Tuesday, 23 April 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Minister representing the Acting Treasurer. In light of the statement yesterday by the Minister for Resources and Energy that the windfall gain to budgetary oil revenue from devaluation could be about $550m in l985-86, I ask: Firstly, what is the net gain to revenue from devaluation for l984-85 and l985-86? Secondly, will the l985-86 deficit be cut by at least the increase in revenue from devaluation plus the $l billion cut in expenditure announced by the Prime Minister? If not, why not? Mr DAWKINS —The announcement by the Minister for Resources and Energy yesterday made it clear that it was not the intention of the Government to retain the net advantage coming from the devaluation for anything other than reducing the deficit. So the short answer to the honourable member's question is that the devaluation, of course, does have both consequences in terms of increasing outlays and increasing revenues. What the Minister for Resources and Energy stated was that the net benefit from that process would be returned to the community. Mrs CHILD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Why has the Government felt it necessary to announce that it will be making a May statement on the economy in which it will detail $1 billion worth of savings? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Henty for her question. The Government's commitment to expenditure restraint in order to sustain recovery and to preserve the benefits of depreciation has been enunciated by both the Treasurer and me on a number of occasions. We have promised the Australian people that we will deliver on the trilogy, and we will. We are determined that the burden of fiscal restraint shall be shared equitably across the community. In addition to the May statement, there will be an ongoing process in the discussions with the State Premiers and in the Budget in August. It should be quite clear by now that we on this side of the House clearly accept the obligations and the responsibilities to manage the economy in a way consistent with our commitments on employment growth and inflation and that we on this side of the House are prepared to make the tough decisions which are necessary to give effect to sound economic management. So it is quite clear that we on this side of the House accept responsibility. Let us look at the rabble on the other side of the House. Let us look at the position over there. On Sunday, l0 March, the Leader of the Opposition had this to say: I don't think the Labor Party are fair dinkum about getting expenditure down. I think we are looking at successively increasing deficits under them. On 6 March, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: The Liberal Party will support changes made by the Government in the expenditure area. I think the honourable member for Henty would agree with me that we do not expect much from the Leader of the Opposition. His grasp on economics is about as tenuous as his grasp on his own leadership. But we do expect a little bit more from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. What is becoming increasingly clear now is that the Opposition cannot get away with these hypocritical statements any longer because its hypocrisy is now starting to be realised. The hypocrisy on the other side of the House is now being widely understood and as of today has been made quite clear right in the heart of its normal area of support. The Australian Chamber of Commerce has now made clear what it thinks about the respective integrity of this Government and the Opposition. In a statement issued today under the heading 'Business Welcomes PM's expenditure cuts commitment' it said the cuts were warmly applauded by the business community. That organisation understands where integrity is on this matter. What does it have to say about those opposite? This is how the statement finished: It has been noted within the business community that the Federal Opposition has not made any public announcement that it would pursue a more stringent 'trilogy' of commitments than that announced by the Prime Minister. It concluded in this form: Business would expect the Federal Opposition to adopt as an integral component of its economic policy a 'trilogy' commitment that promised net reductions in expenditure, revenue and the deficit. Their silence on this important matter is disconcerting. What is realised across the community now is that in government they were an abject failure and in opposition they are a collective hypocrisy. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to his much heralded statement yesterday about a $l,000m reduction in the forward estimates of expenditure. Is it a fact that last year the Government reduced those same forward estimates of expenditure by $l,3l5m during the Budget process? Is it also a fact that having done that the Government then decided to add new discretionary expenditure outlays of $l,l38m, which appeared in the August Budget, leaving a net saving from the exercise of $l77m? I refer the Prime Minister to page 272 of Budget Paper No. l, which contains these figures. Can the Prime Minister guarantee to the House that the same thimble and pea trick will not be repeated this year? Mr HAWKE —I am delighted that I have been asked this question by the honourable member for Bennelong because it enables me, once again, to make the point which has been made consistently by my colleague the Treasurer and which is clearly understood by the people of Australia-that if one wants the loud heehaw in matters economic one should listen to what comes from the failed Treasurer on the other side of the House, who gave to the people of Australia, with the greatest piece of deception ever practised by a Treasurer in the history of this country, an inherited deficit- Mr Howard —This is not AM. Mr Moore —It is p.m. for him. Mr HAWKE —It is the PM doing you over like a dinner. As I said, we know that we will have this tirade of interjections because the last thing that this honourable member wants to hear about is his abject failure. Let me go to the facts. We will not dodge what happened. Mr Howard —Answer the question. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —When we came into government we picked up the mess that we inherited from the honourable member and moved immediately to slash the deficit that we would have carried if we had adhered to his practices. Not only did we do that in the Budget of l983 but also in the Budget period of l984, the period to which he referred, we continued the process of slashing the deficit. Mr Howard —No, you didn't; you increased it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I think I have given him a reasonable go. Mr HAWKE —Going to the very period that the honourable member asked me about, we continued in the August Budget to slash the structural deficit that we had inherited from him. In the process of continuing to cut the deficit, we continued what we had started in l983, that is, turning the Australian economy around from the worst economic disaster for 50 years into the highest rate of economic growth and the highest rate of employment growth it had experienced. That is why the Australian people have confidence in the economic policies that this Government has pursued. Honourable members interjecting-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. When about 20 members are interjecting at the one time it is very difficult for the Chair to take action. I ask honourable members to show some respect for the House. Mr HAWKE —Not only did we in that comprehensive economic strategy continue the process of reducing the deficit that we inherited from the previous Government but also, with a comprehensive policy which covered the area of fiscal policy, monetary policy and prices and incomes policy, we produced strong economic growth and the highest rate of employment growth in this country and at the same time halved the disastrous rate of inflation that we inherited from the previous Government. I conclude by saying that in our third Budget we will continue with integrity the policies which we have implemented and which have turned around the economic disaster which the Opposition inflicted upon this country. Mrs DARLING —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that the Queensland Government has denied that its recent industrial legislation breaches any International Labour Organisation convention? Can the Minister advise the House of the exact situation in that regard? How serious are such breaches? Mr WILLIS —Yes, I am aware of the claims by the Queensland Government that it is not in breach of ILO conventions. There is no doubt on the part of the Government that the Queensland Government is in breach of a number of ILO conventions. Strong advice has been received from the Attorney-General's Department to that effect. Very briefly, the three areas of breach relate to the excessive powers of the Electricity Commissioner, which breach ILO conventions 29, l05 and 98; the lack of appeal rights for electricity workers to an independent authority regarding dismissal for being on strike, which is in breach of ILO Convention 87; and the accelerated deregistration provisions which do not allow for appeal to an independent authority against deregistration of the unions, which also is in breach of Convention 87. It is interesting to note that the breaching of two of those ILO conventions-Convention 29 and Convention 87 respectively-have been cited against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Poland in recent years. That is the company in which the Queensland Government now is. The Government regards these breaches as extremely serious. They are breaches of international treaties and they are also breaches of a very long-standing bipartisan support in this country for the ILO amongst political parties and, beyond that, the industrial parties, unions and employers. These breaches are made more serious by the Federal Opposition's support for the Queensland breaches and by the statements by the Opposition spokesmen that the ILO conventions are totally irrelevant to Australia's industrial relations. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr WILLIS —I hear a few cries of 'Hear, hear!' in support of that. I think that is a disgrace for the Federal Opposition. Tripartite support for the ILO by governments, unions and employers has been demonstrated by a long involvement with the ILO of all three parties. Ratification of ILO conventions is part of that involvement. There is also, of course, each year an annual conference of the ILO to which Australia sends a tripartite delegation. That delegation often includes the Minister and it has been a long-standing practice for the Minister to invite a State labour Minister and also the Federal Opposition spokesman to accompany him. In recent years membership of this delegation has included such people as, in l98l, the Queensland Minister for Employment and Labour Relations, Sir William Knox, which presumably indicated the support for the ILO by the Queensland Government at that time. The Opposition spokesman on industrial relations, now the spokesman on foreign affairs, went to the ILO in l983 and l984. Under the previous Government three Ministers went to the ILO, presumably representing support by that Government for the ILO. They were Ministers Street, Viner and Hunt. When Minister Viner went to the ILO conference, he said: I reaffirm Australia's strong and continuing support for the ILO and what it stands for. In l982 the now Deputy Leader of the National Party went as a visiting Minister to the ILO, representing the then Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. On behalf of the Government, he said: We call upon member States to respect the principle of freedom of association . . . That is Convention No. 87, of which the Queensland Government is now