual cost of unleaded petrol to motorists within the EEC would top $US2,000m with an increase in annual energy consumption of more than four million tonnes of crude oil equivalent. The decision to change to unleaded petrol in Australia cannot now be revoked. However, it is important that we take heed of the lessons we have learned. Future environmental issues must be addressed with objectivity and decisions must be made after consideration of reasoned and reasonable advice. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(9.25) —Speaking in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1984-85 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1984-85 gives me the opportunity to express a number of concerns which I have in relation to the social, political and economic issues which affect young people. In this respect, I was most impressed by the recent policy response produced by the Youth Affairs Council of Australia, the recommendations of which I will draw to the attention of honourable members later in my speech. At this stage there is a matter in relation to the policies of the Federal Government which I wish to cover. I would like to express my particular support for the Federal Australian Labor Party Caucus decision not to reintroduce tertiary education fees-not that I have any particular doubt about the decision, because the Federal platform of the Australian Labor Party makes the matter very clear. It appears to me that both the media and the Opposition members of this House are unaware of the pledge which Labor parliamentarians make to uphold the policies contained in the Party platform. Of course, it is true that where the policy is broadly defined or there is a reasonable time frame for implementation, the Government has some flexibility in carrying out any specific policy. But when the policy is clear, as was the case with tertiary education fees, I was puzzled about the reasons for the media speculation and, indeed, even the need for subsequent Caucus debate. The Party platform states quite unequivocally that a Labor government will 'maintain the provision of free tertiary education'. It underlines that statement by explicitly stating that in particular a Labor government will 'provide post-secondary education without fees'. I take this opportunity to point out to the media, to the Opposition and to the public in general that when any particular Party policy is explicitly stated in the current Party platform it is out of place to speculate that the Government would not adhere to that policy in view of the pledge which all Labor parliamentarians make when they accept nomination as a Labor Party candidate for the Federal Parliament. I would now like to proceed to a discussion of the main concerns that I have about the future for young people in Australia. I commend the Government on its foresight in appointing the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs under the chairmanship of Peter Kirby. The Committee was required to assess the extent to which the range of training and work experience programs inherited from the previous Government meet the labour market objectives of the present Government and make recommendations for necessary improvements. At the same time as the Kirby report was released, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development also produced a report entitled 'A Review of Youth Policies' which largely paralleled the findings of the Kirby report. However, one of the main problems with the Kirby report was that its terms of reference restricted the members of the Committee to dealing with labour market programs only. The report dealt hardly at all with the more crucial issue of job creation. However, there is no doubt that the report does provide a useful basic approach on which a comprehensive approach to unemployment can be built. Mrs Darling —Very thorough. Mr MILTON —I thank the honourable member for that comment. A major recommendation of the Kirby report was the recommendation that the community youth support scheme be developed into a permanent Australian youth service. As recommended in the report, the Government is currently consulting widely with all the government and non-government bodies involved in youth affairs. The Government is to be commended for taking such swift action on a proposal which has wide ramifications for the future development of youth affairs in Australia. The Kirby report analyses the problems of joblessness in Australia and indicates the need for young people to become better educated. Unfortunately, it is in this part of the report that there emerges the failure, as I see it, to grapple with the real problem of unemployment resulting from a lack of job opportunities. There is no doubt that our young people need to participate in a wide variety of educational programs at secondary and tertiary level, thus enabling them to better face the complexities of our modern society; but a greater participation in education of itself will not provide job opportunities, only government intervention to assist our manufacturing sector, in particular to restructure old industries and to create new industries, will provide new jobs. As I have said in this House on a number of occasions, the industry development plan of the metal workers unions points the way for the Government, and I am hopeful of a positive response from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in respect of the recommendations of that plan. It is not my intention in this appropriations debate to go through all the recommendations of the Kirby report; I would only note here that the traineeship scheme, as recommended by the Committee, involves proposed extensions to the present training system. In my view, the level of training wages for participants in the scheme cannot be divorced from the wages of all other trainees. There must be a commitment to ensure that all trainees receive a level of income adequate to provide a reasonable standard of living. In a number of respects the proposed scheme will not be satisfactory to the union movement, not only because of the proposed dilution of wages but also because of the short term nature of the proposed traineeships. With the rapidly changing life-styles and work technology of the late twentieth century, it is vital that any form of youth training recognise the need for flexibility and a broad base of skills. Such skills must include an ability to adapt not only to occupational needs but also to rapidly changing social structures. Leisure, for example, will undoubtedly become a major pursuit of people in the twenty-first century and unless we want to produce a generation of work-oriented psychotics our education system must recognise the need to train for leisure. I turn now to the youth policy report of the Youth Affairs Council of Australia which I mentioned earlier in this speech. The YACA has proposed a national youth employment strategy with the three main components: First, economic assistance to employers; secondly, public authority youth employment quotas; and, thirdly, a national job generation program. I commend the YACA youth strategy to the House and refer more directly to the main components of that strategy. Economic assistance to employers is already provided by the Federal Government through a wide range of direct and indirect subsidies. Some $150m in direct employment subsidies will be provided in the 1984-85 financial year. I support the view of the YACA that, instead of this funding being used for short term jobs, it should be used to facilitate the development of full time jobs. Also, some $1,053m is provided in the 1984-85 financial year for indirect subsidies to specific industries. The strategy proposes a 'jobs audit' whereby the employment goals of each subsidy are identified and the recipients required to show that the subsidy has resulted in an increase in jobs. This would take place within an industry planning framework of support for future job generation. Existing Commonwealth employment practices have resulted in a significant decline in the employment of young people employed in Commonwealth departments and public authorities. The Bureau of Labour Market Research has shown that 70,000 additional young people would have been employed within the public sector in 1981 if the public sector had maintained its share of the employment market over the preceding 10 years. It is notable that the draft Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development review of Australian youth policies contained a recommendation that Australian authorities should adopt policies of positive discrimination in favour of young people, but it would appear that this recommendation was deleted from the final report. If that deletion was made, it was most unfortunate. I support the call of the YACA for the Federal Government to establish annual targets for youth employment within the Public Service and that the Government use the program of funding and grants to State and Territory governments and semi-government authorities to adopt policies of positive discrimination in favour of young people. Of course, such a policy must be combined with a policy of early retirement for all Public Service employees. In this respect the introduction of a national superannuation scheme, which I know has the support of some Minister in the Government, is long overdue. Finally, the YACA national youth employment strategy calls for a national job generation program. The proposal is that the community employment program be upgraded and developed into a new job generation program. The program would involve the creation of economic development projects specifically designed to generate worthwhile permanent jobs. Community employment committees could be created at a regional level, comprising representatives of local employers, community and service groups, local union delegates and young people from CYSS-the community youth support scheme-groups or schools, with the task of researching, developing and providing viable employment generation programs. The funding for the programs would be provided by a national job generation fund which would be funded by Commonwealth and State governments, based on a formula which takes into account the level of unemployment in the region concerned. The national job generation fund would provide capital, employment subsidies or grants, depending upon the nature of the project. The community employment committees would of course, need to be provided with administrative and professional support by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. I commend the Youth Affairs Council of Australia for its initiative in producing a most comprehensive youth policy report and trust that the Government will give it full consideration and, perhaps, even anticipate the recommendations by funding some of the proposals within the framework of the Appropriation Bills which we are debating. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(9.37) —I rise to speak on the consequences of the Government's proposition that Additional Estimates totalling $564m be approved by this Parliament. We have just listened to the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), who extolled a lot of the virtues of what might be described as, yet again, the promises of euphoria for a section of the community. I regard this contribution, and many of the others made in the debate, only as a re-run of the charisma approach of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who for so long now has used nothing but subterfuge to extol a collapse of this country's economic status and who has, of course, denied this country and its young people the kind of opportunities that the honourable member for La Trobe now advocates. I remind him that in the election campaign only six months ago a definite promise was made to the unemployed that there would be some funding for small business to enable applicants to establish businesses of their own as an alternative to unemployment. I ask the honourable member for La Trobe: What happened to that promise that was to help young people who had a proposition to put? The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is now very carefully back-pedalling on the promise. Anyone who inquires about it gets a stereotype answer which says: 'We have not yet worked the scheme out. We have not yet reached the stage where it can be proposed for implementation. You will have to think again. Sometime in the future we might reach that stage'. So we go through the litany of broken promises. Yet, speaker after speaker on the Government side has painted a rosy picture of what might be done in the immediate future in so many directions. What has happened to the charisma of the Prime Minister in terms of real action? We do not see it. Mr Milton —We have created jobs. Mr IAN ROBINSON —The honourable member comes right in and says: 'We have created jobs'. How about looking at the statistics as to the real deficiencies compared with the promises? We are not even halfway towards the target offered to the people of this country. Yet we find that funding for the community employment program has virtually dried up until the next Budget. The Government is just fooling the people by saying that there are more jobs and there are still more to come, because that is far from the truth. A very swift about turn is occurring in many directions. We had it last week in terms of the home grants scheme. There was a reduction of $1,000 in the top ceiling and graduated reduction from that ceiling. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has had to prune back road funding. Minister after Minister has told us, as we heard in Question Time even today, that it is not possible to provide for all of the undertakings that were given by the Government which occupies the front bench at present. Mr Adermann —Petrol goes up all the time too. Mr IAN ROBINSON —My colleague reminds me about the promise on petrol. The election campaign promise was that the price of petrol would be reduced by at least 2c a litre. Since the election the price has not stopped going up. Today we heard the decision of the Government to take it up at least another 3.5c. Mr McVeigh —How much? Mr IAN ROBINSON —The price may go up by 3.9c a litre. That is yet another broken promise. I want to refer to a particular aspect of the pro- position before us; that is, the provision of funds to a range of departments so they are able to carry on until the Budget. We heard nothing in the speech which was made to the House when the Bills were introduced that gave any hope at all for areas of real hardship within the community. I am concerned particularly about primary industry. There was a debate about that subject earlier today. I refer to a letter which I received from the Prime Minister concerning the sugar industry. It said: The outcome of those discussions . . . was an agreement to form a tripartite working party comprising representatives from Commonwealth and Queensland governments and the industry. The charter of the working party is to develop a sugar industry plan in the next 100 days . . . My approach to the Prime Minister was in relation to the problems confronting the industry in New South Wales. Yet the reply I received totally ignored the industry in New South Wales. Of course, there is a very positive association between the New South Wales industry and the Queensland industry. I am sure that there will be a recognition of New South Wales, but why is this not acknowledged by the Federal Government through the Prime Minister in his response to approaches that are made on this subject? Today I received a very interesting letter from a constituent which said: I am extremely worried about Australia's future and I am at long last getting off my apathetic backside and writing letters of protest to this Government's socialist politicians. I think that some sections of the letter are worthy of mention in this House. Mr Cowan —We are getting a lot of these. Mr Hollis —From Doug Anthony. Mr IAN ROBINSON —If the honourable member wants to know the constituent's name I will be very glad to furnish it to him. He can establish the authenticity of the letter. I do not intend to use a name in this House. If the honourable member sees me after the debate I will be glad to let him have the information. The letter stated: Dear Mr Hawke, You are not the same man Australians voted for. You've lost your charm, popularity and credibility. Your 75% popularity did'nt last long. Why is your government stuffing up this country? We are really going to the dogs. Before the elections I saw you on the Mike Walsh Show, and you said that all rural industries would need to have government assistance as the rural industry was vital to the economy of Australia and their exports were worth 50% odd of our total export market. If our rural industries fail, we will have to import, and that will mean our costs of living will go up. It will be my job, when I am returned to power, to convince city people that we have to rely on and assist our rural industries. My government is for the good of all Australians. Those were the words of the Prime Minister on the Mike Walsh Show. They will be remembered very clearly by most people in the rural areas of Australia. My constituent continued: On election night after you were voted in by a reduced margin, in your victory speech you said you would work for the betterment of all Australians, whether we voted for you or not, and emphasised all Australians. I quote a further section of the letter which came to me: My taxable income last year was nil-I paid no tax-No Tax Payable and no refund due-it said on the form, and it will be the same this year. Therefore, I am not doing my bit towards the economy of my country. There are hundreds of thousands of Australians wanting to work and pay tax and help this so-called lucky country to the prosperity it deserves, but we are going down the gurgler further every day. Farmers being the backbone of a country is no longer true, we are an endangered species. I think that is a pretty pertinent comment. The letter went on: We do not have 35-hour working weeks, overtime, flexidays, holiday pay or superannuation. We are downright hard working and caring people, who love and care for our way of life, living off the land. We are not Pitt Street farmers. I am tired of hearing, tighten your belt, economise, you need to have a new infrastructure within your industry, get big or get out. What is going to happen to the little bloke who worked his guts out over the years, making a living off the land and then through no fault of his own is forced off his land he loves and cares for? What does the future hold for him? The best offer I can see for him is on the end of the line at the CES office and the dole. My personality, attitude and faith has changed from being a happy go lucky optimist to a cynical pessimist and that upsets me greatly. It has been widely reported that the sugar industry is the most efficiently controlled industry in Australia. Well, what chance have other industries got when we have no chance? The letter went on to refer to some personal aspects of family difficulties. I conclude the reference to this constituent's approach: Because I am an endangered species farmer and have property an a nil income, I am not eligible for social service. In the meantime I will live on fresh air and hope. Hope of some sanity for the survival and prosperity of the rural industries of Australia. I believe that typifies the real problem confronting so many people across Australia today. There have been many references in the debates in this House since this session began about the iniquitous assets test and its effect on rural Australia. I could cite yet another example of the consequences of that test-not just one but dozens which have reached me in recent weeks. Tonight, in considering the proposition which the Government puts before the House, we have to be mindful of the consequences of the approval that will be given for the extra expenditure. We face one of the toughest, undoubtedly worrying, economic situations that this country has experienced since well before the 1930s. If one analyses the consequences of the dilemma that is facing so many sections of Australian industry and primary industry today, there is no doubt at all that in relation to the tax summit and what will flow from it one will find the failure of the Government to identify precisely what is policy will be. What pretence we heard this afternoon when the Prime Minister answered a question and said that there will be several propositions and some accord as to what will finally be done. What arrant humbug. If the Cabinet and the Government of this country do not have an economic policy at present, heaven help all of us. But I fear that that is exactly the position, that there is no policy, no determination as to what should and should not happen. Is it any wonder that the dollar is slumping? Is it any wonder that there is concern in so many sections of industry? Is it any wonder that Australia is facing a very gloomy winter in the immediate few months? I turn now to a few remaining points that I want particularly to make. This appropriation provides funds for a range of propositions. One is to provide additional funds-no less than $12.2m-for the Department of Communications. I do not know what that will be expected to finance but I hope that the Government will look seriously at expenditure by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. We find today the most idiotic approach to broadcasting and public affairs in this country. The trend represented by the National, the new news program, is ludicrous in the extreme. No longer is there a firm and positive news bulletin. Country areas have lost 50 per cent of the normal regional news services. They are now integrated with the State news bulletins. There is no regular evening television news programs in rural areas. That service has been eliminated or reduced to once or twice a week-a quite impossible situation. Let us think of some of the implications of the spending that has gone on in this period of real economic stringency by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Dedicated people who have been there for decades have done a fine job and built up a reputation, and this has been taken away overnight by newcomers. Someone who has been in this country for four years has been put in charge of the national news program. Someone else who has been here from another country for a year and a half or so has completely overturned the whole process of the ABC's programming and the content of that programming. I refer in particular to what I regard as a scurrilous approach to this nation's heritage and status, and to the implications of that approach. I refer to two programs that are to be held, one on Anzac eve and one on Anzac night. On Anzac eve an Open File program is to pose the question: 'Whose flag is that?'. Why choose Anzac eve for a cynical approach to the matter of our national traditions and in particular the Australian national flag? I am sure that that program will do nothing more than denigrate the feelings of so many of those loyal Australians who fought for this country and for its survival. Of course, it will be intended to influence young people who do not have a recollection of those rather terrible days that we will acknowledge on Anzac day. Then, on Anzac night, what will we get? We will get a program entitled The Unnecessary War, screening on ABC television at 7.30 p.m. It will suggest that during the last few months of World War II Australian troops in the Pacific, in Papua-New Guinea, Bougainville and Borneo, were fighting a series of battles which need never have been fought. I put it to this Government that this is a reflection on its own Party because that Party was in office at that time. The Australian Labor Party's great hero, John Curtin, was Prime Minister. Are honourable members opposite going to take some of the blame and some of the odium connected with this program, which undoubtedly will be a real reflection on the strategies and policy decisions of both the Government and its military advisers at the time? They choose Anzac night for this scurrilous attack. I recall that we have experienced similar situations on previous Anzac nights. I suggest that honourable members look back one or two years to check which programs were shown. I believe that if we are to provide additional expenditure in this appropriation for the Department of Communications, the least the Government could do is to try to bring some decency to the approach of the ABC on these two programs that are to be screened on Anzac eve and Anzac night. This House should be looking with real scrutiny at this proposition for the expenditure of additional funds to meet the requirements of government between now and the forthcoming Budget. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I remind members of the House that there is a standing order which requires honourable members not to move between an honourable member who is speaking and the Chair. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(9.56) —It is clear that this Government, on coming to office, inherited an economy with massive structural difficulties. By any measure the performance of the Government since that time has been very good. Indeed, the inflation rate has been halved, growth has been restored, unemployment has fallen and employment has grown substantially. In just 22 months, 341,000 jobs have been created and the Government is well on target to create half a million jobs in its first three years in office. By comparison, members of the Opposition, in their 88 months in office, created exactly the same number of jobs that we have created in 22 months. Additionally, there are very encouraging signs in the home building industry, car registrations and retail activity, and also the Government has embarked on restructuring programs in the steel industry and the motor vehicle building industry. This is only a start. Tonight I shall address one of the structural problems. Again, it has been inherited by this Government but it is, perhaps, one of the most important in that it faces us all. I refer to the problem of youth unemployment. When we came to office 30 per cent of our 15 to 19 year olds were unemployed. The figure is more respectable now, at 25 per cent, but I am sure that honourable members on both sides would agree that it is far from optimal. This issue was canvassed in the Age today. While I disagree with the editorial view with regard to the pace at which the Government is pursuing this problem, there are two excerpts from that editorial which I think have merit. The first states: . . . one in four young people cannot get a job, and that is not a solid foundation on which to build a society. I believe that all of us would agree with that comment. The second and perhaps the most relevant aspect of that editorial reads: We can no longer afford to talk about the problem. Imaginative policies must be introduced which will give young people some long-term hope. Again, I believe that all people in this House would endorse that view. During the last 15 years there have been long term and permanent changes in the labour market and the organisation of work which has progressively excluded teenagers from full time employment. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have never listened to so much drivel-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —There is no point of order. (Quorum formed) Dr CHARLESWORTH —I am delighted that so many of my colleagues are here to listen tonight as this is, of course, an issue of great importance. Between August 1970 and August 1984 full time employment for teenagers fell by 156,000. In August 1970 52.7 per cent of teenagers had full time employment. By August 1984 33.6 per cent of teenagers had full time employment. There were improvements in part time employment for teenagers but the vast majority of these were in full time education. Within the Public Service the number of appointments for teenagers and young people fell substantially. Even sustained growth will not reverse this trend. During the second half of the 1970s the then Government started to recognise the difficulty but, as usual, its response was ad hoc and piecemeal. The special youth employment training program had, and still has, merit but, of course, there was little concern in that program for the level and quality of training it provided. The community youth support scheme was introduced and grudgingly maintained. Trade training programs, for instance the Commonwealth rebate for apprentice full-time training, were introduced and developed to support apprenticeship schemes and in 1979, just before an election, we had the school to work transition program. All of these programs had a place. All had value. All helped but they were ad hoc programs, not co-ordinated, and they showed no vision. The numbers of youth unemployed continued to grow. A crisis now existed in youth unemployment. It was only the trade training programs which really improved the position of these young people within the labour market. The challenge which we must face now is to supply the opportunity for those young people to gain the skills necessary for them to fit within the labour market. Every young person needs a chance to acquire those skills. A recent Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd poll indicated very clearly that amongst young people unemployment was the major issue. They wanted work and help to get it. What about Australia's performance compared with that of other countries? In Austria, where the population is exactly half that of Australia, there are 180,000 trainees. In Australia, alas, we have only 140,000 apprentices and trainees. It has been shown in countries such as West Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and Austria that small businesses are providing almost 50 per cent of those jobs and traineeships. The Kirby report unashamedly opts for employment based vocational training schemes. I believe the Government has already started to move in the correct direction. The participation and equity program increased the post-compulsory education participation rate and the structural changes within schools make formal education more attractive and relevant. A review of the youth income support scheme is being undertaken. In adopting the recommendations of the Kirby report, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report and the Bureau of Labour Market Research report this Government will be heading towards traineeship employment schemes. The Office of Youth Affairs has been moved to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the community employment scheme has broken the cycle for many long term unemployed people. The Government's task is to provide leadership but the whole community is responsible for this problem. It is too simplistic to say, as do our opponents time and again, that the answer is to deregulate youth wages. That would, to a degree, displace adult workers. It would not solve structural problems and certainly would not improve the skills of our young people. It would not involve the whole community. The former Government talked about deregulating. It wanted to deregulate the airlines and we got that strait-jacket called the two-airline agreement. The former Government talked about deregulating financial structures and it failed. It talked about attacking Telecom Australia with deregulation. It sounded good, it sounded Gucci, but the Government never had the guts to do it and it never delivered. It is my belief that what we need are not the tired solutions of the past but an independent manpower task force, an authority for employment and training, something which is detached but which has long term goals. We need an authority which is flexible, which has discretionary powers and a mandate for a trainee policy. We need tripartite representation on that board and we need to set ourselves targets now that we can achieve in the foreseeable future. The Kirby report suggests 75,000 trainees is attainable by 1988. We need such an authority set up so that we can market and deliver those results. Youth employment needs to be co-ordinated with early retirement, permanent part time work, job sharing and the youth allowance restructuring which is being undertaken. At the cornerstone we need the ethos that we will provide for all school leavers an opportunity for further education, training and employment. We need to decentralise the decisions so that they can be taken at a community and local level. Perhaps our apprentice schemes are too inflexible. Perhaps we need to look at them. Perhaps we need to talk with small employers at the local level who can employ someone for three days a week who can then be trained for the remaining two days. Perhaps we need to slash some of the red tape that presently exists. One of the possibilities is forgoing the holiday loading for trainees. Perhaps we need to look at the workers' compensation arrangements that can be made between small groups. Group schemes can be set up. Certainly, State costs and charges such as payroll tax discriminate against employment and need to be reassessed. I do not believe that one in four of our young Australians are not worth the effort. I do not believe that one in 10 or one in 20 are not worth the effort. We must have a sense of purpose and we have to break free from some of the structures which are choking us and our initiative, no matter how well we may be intentioned. There is a crisis in youth employment. Our opponents have failed but, unfortunately, as a result Australia is failing. It is not a time for petty point scoring. There is no purpose in that. We are all responsible. We must invest in our young people. They deserve a chance and we have to give them that chance. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(10.08) —I would have been impressed by the call to bipartisanship of the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) a little more if he had not spent so much of his speech scoring empty partisan points on the subject of youth employment, as attractive as his speech was. We have agreed to reduce our speaking time this evening. I speak on a subject that I am surprised has not been raised or commented on by more members of the Government in the last few days. I refer to the proposal to make changes in the next Budget, or under the aegis of the Cabinet Expenditure Review Committee, to the family allowance scheme. Michelle Grattan, reporting in the Age newspaper of 16 April 1985, along with a number of other journalists, said: Government sources said that family allowances were the only significant social security area under threat from the Cabinet razor gang. A number of newspaper reports spoke of potential changes to the family allowance scheme. They have covered a very wide range. When one reads a newspaper report, under a Labor government, stating that government sources say something, one can be sure that it could come from anyone from the Prime Minister down. Without a doubt the Cabinet Expenditure Review Committee has been considering a number of potential changes. I warn the Government that if it undertakes any of the changes that have been outlined so far it will stir up a hornet's nest for itself that will make the controversy surrounding the assets test on age pensions look like a tea party. The principles involved in the family allowance are very profound. I look forward to comments that some of the women members of the Government might make on the subject of the principles of the family allowance as a payment to women for the role of mothering. It is not a welfare payment. It never was described as such and it never was intended to be such. The proposals for change fall into five categories. One is that the family allowance be taxed. Another is that it be means tested. A third is that there be a flat rate, that is the same rate for every child in the family regardless of the number of children. A fourth suggestion is that it might be removed for dependent student children over the age of 16 years. The fifth proposal is that the first child may not qualify for the family allowance. I will take the last point first. It was back in 1951 that the Menzies Government extended child endowment to the first child in the family. That was welcomed at the time. It has never been suggested that it was anything other than a proper move. Now, 34 years later, a Labor government is looking at turning back the clock. Of course, it should be remembered that it was not Federal Labor governments that introduced or extended child endowment. In the first place it was introduced under a Menzies Government. In the second place it was extended to the first child in the family by a Menzies Government. The very substantial reform of family allowances happened in 1976 under the Fraser Government. One of the reforms that took place in 1976 was the extension of the family allowance to dependent student children between the ages of 16 and 25 years. It is interesting that that is an option the Government is considering. What is very clear is that the Government is targeting this allowance. It is targeting it strictly in the context of a welfare payment. Mr Braithwaite —It is not a welfare payment. Mrs SULLIVAN —As the honourable member for Dawson says, it is not a welfare payment. I shall return to previous views of government members on this subject as recorded in Hansard of time past. Those honourable members seem to have forgotten it. Certainly there are a number of Government members who appear to be unaware that they were views ever expressed by members of the Labor Party in this Parliament. I shall remind them of it shortly. If time does not permit me to do that this evening I shall do so when the debate resumes. The first point that should be made about the family allowance is that it is paid to the mother of children. There are some exceptions where, for example, the mother is dead or, if the parents of the children are divorced, the father has custody. Overwhelmingly the allowance is paid to the mother. It was introduced as some recognition-not a full recognition-of the value of the mothering role and the