in breach on at least two counts. Against all that, we now have statements by the Opposition spokesman that ILO conventions are totally irrelevant, that he thinks the ILO would be much better served by looking at some of the labour practices of the Third World nations and some of the communist nations instead of worrying about a democratic country like Australia, and that he thinks it is nonsense to invoke ILO conventions in respect of the Electrical Trades Union dispute in Queensland. All those statements are highly regrettable in terms of breaking down that bipartisan support. But we do not regard it as a lost cause. I certainly hope that the Opposition will change its mind on this matter. The Government hopes that it will repudiate those statements and accept support for the ILO. In that connection, I have today, in accordance with longstanding practice, sent a letter to the Opposition spokesman inviting him to attend the next conference of the ILO with me. I hope he will demonstrate his support for the ILO by accepting that invitation. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister in the hope that we will get an answer. He refused to answer the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and he refused, I noted, to answer many of the questions of the Press yesterday. I know the Prime Minister has a cold but I did not think it had taken residence in his feet. I refer the Prime Minister to his words yesterday. These may give greater clarity of thought than even the previous answer. When asked about the forward estimates, inter alia, he replied: And so the simplest way and the accurate way of putting what we are about is that, put it this way, that in respect of forward that would have existed before we undertook the expenditure review process, these decisions that we are taking represent a cut of at least a billion dollars. Apart from telling us what he meant yesterday, perhaps he could tell us whether the foreshadowed reduction of at least $l billion is a reduction against the forward estimates of expenditure. Will the Government release the forward Estimates? Will the Prime Minister advise the House what the total expenditure figure in the forward estimates amounted to? Mr HAWKE —I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition has entered into the area of economics. It is well known around Australia what a fundamental grasp he has of the subject. It will give those behind him great confidence to know that he is launching into this area. I will put it in terms which may be understood even by the Leader of the Opposition with his very limited grasp of matters economic. I will put it very simply and slowly, and I hope without undue interruption, because the Leader of the Opposition, when it comes to economic matters, needs to have his undivided attention on the subject. He finds it very difficult. So let me put it in terms that even the Leader of the Opposition may be able to comprehend. I ask the Leader to listen carefully. He might get it. What it means is this: If l984-85 policies had been continued without the decisions taken by the Expenditure Review Committee, which were then endorsed by the Cabinet, the level of expenditures would have been $l billion higher than it will now be as a result of the deliberate decision by the Government. This required deliberate decisions by the Government either to eliminate or to cut down existing policies. That has been done and has been understood, recognised and applauded by the business community, which clearly understands the reality of the decision being made by the Government. If the Leader of the Opposition and those giggling galoots behind him do not share the economic knowledge and understanding of the business community, which has now repudiated him, that is a matter for regret. In time perhaps he will get the understanding which those who used to support him have and for which reason they applaud the decision of the Government. Mr CROSS —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that the Human Rights Commission has found the Queensland Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act to be in breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Human Rights Commission has examined that appropriate bit of legislation. Human Rights Commission Report No. l2 which was tabled in this Parliament last week stated that the Human Rights Commission had found that that legislation was inconsistent with Article 8 of the International Covenant. It further recommended that the inconsistencies in that legislation be brought to the attention of the Queensland Government. This is a serious matter. The Human Rights Commission was established by the Fraser Government. The Commission has a responsibility to ensure that the International Covenant is adhered to. From the point of view of Queensland's involvement in that adherence, it is a matter of record that between l972 and l980, when the Covenant was ratified, the Queensland Government was continually consulted. It agreed to the International Covenant being ratified. Having agreed to it, the Queensland Government is bound by it. If we look at the particular piece of legislation we see that it has some horrendous provisions in it, namely, those in respect of the electricity commissioner. He can direct any person to do work, irrespective of whether that person is an employee or not. Of course, if the person who is bound under section 3 to become an employee fails to carry out the direction, that person can be dismissed summarily and also fined $l,000. Further, the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Commission was excluded. What I have to say to this Parliament is that we have an International Covenant which obliges State governments to comply with the Covenant. Indeed, with their co-operation, the Covenant was ratified on that basis. The Human Rights Commission has said that that matter should be brought to the attention of the Premier of Queensland. Of course, I am aware that it has been brought to his attention by correspondence from the Prime Minister. All the Premier could do was say that he would ignore the correspondence. He might ignore the correspondence but he cannot ignore the fact that there has been a breach of the International Covenant. The real issue we are talking about here is the obligation to ensure that legislation complies with that Covenant. Here is a breach of it. There is no need to be in breach of the Covenant. One can run an intelligent democracy without having to breach the Covenant. Mr Tuckey —Are you going to take action ? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor has had a pretty good go since 2 o'clock. I warn him. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The point at issue is this: The Queensland Government legislated to override conditions of employment; it legislated to terminate the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission; it legislated in a sense to prevent the employees from negotiating terms and conditions in the normal atmosphere of conciliation and arbitration which applied under the previous Queensland law. What government in any democratic nation would want to legislate to prevent its own laws from operating and to legislate in direct breach of an international covenant? No other government in Australia would do so and no other government in the Western democracies would do so because it is a breach of normal democratic standards. That is the point that now bedevils this nation. With that sort of legislation and that sort of Premier, it is natural, is it not, that we will have industrial disputation? Accordingly, everybody in the nation must bear the burden of that reckless type of legislation. The real issue, of course, is for the Queensland Government to adhere to normal international standards. If it is a democracy, why does the Queensland Government not legislate in accordance with those standards? If it is so concerned about industrial disputation, why does it not adhere to the fact that under the International Covenant there are obligations to have conciliation and arbitration? It has been made very clear today that honourable gentlemen opposite do not see any merit in the International Covenant, but they see a lot of merit in the sort of legislation that has been foisted upon Queensland. I say to the honourable member for Brisbane that what he says, of course, is very evident to many people in Australia. If that sort of conduct goes on, if it is permissible simply because one has the numbers in the Parliament and can breach a covenant, is it any wonder that there is industrial disputation? Is it any wonder that there are industrial disputes that spread across the length and breadth of this continent? In the Constitution there are provisions to settle by conciliation and arbitration disputes which extend beyond the bounds of any one State. At this stage the dispute has been confined to Queensland. Regrettably, the Premier has taken the view that he will legislate his way out of the dispute. He will never be able to legislate his way out of the dispute. The real issue is the question of conciliation and arbitration in accordance with international standards. It is about time that the Queensland Government, irrespective of its Premier, realised that it has an obligation under that Covenant. I am sure that the people of Queensland understand that point, as do the more thinking members of the Opposition. If it becomes a question of legislating in the way in which members of the Opposition want to legislate, peace and industrial harmony in Australia will go out the window. We will again draw to the attention of the Queensland Government-not necessarily the Premier, but the Government-the fact that there is an international obligation to be adhered to. All that the Premier has to do is to repeal that legislation. Unless he does so he will be in continual breach of the International Covenant. Mr COBB —In light of the Prime Minister's answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I ask him: What would have been the total expenditure required to continue the Government's l984-85 policies in l985-86 without the $l billion reduction? Mr Young —A billion more than it would otherwise have been. Mr HAWKE —I regret that the Special Minister of State has given the answer for me. He has just said: 'A billion more than it would otherwise have been'. Mr BEDDALL —My question also is addressed to the Prime Minister. What do he and the Government consider to be the most satisfactory and permanent way of resolving the Queensland power industry dispute? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. I believe that all who are seriously concerned with this issue, and not merely involved in attempts at cheap political point-scoring, will realise that the essential requirement for the settlement of this issue-not just the immediate dispute but for the settlement of this issue in the longer term-is the creation of conditions in which there will be an assurance in the minds of members of the Queensland public that they will have continuity of supplies in the electricity industry. That is the essential issue. The people of Queensland and the Government of Queensland are entitled to be concerned about trying to achieve that situation. Unfortunately, all that has been offered in this regard is draconian legislation which will not, in the short, medium or long term, give a satisfactory assurance on this central matter. As I told the House in speaking on this issue earlier, what is required is that the parties sit down and negotiate a settlement of disputes procedure, the sort of procedure to which organised employers, the trade union movement and governments have directed their minds in the past. In order that Opposition members, to the extent they have any real interest in this subject, and the Government of Queensland may have some understanding of the precise sort of thing we are talking about, I indicate to the House that the features of an effective dispute settlement procedure would include the following sorts of provisions. The provisions to which I refer have the significance that they were arrived at in the National Labour Advisory Council in the early l970s. They were agreed to by representatives of the employers, the trade unions and the Federal Government. The then Government-the non-Labor Government-the organised employers and the trade unions addressed themselves to this issue: What sort of settlement of disputes procedure should one think about? What are the elements of it that should be laid down to ensure that, particularly in essential industries, there will be a mechanism to make sure that there will be continuity of supplies? The elements of such a settlement of disputes procedure are that there should be a lengthy cooling-off period in the event of a dispute arising. There should be clearly understood procedures for dealing with matters in dispute. These would be promulgated to management at all levels, to union representatives, including at the plant or local level, and to all employees. There would be a clear and unequivocal commitment by all parties to the implementation of the letter and intent of the agreed procedures. It would also provide for special attention to be given in formulating agreed procedures for safety issues. There would be capacity at any stage of the agreed procedures for the parties to seek the assistance of a conciliator, the relevant industrial tribunal or some other mutually acceptable person. There would be no recourse to formal arbitration processes until all the agreed avenues for dealing with disputes which arise have been exhausted. Normal working would continue at all stages of the dispute settlement process, except where there were serious issues of the safety of workers. It is quite clear that that outline of a settlement of disputes procedure of the sort that was arrived at under the auspices of a non-Labor government, in consultation with organised employers and the trade union movement, offers a very tight situation. I can say that the trade unions concerned would agree to such an extremely tight procedure in which the possibility of strike action would be virtually excluded. I trust that, I having outlined those relevant elements of a settlement of disputes procedure, the Government of Queensland will see that the way to settle this dispute in a way that will serve the interests of the people of Queensland and ensure the guarantee of continuity of supplies is to sit down now and negotiate with the unions. We are prepared to be involved and to provide our good services in seeing that there can be a resumption of normal work with such a settlement of disputes procedure. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I refer him to his Press conference yesterday in which he said: Of course the other thing which has affected the forward estimates is the whole volatility of the currency. Will the Prime Minister advise the House what effect the volatility of the currency has had on the forward estimates of expenditure, and how much would this volatility have added to the costs of continuing l984-85 policies into l985-86? Mr HAWKE —It is very interesting to see the honourable member, who is so learned in economics, make a rare intervention into these matters in this place. The answer is that it is obviously impossible to say at this point what that measure will be. The Opposition could not say so with any precision. I simply remind the House that the Minister for Finance in another place, in answer to a question without notice on 27 March, indicated in respect of the estimates of outlays that it was his intention to release details of the forward Estimates in May. I simply say that when that detailed statement is made in May all honourable members on the other side of the House will be able to come to the conclusion which has already been reached in the business community. In the light of all the information made available there, the Opposition will be able to see the reality of the billion dollar cut in outlays which I indicated would be announced in May. There is no doubt about the reality of the cuts. They have been accepted in all quarters except in this Opposition. When the statement is made in May, even the Opposition will be able to understand the reality of the cuts. Mr LINDSAY —Can the Prime Minister advise the House of the Government's attitude to calls for legal action to resolve the Queensland industrial dispute? Mr HAWKE —As I indicated in answer to a previous question, the attitude of the Government remains quite clear; it is that this dispute will not be settled until all parties are prepared to sit down and negotiate a settlement. In answer to a previous question I indicated the essential way in which that can be done. It is quite clear that the longer the Queensland Government refuses to sit down and negotiate the longer this dispute will run against the interests of Queensland and the interests of Australia as a whole. I am particularly interested to remind the honourable member that I have already told the House about the hypocritical double standards that the Premier of Queensland has in regard to this question of adherence to the law. The Premier is saying in this dispute that there must be an adherence to the law. However, l2 months before, when it came to trying to scuttle the Medicare ship, he said that he did not care if what he did was either illegal or unconstitutional. So much for his double standards. I also remind the honourable member that this is what the Premier was reported to have said on 6 April on this issue of people who do not obey the law: Anyone who tries to defy or break the law will tie themselves up ultimately and any charges that have been taken out now will be pushed to the end as sure as the sun comes up and everyone who gets involved will get