contribution that anyone who is rearing children makes to society. I hasten to add that when I use the term 'mothering role' I use it in its broadest possible sense and obviously I extend it to fathers who are raising their children without the support of the children's mother. The first issue-- Mr Slipper —Is it a sexist term? Mrs SULLIVAN —I do not consider it to be a sexist term but a useful non-generic term. The first point concerns the issue of taxing. This is where the Government will stir up a hornet's nest for itself. The great issue that arises in relation to any proposal to tax family allowances is to decide against whose income it is to be taxed. Is the family allowance to be taxed only according to the income of the person receiving it? As I have said, in most cases that is the mother and in most cases the mothers of dependent children either earn no other income or else earn a small income. The percentage of married women with dependent children in the work force who derive a full income and a substantial income from working is very small indeed. Most have a very small income. I am aware that this proposal was looked at by the Fraser Government. The figures were done. The information that came forward was that-- Government members interjecting- Mrs SULLIVAN —I am stating a fact which Government members need to know about because otherwise they will proceed in total ignorance. Perhaps they ought to ask some of their Ministers about this in their Caucus. The facts are that if the family allowance were taxed according only to the income of the person receiving the family allowance the reduction in expenditure that the Government would incur would be negligible. That is no way to reduce the Budget. However, a very serious anomaly arises in relation to this. It is possible in the case of large families for a woman in receipt of only the family allowance in fact to cross the tax threshold by virtue of the payments she receives under that allowance. Therefore, a payment which is not considered excessive and which, on all the principles on which it was established and has been continued-that is a payment for the mothering role-is to be reduced simply because that woman is the mother of a large number of children. That is totally iniquitous. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.15) —The events of this past weekend at the Victorian State Conference of the Australian Labor Party have again revealed the great obsession of the Labor Party which has continued for well over two years. They have again highlighted the power play within that organisation which degenerated into a physical brawl. That brawl represents nothing more and nothing less than a numbers game-a game of power within that organisation. However, we on the Opposition side over that period of two years have been directing our energies to representing our constituents, to trying to protect the elderly, the infirm and the vulnerable from the iniquitous, discriminatory and totally unjust assets test. Time and time again my colleagues on the coalition benches have brought to the attention of this House a number of examples of the terrible effects of the assets test. It is quite beyond my comprehension that any supporter of the Government, especially an honourable member who represents a rural electorate, but also honourable members who may represent a great many pensioners in urban electorates, could stand in this House and in good conscience go along with the humbug and hypocrisy displayed by so many members of the Government, not least of all the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). This whole test is best summarised by an example which we have given time and time again both inside and outside this chamber. Mr Leo McLeay —You millionaires. Mr McGAURAN —A millionaire or any pensioner with a $200,000 home and $50,000 in assets-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I appreciate that during the adjournment debate there is some play across the chamber. However, it is excessive and I remind honourable members that there is action I can take. Mr McGAURAN —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will reiterate that example. A pensioner in the city can be the registered proprietor of a house valued at $200,000 and have some $50,000 in assets and still receive the pension. However, an owner of a rural property worth $200,000-leaving aside the income it generates-and having a house valued at $50,000 does not receive the pension. Is there any Government member who tonight, following this adjournment speech, will be able to stand in this House and justify that principle and explain the inherent injustice in that principle? Mr Hodgman —Not one. Mr McGAURAN —As the honourable member for Denison says, there is not one. However, the inequities of the assets test go much further than that underlying premise. For example, we have problems of valuations. We do not yet know how the valuations are made, how they can be appealed against or at what time the appeals will be heard. We know the procedure. We are advising constituents to go through the procedure. However, when will the appeals be determined? What are the criteria for deciding the appeals? I have a whole file in my possession which shows that the valuations made by the Department of Social Security for the purposes of determining a person's assets are far above the valuation made by local government authorities. In some cases they are as much as one-third more than the shire or local government valuation. We have problems of pensioners who are living in granny flats or nursing homes because they had to leave their houses they once occupied because of infirmity. They have had to move into a granny flat with relatives or they are now living in nursing homes. Yet in total disregard of those people's real ability to survive without assistance of government, they are denied a pension. As the Herald editorial of today, 22 April, summed up, the present Minister for Social Security is a clever, astute, and probably in my view a devious-I withdraw that, Mr Speaker-and manipulative Minister. But the fact remains he is committed to forcing upon the pensioners of this country what is undoubtedly, and has proved to be, a totally unjust, cruel and discriminatory system. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(10.20) —I wish briefly to correct a misapprehension in regard to the living conditions of black South Africans on the part of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). I do so because I find this opinion reflected too often in the general community. Earlier this evening the honourable member said that the blacks in South Africa have better standards of living than blacks in any other African country. He based his comments on a trip he made to South Africa in late 1983. He said that people should go there to see how black South Africans live. I, in company with two other Government members, went to South Africa at the same time as the honourable member for Maranoa. We broke away from the government guides and had a look for ourselves to see just how black South Africans were living. I refer specifically to one instance-that is, the Crossroads shanty town in Cape Town. Late in 1983 the unofficial estimate of the number of inhabitants was 45,000. The official estimate was 25,000 and it has since been confirmed that there are 100,000 black African people collected together in a conglomeration of humpies and hovels in the centre of beautiful Cape Town. They are living in homes made of galvanised iron, bits of sacking and bits of black plastic. They are there because it is illegal for them to be with their families anywhere else in South Africa. Only a few blocks away there are homes that are certainly reminiscent of more affluent suburban areas in Australia. Maybe the honourable member saw those homes. But the black Africans to whom I refer were not living there. The shanty town was full of women and children who had trekked and travelled by bus from so-called homelands to be with their menfolk. The men were working in Cape Town because there was no work in the so-called homelands to which they had been forced to go by the South African Government. I was told of men who had contracts lasting 11 months having to live in the infamous and unhygienic men's single quarters, which are big concrete blocks without drainage or sewerage. It was the only place in which they could legally live. This hovel area in which 100,000 people lived was crowded. The women and children were living with the sick and the aged in the homelands. They found living by themselves too much, and they came down to join their menfolk. But it was illegal for them to be there, so they squatted in this area. It is not like a squatter's town in Australia because they were not allowed to move out, no matter what wage their husband earned. They were not allowed to set up a home in Cape Town. I went with the wife of an Anglican priest. We spoke to organisations-the United Democratic Front, the Black Sash and different churches-and they reiterated the conditions that we saw there. It was appalling. Women with babies were put into prison after regular raids to show that they should not legally be there. We were told that some black South Africans working in the vineyards were better off. They were paid by the tot system. The tot system was mentioned by a number of different people. At the age of 12 people are put to work in the vineyards and part of the payment is a tot of wine three times a day. By the time they are 22 they are confirmed alcoholics and cannot move away from the white masters because they are secure only on those vineyards. When I returned to Australia I issued a Press statement in which I outlined some of these problems and many more. I have photographs and much written matter to confirm them. It was not picked up. People from the Press rang me and said: 'That is not true'. They had been to South Africa three weeks previously. They had seen the white area and had not seen how these many black people lived. There are such areas right across South Africa. It does not matter how well some members of this House may think the black South Africans who are in service and who have a home live. It does not justify the appalling conditions. The oppression had nothing to do with black and white; it was a case of have and have not. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.25) —I rise tonight to bring to the attention of honourable members the plight of Phillip Island's fairy penguins. My interest is not recent. My family has given land to the penguin parade. I have served as chairman of the committee of management of the penguin parade and during that time I initiated a research program into penguins that is unique in Australia. The penguin is the third largest international tourist attraction in Australia, attracting 80,000 international tourists per annum out of a total of 300,000 visitors. The future of the parade is now in doubt. There is a severe food shortage, the causes of which are largely unknown. The mortality rate of chicks has increased to 80 per cent and so bad is the situation that the management of the parade has had to institute hand feeding of chicks. The research work to date has been land-based and certainly an excellent program has been in place. I pay tribute to the work of Peter Dann, the research biologist, and Professor Mike Cullen of Monash University. But what is needed now is research into food sources, food chains and the localities of such sources of food. This is a national issue for four reasons. Firstly, the fisheries are within Commonwealth waters and are an important primary industry. Secondly, the tourist industry is a major export earner in this country and we need every dollar that we can earn in terms of exports in view of the fate of the Australian dollar under the socialist Government that is currently in power. Thirdly, the national parks have an involvement in the management of the parade and, fourthly, over $1m of Commonwealth and State money is being provided for the improvement of visitor facilities. This Government is so faction ridden that its members of parliament spend their weekends throwing tomatoes at each other, so I suppose it is little wonder that so far it has taken very little interest in this matter. I must say that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) to his credit has been to see the parade. Because there is no Joh Bjelke-Petersen in Victoria to inhibit the Minister in assessing his political response to this problem, I suppose we can expect him to take a greater interest that he has to date. As for the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), he has yet to visit the island. He has visited everywhere else at massive expense to the taxpayers, but he has not bothered to worry about one of the major international tourist attractions in his own back yard. I say to the Minister, given his flair for the fleas and ticks of Australia's wildlife, that the penguin parade has much to offer and to commend itself to him. I warn him in advance that penguins peck as well. What is needed is the political will to provide funds for research to preserve the penguins and to maintain one of Australia's great tourist attractions. I support the provision of funds for visitor facilities, but would be ashamed, when the facilities are finally completed, if there were few penguins left. At a time when technology can put a man on the moon and communications are so advanced that a Prime Minister can count factions numbers from a hotel in Brussels, surely the time has come when we as a community can allocate sufficient funds to research and ultimately to protect one of Australia's great natural phenomena, the fairy penguin. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.30) —I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to Australia's participation in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Recently the Australian National Commission for UNESCO, on which I am the Government's representative, sent to members of both Houses its report for the three-year period 1981 to 1983. That report illustrates the benefit Australia receives from active membership. Its appearance is timely as UNESCO is very much in the public eye. Australia profits nationally by contributing to the development of solutions to problems in education, science, culture and communication around the globe through UNESCO. Participation in UNESCO's international and regional activities helps build bridges that overcome Australia's geographical isolation. Australians are able to attend conferences and workshops and share in ongoing information exchange networks, and thereby gain scientific and technical knowledge useful to the Australian community. For example, Australia takes part in a UNESCO program which examines how the spread of deserts through pastoral and agricultural misuse of land can be prevented, a subject particularly relevant to Australia's needs. Australia also shares in the benefits of UNESCO's work in setting international standards in a host of areas. Member states agree to adhere to the standards through the signing of conventions. As a result of one set of UNESCO conventions, for example, Australian writers get copyright for what they have published overseas. Australia's foreign policy is served through UNESCO as links with other countries, particularly in Asia and the Pacific, are strengthened. In March the Federal Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) was able to meet Asian and Pacific Ministers of Education in Bangkok as a result of a regional UNESCO conference. Further, by making Australian expertise available through consultancies and by staging conferences and workshops in Australia, Australia gains a great deal of goodwill. In February the Australian National Commission for UNESCO, in conjunction with UNESCO in Paris, held a workshop in Melbourne for science journalists from Asian and Pacific countries. One product of this was the spread of information about science in Australia through the media in Asia and the Pacific. During the 1981-83 period nine regional seminars were staged in Australia on subjects ranging from protection of historic places to the marketing of information services. Meanwhile, more than 200 Australians contributed to UNESCO programs overseas as consultants or through attendance at seminars. They were concerned with subjects from education of the handicapped and book publishing to solar energy and South East Asian migration. All these benefits are gained at relatively little cost to the Australian Government. Australia contributes 1.5 per cent of UNESCO's budget, a figure based on the country's gross national product. In 1985 Australia's contribution was assessed at $US1,335,712. This figure was reduced substantially because of unexpected international currency fluctuations in UNESCO's previous budget period. This led to savings for the Organisation and member states, including Australia, and they will have their 1985 contributions reduced. This year Australia will pay only $US86,368. Membership of UNESCO entails also the funding of the Australian National Commission for UNESCO. This is a 41-member body made up of academics, community leaders, political representatives and departmental representatives. It advises the Government on policy towards UNESCO, links Australians interested in UNESCO's fields of endeavour with the Organisation, and mounts activities in Australia. Its budget for activities in 1984-85 is $139,000. All members serve without honorarium. In addition, there are costs to the Government in the form of a small secretariat for the National Commission and a full time Ambassador to UNESCO in Paris. This is balanced, however, by the Australians employed in UNESCO's Paris-based secretariat in professional posts. Australia's quota is eight. Clearly, the cost of belonging to UNESCO is not great, especially considering the benefits that come to Australia in a narrow national sense, not to mention the obligation Australians have to contribute to the solution of world problems as part of humanity. This should not be obscured by the current political criticism of UNESCO, which may mount as the Organisation approaches its general conference in Sofia, Bulgaria, in October. While the Australian Government recognises that reforms are necessary to make UNESCO a more efficient and effective organisation, it has stated that the best way to achieve these reforms is to work from within the Organisation as a positive participant. I support this statement and urge members to take the time to become familiar with the work of UNESCO. Mr JULL(Fadden)(10.36) —During Question Time today, in response to a question from the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) made some statements concerning the application of a number of charter airlines to operate into Cairns in north Queensland. I should preface this speech by saying that during the period I was out of this Parliament I worked for the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation and initiated the approaches to the charter airlines which wish to operate into Cairns. I pay tribute to the then Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) who, for the first time in Australia's history, gave the green light of charter operations into the development airports of Cairns, Townsville and Darwin. The history of the first matter mentioned by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism in his answer this morning involves Sterling Airways of Denmark, which he said did not pick up the option. The reason was the fact that it did not have time to promote or sell those chartered flights because of the procrastination of Department of Aviation officials. Let me give a chronological history of that application. In March 1984 Mr Mick Borzi, the then Chairman of the Cairns Port Authority and a member of the Board of the Queensland Tourism and Travel Corporation, and I started negotiations with Tjereborg Travel, the retail arm of Stirling Airways in Denmark. On 2 May 1984 the initial approach came from Sterling, which said it was interested in operating charters into Cairns. On 28 May Sterling made its initial approach to the then Department of Aviation and the Australian Embassy in Copenhagen. On 25 June the official application was made to the Department of Aviation in Canberra. It took until 24 July for the initial acknowledgement of the application from Sterling to be made by Minister Beazley. On 27 July the Department of Aviation sent a list of questions to Sterling asking incredible questions as to the tyre pressure to be used on a DC8/63 aircraft at Cairns when those aircraft had been operating into Australia for eight years previously. On 13 August Sterling responded to those questions and, finally, after a public exposure in the Press, the Department of Aviation gave approval for a series of 20 charter flights to start operations on 9 October in and out of Cairns. With more than 2,500 seats to sell in less than six weeks, the airline said: 'We are sorry, technically we cannot do this'. Cairns missed out on at least 2,500 international visitors and young Australians in north Queensland missed out on jobs. We heard the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism this morning talk about All Nippon Airways. If he genuinely wants to know the attitude of All Nippon Airways, I suggest that he get on a telephone tomorrow morning and dial 0011-81-3-5804711 and speak to Mr Takano, the vice-president in charge of international affairs of All Nippon Airways, who since December 1983 has been looking at the operations of chartering 747s into Cairns. I can give the House the full chronological sequence from February 1984 when the initial approaches were made by All Nippon to the Japanese Government. The point is that one is seeing the same procrastination taking place because, on 8 March this year, the firm and final offer was made to the Department of Aviation applying for these 747 charter rights into Cairns. All that has been received by All Nippon Airways as of today is a wishy-washy response saying: 'Yes, the application has been received'. When one looks at the Bureau of Industry Economics figures, one sees that 25,000 international visitors to this country would create another 1,200 jobs. The Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) in the House today made a statement about the application for East-West Airlines Ltd to come in with charters. He said: 'No, Qantas is the only airline to operate on the route'. Are Ministers genuinely concerned about creating jobs for young Australians? They can put up the Qantas Airways Ltd arguments for as long as they like, but Qantas does not operate from Copenhagen; Qantas does not operate charter rights. It has had a charter company on its books since 1971 but has never generated it. It is denying access to Australia of that charter traffic. Incidentally, the Sterling Airways of Denmark return fare from Copenhagen to Cairns was $860 compared to $2,330 now charged by Qantas. If the Minister is genuine, he will say that East-West Airlines should be able to operate those charters out of Guam into Cairns because Qantas does not operate them, does not want to operate them, and should at least give those charter rights to an Australian company. If the Minister grants those rights to East-West he is going to give jobs to Australians, not to foreign carriers, and more importantly he is going to give long and lasting jobs to the young people of north Queensland. Let the Government put its money where its mouth is. If it is interested in creating jobs, let us forget the platitudes and get out there and approve these jobs. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.40) —I wish today to express the anxieties of many Turkish settlers in this country provoked by the visit of the Turkish Foreign Minister. A great number of Turkish families settled in my electorate. They are hard working, good citizens of Australia. A number of them contacted me to express their anxieties about the Turkish Foreign Minister's visit. They fear an intensification of pressures on them by the Turkish Consulate and the intensification of the fear campaign conducted against them and their families by the diplomatic representatives of their former country in Australia. This campaign started after the military coup d'etat. On 12 December 1980 the military seized power in Turkey. The putsch coincided with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation military manoeuvres, for which thousands of United States soldiers arrived in Turkey from West Germany. The seizure of power was announced by the State Department in Washington before the Turkish generals went on the Istanbul radio. The first act of the generals after the putsch was to disband the Confederation of Progressive Unions-DISK-arresting 63 of its leaders who now face the death penalty. It also arrested 2,000 of its members. On the day of the military coup the offices of the Turkish Peace Association were ransacked, documents seized and its possessions confiscated. The President, Mohmud Dikerdem, who is aged 68 and is a respected former Ambassador, lecturer on international relations and author, was arrested, together with the executive of the TPA. After a lengthy military show-trial they were sentenced to eight years hard labour, plus two years and eight months internal exile. Amongst the members of the goaled executive are: Dr Erdal Atabek, President of the Turkish Medical Association; Dr Mertin Ozek, Professor of Psychiatry at the Istanbul University; Nedim Tarhan, member of parliament; Nuretin Yilmaz, member of parliament and a former presidential candidate; Ali Taygun, director of the Istanbul State Theatre Co. and many other well-known personalities in the academic, political and artistic elite of Turkey. Altogether 110,000 people have been goaled and 200,000 people are under surveillance by the authorities. Prisoners are held at least 45 days without trial and are subjected to the most inhuman forms of torture. To subdue the country, the Government is using draconian legislation borrowed from Mussolini's penal code. The violation of human rights is widespread. The junta, to disguise its fascist nature, stage-managed an election in November 1982, when General Kenon Evren was elected as President for seven years, with wide powers based on a new authoritarian constitution. Such are the regime ruling in Turkey today and the Government that the visiting Turkish Foreign Minister represents. The Turkish Government is not only mistreating its own citizens but is also intimidating Australian citizens of Turkish origin. In 1982, 13 Australian citizens were summoned to return to Turkey and another two have since been summoned. Turkish migrants, who for some years have been settled in Australia, are threatened with confiscation of their properties and they fear for the safety of their families in Turkey. None of those summoned back from Australia has returned, but one person who returned from West Germany after being summoned was arrested and beaten on his arrival and, according to his attorneys, is now in a critical condition. While we have to extend diplomatic courtesies to the Turkish Foreign Minister, I want Mr Vahit Halefoglo to know that we will not tolerate the use of intimidating fascist tactics against Australian citizens of Turkish origin by diplomats serving under him. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(10.45) —As members of this House would know, for some time in New South Wales the Government has been looking for land for the Army to use as a manoeuvre and firing range and also for an Army school. The siting of an army school next to a regional town or provincial city would be a great benefit to a town or city because it would mean the building of houses and the influx of a number of people. The area I am concerned about is the potential manoeuvre area and firing range that is needed by the Army. For some time the New South Wales Government has been working with the Federal Government to acquire a manoeuvre area. I think the whole thing has been handled very badly. At one stage they mentioned a number of areas, including the Rankin Springs area and the area around Broken Hill and to the south of Cobar and more recently to the west of Cobar. What the governments have done in those areas is to cause a great deal of worry to the people on properties there. For example, Rankin Springs has some of the best wheat area in Australia. Broken Hill has land that is very fragile, land on the opposite end of the extreme, which could not be used by tanks and for the firing of artillery. The Cobar south area is a highly productive sheep area and has some cattle country. The New South Wales Government was the first to mention these areas and I believe the areas mentioned were only set up as a smokescreen because what it was really looking at was an area west of Cobar, which is the area it has now settled on. Presently the Government has commissioned a private company to carry out a review of environmental factors in that area. The area it is looking at for the firing range takes in six properties. The manoeuvre areas takes in another 54 properties. The total area is an area of about 100 kilometres by 140 kilometres. When the Army takes over that area, particularly the firing range, no one will be able to use that any more but the manoeuvre area also is a problem and creates a great deal of uncertainty for the people living in those areas. It will have a disastrous effect on the town of Cobar because it will mean a great diminution of money being spent in that town. The big problem is that that area is a fairly semi-arid area and it has taken three or four generations for people to tame the area and to bring it into production. Those people will not be moved lightly. They take the matter as being very, very serious. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised the people in that area that he would not take productive land nor dispossess people, but if that firing range area is taken over by the Army certainly people will be dispossessed. Another worry for people in the Western Division, not only those who live in the firing range and manoeuvre area, is land titles because if the Army takes over that land there will have to be some change to their land titles which they now hold in perpetuity. They are very concerned about that. These people have lived through bush fires and droughts and I believe that they will not be beaten on this issue. An environmental impact study is under way or is about to be undertaken. I pay tribute to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) because he did meet these people in Canberra, along with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans). They were given a good hearing. I believe that the land in that area is so fragile that the review of environmental factors will not find that land to be suitable. I believe that the Army will have to look elsewhere. The Minister for Defence has given an undertaking that if the land is not suitable, the Army will seek a site outside New South Wales. The people in that area are not anti-Army. They realise that the Army has to go somewhere, but surely in a land the size of Australia there is land elsewhere which is not productive land, which is not land where people have worked for three or four generations to build up something for their children to take over and which can be used for a manoeuvre area and firing range. I hope that the Federal Minister for Defence and the New South Wales State Government will get together and decide that this is not the land they want and that they will take this firing range and manoeuvre area somewhere else to an area that will not dispossess people and not take over productive farming land. Ms FATIN(Brand)(10.50) —We get very accustomed in this House to hearing members of the Opposition give voice to their prejudices and preconceptions. I admit that most of the time their comments are too inconsequential to warrant attention. I would like to say that I have tried to contract the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) to tell him that I would be making this speech. However he was not available. Last Friday, during his speech on the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill 1985, the honourable member made some remarks about the supported accommodation assistance program which were so insulting to various people in the welfare field that I really feel obliged to bring his comments to the attention of honourable members. The honourable member started off by congratulating various non-government welfare bodies on the level of expertise they bring to the provision of services to the homeless. I could have supported his sentiments wholeheartedly, had he not gone on to make the absolutely astonishing claim that government departments and bureaucrats were incapable of demonstrating the same degree of care and comparison-an extraordinary remark and, I suggest, a comment which insults not only the many dedicated and skilful people who serve as administration but also the hundreds of public servants in the welfare area who laboured under the previous coalition governments. The honourable member went on to suggest that the legislation contained some kind of inbuilt bias against the religious organisations who are currently providing services to the homeless. I do not know whether he was just playing at political point scoring or whether he really does not understand the new arrangements. In either case, he is wrong about the effect of the new program because, even though the States have excluded certain specific projects from the SAAP, the Commonwealth will continue to provide these same projects with funds up to the equivalent SAAP level. As I said before, evidence of a certain level of unfamiliarity with the details of new legislation is not uncommon amongst some honourable members opposite. However, what the honourable member for Petrie went on to inform the House betrayed a far more shallow comprehension of the real world than we would expect to find in a man of his stature. The honourable member, it seems, has taken exception to what he calls the 'radical groups' that are currently running women's refuges in parts of Australia. He has visited one, he told us, and wanted to warn us about some of the 'disgraceful goings-on'-his words, Mr Speaker-that he saw. I have seen some sights in refuges that anyone of any political persuasion would call disgraceful. But was the honourable member referring to the signs of physical and mental batterings sustained by many of the women and children found in refuges? Was he talking about the cramped conditions of these families, the lack of furniture, the shortage of helpers or the appalling low pay of the refuge workers? No, he was not. What had moved the honourable member so much that he felt obliged to bring the matter to the attention of the Parliament of Australia was that the workers at the refuge were wearing overalls and thongs. 'The overalls brigade', he calls them. He is also worried about some of the pamphlets he saw which he thought might be having a bit of a go at the political philosophy he represents. Remarks of this kind are grossly offensive to refuge workers all over this country. To impugn people's integrity on the grounds that they are dressed in a certain way is not just narrow minded; it also completely ignores the extraordinary level of commitment that has been shown by those women for more than 10 years. They have battled on against every conceivable kind of difficulty. They have had no money, no proper facilities, often no support from their communities or their politicians. Yet they have continued caring for the women and children who so desperately need their help. They have gradually raised the consciousness of our society about a whole gamut of problems that had previously been ignored or denied. It is largely thanks to the women who have kept the refuges functioning during the last 10 years that we are at last beginning to confront some of the questions about child abuse and domestic violence. It is certainly due to these people and their colleagues in other fields that service providers are now being acknowledged in so much of our social welfare legislation. The honourable member also addressed himself to the causes of some of the social problems confronting people in Australia today. His conclusion is really quite extraordinary. I have been through Hansard very carefully on this point and find that I actually did hear him correctly on Friday when he suggested that we could break the link between women's refuges and unmarried parents by cutting back the supporting parent's benefit. I find this notion utterly nonsensical, if not downright cruel. Women do not get pregnant so that they can get rich on government benefits. The supporting parent's benefit does not relieve a man of his legal obligation to support his dependent wife and children. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(10.55) —This afternoon the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) raised in this House the matter of the breach by the Government of a further solemn commitment to the people of the Northern Territory made in the 1983 election by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the then spokesman for aviation and subsequently reiterated in the 1984 election to build a new terminal at Darwin Airport. On 4 April, the Minister for Aviation made the following announcement: The Government has decided to defer further contracts on the redevelopment of Darwin Airport, pending a complete reappraisal of the project. I would like to remind honourable members of the history of this project. In 1975, following Cyclone Tracy, the Whitlam Federal Government decided that neither Darwin Airport nor the Royal Australian Air Force base should be relocated. In early 1979 the Department of Defence advised that the existing civil aviation facilities must be vacated by 1985. The Commonwealth Department of Transport then commenced planning for the relocation of the civil aviation facilities on the northern side of the main runway because of the Commonwealth's own Defence Department requirements. In December 1980 Federal Cabinet confirmed that new civil aviation facilities would be located on the northern side of the main runway. In April 1982 Federal Cabinet approved the redevelopment project for consideration by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. In November 1982 the then Federal Minister for Aviation announced a $86m project for redevelopment of civil aviation facilities on the northern side. This commitment was reaffirmed by the Labor Government in August 1983 when the Federal Minister announced that commencement of construction had been approved for 1983-84. In May 1984 the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works recommended that the redevelopment project proceed with staged development on the northern side. In August 1984 the Federal Minister announced that $7.5m had been allocated to the project in the 1984-85 Federal Budget. On 18 October 1984 the Prime Minister inaugurated work on the project and further committed the Government to its construction. Now, less than six months later, work has been stopped and the project subject to reappraisal. A $100m Darwin Airport redevelopment does not mean that civil aviation users must contribute through airport charges sufficient to service that $100m expenditure. The reason is simple. The major components of the costs of the project are directly attributable to the Commonwealth's decision to locate the civil facilities on the northern side. That was for defence reasons, not because of civil aviation requirements. It is a shared airport with the RAAF. It would, therefore, be grossly inequitable to suggest that these costs should be recovered from the civil aviation users. The Minister's use of the Bosch report to justify his actions are quite wrong and totally misleading. The Northern Territory Government has been accused of economic vandalism in this House by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Let me speak about some of the effects that this decision will have on business and employment in the Top End of the Northern Territory. I wish to refer to a letter dated 10 April 1985 sent to the Prime Minister by the director of a company investing $55m to construct a new hotel in Darwin. Mr Speaker, $55m is dependent on what happens at the airport. The letter states: We are now told that this is going to take a longer time, in view of the Federal Government's announcement that work on the present construction of Darwin's international airport has been suspended and that there is going to be a review on the subject. Mr Prime Minister, this decision of the Federal Government is certainly causing us, as investors, very grave concern. Not only will our own investments be in jeopardy but I sincerely believe the prospects of the Territory taking off become shaky. Investors like us and many others who are contemplating to invest in this part of Australia are bound to feel nervous with indecision of the Government to fulfil commitments. The last paragraph of the letter states: Mr Prime Minister, this letter is written not as a criticism of your Government but rather as a manifestation of concern from one and numerous others who have placed great hopes in the future of Australia in general and the Territory in particular. If this letter serves to invite your positive response to such concern then it would have served the purpose for which it was written. The employment and investment losses caused by the breach of this solemn undertaking are incalculable. Mr SPEAKER —It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr John Brown —I require the debate to be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may be extended until 11.10 p.m. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(11.00) —I rise to make a few comments upon the speech delivered a little earlier by the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull). I note that in his usual well-mannered and courteous way the honourable member for Fadden informed me that he was to make the speech. It actually referred to a couple of things, but basically the issue of charter flights to Queensland to which my colleague the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) will respond after I have finished my few comments on tourism in general in Queensland. The honourable member for Fadden is probably the de facto spokesman on tourism in the Opposition because the official shadow Minister has yet to raise his head to say anything logical, sensible or smart in this House or anywhere else about tourism. I pay respect to the honourable member for Fadden because, in the term of the previous Government, I sat here entranced for five years while he exhibited his interest in and knowledge of tourism in a quite eloquent fashion on many occasions. I think that his comments tonight were made with a deal of sadness and that his intonations fell on the deaf ears of those insensitive honourable members who previously occupied the treasury bench. I note in passing that on the day he died-I do not say this with any disrespect-I received a flattering note from a former Treasurer and Minister for Tourism, Phil Lynch, congratulating me on the things which I had been able to do for tourism, which he had always wanted to do, which were supported by the honourable member for Fadden but which could not gain much support in the Cabinet. I turn to what we have done for tourism in Queensland because I think it is germane to what the honourable member for Fadden had to say. I think it is fair to say that Australia is probably the best tourism destination in the world. Sir Philip knew that. The honourable member for Fadden knows that. In the time when the honourable member for Fadden recently was not a member of this place he was employed by the Queensland Travel and Tourist Corporation. I say with, I guess, some sense of false modesty that on many occasions Sir Frank Moore, who was his boss on the QTTC, has paid glowing tributes to this Government for what it has managed to do for tourism. I have also been the recipient of some rather pleasant remarks from the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, now the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), who is sitting at the table, about what we did for tourism. Let me just relate the position of tourism in Queensland when we came to power in 1983. The tourism industry was in the doldrums. That was a pity because Queensland is probably the best example of the brilliance of the Australian tourism product. With the few things we were able to do we have revitalised tourism in Australia, particularly in Queensland. I will relate just a couple to the House. First of all, because of the promotion we have undertaken in the United States another 80,000 visitors will be coming this year from the United States, basically to Queensland. That is a big boost to the Queensland economy. I received a telex today from the Indian Government asking me to address a conference of a thousand delegates from the tourism industry in India on the marketing campaign we have undertaken in the United States. I mentioned in this House last week that the Australian campaign was mentioned in the Congress of the United States last week by the American Tourist Corporation in support of a budget. We have been able to do that. More importantly, we have revitalised tourism in Australia, where 85 per cent of our market emanates. It has been greatly to the advantage of Queensland that that has happened. Then we instituted a 4 per cent depreciation rate to replace the niggardly 2 1/2 per cent that operated for the previous few years. The result of that has been $7,000m-worth of developments in tourism in two years, a great percentage in Queensland. We took the 20 per cent sales tax off the building of tourist boats that the previous Government, in its infamy and stupidity, had instituted. This has revitalised the building of tourist boats in Queensland and has had a salutary effect on the off-shore islands. For the off-shore islands in Queensland this year we produced a half million dollar subsidy of the cost of diesel fuel, an exemption they had but lost under the previous Government. I think it is fair to say that this Government has had a salutary, if not profound, effect on employment prospects in Queensland, particularly on the prosperity of the tourist industry. I think that is enough to justify my efforts. I would like, therefore, to leave some time for my colleague the Minister for Aviation to answer the specific charges about air charters. I am sure that it will make interesting listening for all honourable members opposite. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation)(11.05) —We have with us tonight the leader of the cargo cult, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham). He brings to the feet of this Government the things that he could not achieve as Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and that 30 years of conservative government could not achieve. I say to him again that the days of the fairy godmother are over. There is no magic money mountain down here, my friend. From now on he has to justify the expenditure. He did not achieve it. We shall not go on with the cargo cult that he was so successful in developing in the Northern Territory. He could not achieve success in the airport works there. It was on again, off again, under the conservative government. These matters are now being considered on a proper, rational and economic basis. In respect of the statements made by the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull), I am sorry to hear that much of what he said is the same humbug that I heard for seven years. He had seven years to do all the things about which he talked tonight, and did nought. He had a sojourn from this place and hopped on the same bandwagon of humbug that we get from the National Party in Queensland: 'If only there were international charters paradise would reign in Queensland'. It is a little more complicated than that. He had seven years in government and found that he could not convince his colleagues to do the things that he now brings to this Government. He says: 'Why does not the Labor Government do it? The Liberal-Country Party Government could not achieve it in seven years. Why does not the Labor Government do it'? The application from Sterling Airways was received on 26 June. Further information was provided on 7 August last year. Approval was advised on 15 August and the airline thanked the Department of Aviation for the expeditious manner in which it was dealt with. The airline subsequently withdrew the application. That was its decision. If one starts out from the honourable member's earlier premise that there was not enough time for marketing, I would have thought that any responsible business organisation would take into account lead times in obtaining international approval. Therefore, I do not accept that kind of humbug. This is the same old story that the National Party hacks in north Queensland trot out: 'Why don't we have international charter flights?' For a start, seven years of Fraser Government could not achieve this. The other matter is that no applications were received other than those which I mentioned last week. The application from All Nippon Airways has been received. Further necessary information was sought for technical reasons-not in the trivialised way in which the honourable member for Fadden referred to it earlier. That was provided on 28 March. That application is being considered, but I have to say, as did the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) earlier today, that there has been no indication that the application is supported by the Japanese Government. The Japanese Government, under the air service agreement, has one very strict and rigid rule; that is, its operator to this country is Japan Airlines. The honourable member should go back and look at this matter. He should not raise false hopes for Queensland and should not lay at the feet of this Government the Opposition's failures and humbug. In respect of East-West Airlines, had the honourable member read the information correctly he would have found that what I said yesterday was that Qantas Airways Ltd is the only scheduled air service operator under the Australian flag out of this country. I did not say 'the only air operator'. I am quite sure that after the honourable member reads the Press release, a copy of which I table, he will recognise that. These are two quite different matters. In the case of East-West Airlines, we have to say also that there are nine international carriers operating out of Perth. The commercial judgment of the airlines that already have rights out of Perth is not to operate the additional services they could provide. East-West seems to know better. The situation with respect to Guam is not easy. There must be reciprocal arrangements with the United States Government. This is a complex issue which has been trivialised by the Opposition. The Opposition should get down to selling Queensland and the industry in a better fashion rather than raising these kinds of straw men, as it does from time to time. We cannot achieve in two years what the Opposition has not been able to do in 30, but at least we have an innovative policy that provides for international charters from points that are not frequently serviced by international scheduled services. We are doing something about the problem. You did nought about it. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister required leave to table the paper. Is leave granted? Mr PETER MORRIS —I understood that leave was not required for a Minister to table a paper. Mr SPEAKER —I am advised that under these circumstances it is. I take it there is no objection. Leave granted. Mr SPEAKER —The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.10 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr West to 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: Laboratory development at CSIRO Floreat Park Laboratories, Perth. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 22 April 1985: First Home Owners Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 39. Fisheries Act-Notices, Nos. 139, 140. Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 38. Public Service Act-Determination-1985-No. 26. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances-1985- No. 12-Mental Health (Amendment). No. 13-Medical Practitioners Registration (Amendment). No. 16-Crimes (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 17-Court of Petty Sessions (Amendment). No. 18-Court of Petty Sessions (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 19-Evidence (Amendment). States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Statements of particulars of directions given by Minister under- Sub-sections 37 (1) and 41 (2), dated 20 February 1985. Sub-section 41 (1), dated 27 February 1985. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 103) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 February 1985: Is he able to say (a) what is the 'Third World Foundation' of New Zealand House, 80 Haymarket, London; (b) what work it does; (c) who are its principals, and who are the members of its governing board; (d) what publications it has produced and to what do they relate; (e) how, by whom, and in what manner it is financed; (f) which governments of the Third World and which international organisations give it active or passive support and (g) what is the political flavour of its activities. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Third World Foundation is based in London where it is registered as a charity. The Foundation's declared aims are 'To work for the intellectual, economic and social advancement of the people of the Third World through publications and research. To assist in the evolution of a fundamentally just and equitable relationship between the Third World and the developed countries. To create greater awareness of the causes of poverty in the Third World'. The Foundation's Advisory Committee consists of: Dr Ali Attiga, Secretary-General, OAPEC; Mr Bernard G. Chidzero, Minister of Finance, Economic Planning and Development, Zimbabwe; Mr K. K. S. Dadzie, Ghanian Ambassador, London; Mr E. V. Iglesias, former Executive Secretary, Economic Commission for Latin America; Mr Amir Jamal, Minister for Finance, Tanzania; Dr Raul Prebisch, former Secretary-General, UNCTAD; Mr S. S. Ramphal, Secretary-General, Commonwealth Secretariat; Professor Abdus Salam, Director, International Centre for Theoretical Physics; Professor A. K. Sen, All Souls College, Oxford; and Dr K. Soedjatmoki, Rector, UN University. Mr Altaf Gauhar is the Secretary-General of the Foundation. Mr Azim Husain is the Principal Adviser of the Foundation. The Foundation publishes the Third World Quarterly which, according to the Foundation, aims at providing eminent statesmen and scholars involved in North-South issues with an opportunity to express their views. Monographs from the Quarterly are translated into other languages. Books currently available from the Foundation include: Talking About Development The Rich and The Poor No To Recession and Unemployment The Foundation also holds conferences and seminars. The Foundation claims that its Trust Deed does not allow it to accept, directly or otherwise, any aid, grant or assistance from any Government or official agency. Annual membership for individuals and institutions costs $US24. A Third World prize of $US100,000, to be awarded annually, has been established by the Bank of Credit and Commerce International S.A. For this purpose the Bank has constituted a Third World prize endowment fund of $US10 million to be developed by 1 January 1990. Responsibility for the administration of the prize has been delegated to a company established under the auspices of the Foundation in return for the payment of a management fee. The whole of the profits of this company, under a deed of covenant, are payable to the Foundation. The Foundation has held conferences in Columbia, China and Tanzania. Addresses to the Foundation have been delivered by President Nyerere of Tanzania and the former Prime Minister of Jamaica, Michael Manly. Foundation awards have been presented by the former Prime Minister of India, Mrs Gandhi; the Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, Zhao Ziyang; and President Betancourt of Colombia. Foundation publications have carried interviews with a wide range of Third World leaders. The Foundation's activities can best be categorised as being 'pro South' and its publications tailored to appeal to a Third World readership. (Question No. 219) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories, 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 Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 18. (2) Yes. A register of staff receiving the allowance is maintained by the Employment Services Branch of my Department. All staff on the register are experienced in meeting client needs through the use of their language skill. (3) The majority of staff receiving the language availability performance allowance are situated in major client contact areas such as the Motor Vehicle Registry and the Housing Branch. In circumstances where a language proficiency is not available within the resources of a particular area, an officer from the register is requested to assist as required. (Question No. 262) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 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 Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Department, through its Personnel Development Section, has over the past several years arranged the production of several video films with outside assistance, as well as itself producing some video programs, largely on an ad hoc basis, all for internal training purposes. (3) No permanent video programs were produced for or by the Department during 1983-84. (4) The Department has no film production equipment. It currently holds four video cameras and other video equipment for use in Departmental training workshops. (5) No staff are employed specifically for the purpose of producing film or video programs. (Question No. 266) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Primary Industry, 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 Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Production is undertaken by Film Australia and/or professional private production houses, or to a limited extent, internally, according to the 'Guidelines for film and audio visual production by Australian Government Departments and Authorities', issued by Film Australia on 1 June 1981. (2) Videotape recordings are sometimes made of meetings and seminars for record and training purposes and some very simple productions are made for staff and other training purposes. (3) Five. World Food Day two 30 seconds promotions for television and cinema ($14,878); Inspection Australia: a look at Australia's inspection service, and A question of integrity, (both produced in tandem for a total cost of $100,000), Sashimi tuna-a guide for exporters ($500). (4) Five video cameras, four portable video cassette recorders and accessories, one super-8 film camera and one hand-operated editing machine. Use of this equipment explained in (2) above. (5) There are no officers employed specifically for the production of films and videos. (Question No. 276) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Territories, 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 Scholes —The answers to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The practice of my Department is to have films and videos made by Film Australia. (2) No. (3) The following six films have been produced since January 1983. The date of payment usually leads the date of production by about twelve months, as payment is required in advance. The initial payment is based on an estimated cost; the final production cost is usually higher. Title Cost Finalised Canberra-Heart of the Nation Received 25.1.83-$13,000 Cocos Act of Self-Determination Received 31.8.84-$4,380 Not finalised Garden Flats Ordered 20.6.84-$9,681 (est.) Trees and Australian National Botanic Gardens Ordered 25.10.84-$11,350 (est.) Cocos U.N. Debate Ordered 15.1.85-$1,000 (est.) (4) None. (5) None. (Question No. 357) Mr Conquest asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) Is it a fact that, following amendments to the Customs Act 1901 and the Excise Act 1901, on 17 August 1982, which terminated the previous diesel fuel certificate scheme agricultural tractor dealers now receive no rebate for diesel fuel purchases used in on-farm demonstrations of their tractors. (2) Is it a fact that (a) the decision not to grant a rebate to dealers is based on the definition of the term 'use' within section 78A of the Excise Act and section 164 of the Customs Act and that the 'Agricultural purpose' to which the tractor is put during selling demonstration is considered incidental to 'demonstration' and (b) this decision ignores the fact that on conclusion of a sale all fuel remaining may pass to the farmer purchaser, whose use thereof is unquestionably for agricultural purposes. (3) Is the Government considering amending the relevant sections of the Customs Act and the Excise Act to rectify this seemingly anomalous position. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) (a) Yes; (b) Dealers purchase diesel fuel for use during the demonstration of agricultural equipment with the objective of making a commercial sale. It would be doubtful that any significant amounts of diesel fuel are passed to the purchaser in such circumstances. (3) See (2) (b). No amendment is considered necessary. (Question No. 438) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program, in (A) June, (B) July, and (C) August 1984. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Temporary staff employed under the Community Employment Program were as follows: (i) Department of Industry and Commerce: Nil (ii) Statutory Authorities: ALBURY-WODONGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Males Females June 1984 1 Nil July 1984 1 1 August 1984 Nil Nil (Question No. 468) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: Can he confirm the estimate of the Save Australia's Roads Committee that up to 60,000 jobs will be lost in the road construction industry within the next 8 years if road construction expenditure is not increased in real terms; if not, how many jobs are expected to be lost. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Since coming to office, this Government has restored the real level of roads expenditure to that prevailing in the early 1970's. Funding in 1984-85 is 51.5 per cent more than in 1982-83. This is estimated to have created some 16,000 extra jobs in the road construction and related industries. Many more jobs would also have been created as a result of increased spending within the community by those employed. The prediction of the Save Australia's Roads Committee of lost jobs is rather loosely based on projections undertaken by the Bureau of Transport Economics of possible trends in future road funding levels. These projections are based on a number of assumptions about future funding decisions by all levels of government between now and 1989-90. The future level of Federal funding for roads is currently under consideration by the Government. The honourable member may be assured that the Government's decision will take account of the employment generation effects of road projects as well as our overall Budget strategy to achieve sustained economic recovery and growth.