treated the same way. On this question of applying the law equally, I guess it will not have escaped the notice of the honourable member-and I would think of most members of this House-that very grave allegations have been raised by a senior member of the Bjelke-Petersen Government concerning the conduct of the Chairman of the Board of the Queensland Totalisator Administration Board, Sir Edward Lyons. Mr Hayden —He's the National Party's chief bagman. Mr HAWKE —Exactly. It is a matter of public record-it certainly is well known in Queensland but it is also known beyond Queensland-that Sir Edward is a close confidant of Sir Joh and has been described as 'a cornerstone of the National Party'. He has been described in many ways. Mr Hayden —He scoops 20 per cent off the top as he goes along. Mr HAWKE —I do not know about these open-cut operations to which my friend the Foreign Minister refers. Of course, neither I nor anyone on this side of the House would make any judgment at all about these allegations that have been made against this cornerstone of the National Party by a senior member of the Bjelke-Petersen Government. Those allegations are properly a matter for due and appropriate legal process. I simply say to the honourable member who has asked me the question that all Australians concerned with the maintenance of public confidence in our legal system and with integrity in government will be watching this matter very closely to ensure that in Queensland the legal system is allowed to deal properly and fully with these grave allegations. Mr ALDRED —I ask the Prime Minister whether his reference to $l,000m in spending cuts by his Government is analagous to a former Bourke's salesman offering a discount on a product for which he refuses to give the original price? Will the practice have the same effect on his Government as it possibly had on Bourke's? Mr HAWKE —That was a powerful question, Mr Speaker, by which I am so devastated that I can only answer no, no. Mr SNOW —Will the Minister for Health advise the House of the progress of the introduction of acquired immune deficiency syndrome screening kits into Australia? How successful will the introduction of the kits be in minimising the spread of AIDS? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for Eden-Monaro for his question. I am glad to be able to say that as of today all States and Territories have now announced arrangements for the use of the AIDS antibody screening tests. Throughout Australia, all nominated State health laboratories and blood transfusion centres will be fully operational in their use of the screening tests by next Monday. South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland began full use of the tests last Monday week. Since then, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have become operational. Today, New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory announced the nominated laboratories to which at risk people could go for screening from next Monday. The speedy introduction of the screening tests represents a tremendous co-operative effort between the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments, the Red Cross and the scientific community in combating what is a major public health problem in this country. It has been a major task involving co-ordinated evaluation of the kits, tendering and purchase, the installation of testing equipment and the training of laboratory personnel to evaluate test results. All States and Territories, the Red Cross and the scientific community deserve congratulations for the quick and efficient introduction of these kits. I point out that this makes Australia the first country to have fully introduced the AIDS screening tests. We in fact will be providing from Monday next a more comprehensive coverage than the United States of America, the country which is supplying the kits. The kits have been distributed simultaneously to Red Cross blood banks and to public health laboratories throughout Australia. This has been done because those in high risk groups who wish to be tested for AIDS should not go to the blood banks but should use the laboratories nominated by the governments in their State or Territory. In addition, general practitioners and private pathologists will also be able to collect blood from patients and forward supplies to the nominated laboratories. The Government believes that, with an almost l00 per cent accuracy of the test for the AIDS anti-body, this is the best means yet to prevent the spread of AIDS through our blood supply. The Commonwealth Government has now given some $5.4m since November last to State health departments, community organisations, the blood transfusion service and other organisations, in a combined effort to halt the spread of this disease. Some $2.5m of that money was put aside to pay for the 300,000 tests which it is anticipated will take place in this financial year. As of today, there have been 74 confirmed cases of AIDS in Australia, with 27 deaths so far. While the incidence of AIDS is clearly on the increase, we are confident that the decisive actions taken will help to contain what is one of the biggest public health problems this country has had to face. Mr PETER FISHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has a direction been given by the Government to Qantas Airways Ltd that players or supporters involved in the proposed New Zealand All Blacks tour of South Africa must not be carried? Has the order been made even though Qantas flies to Zimbabwe and not into South Africa? Mr HAYDEN —No, but I am pleased that Qantas took the action. I should certainly have sought to convey my views to it if it had not. Mr GAYLER —My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State. It relates to industry in Queensland, specifically the parlous state of the racing industry. Is the Minister aware of allegations concerning a member of the Queensland Totalisator Administration Board, whether he be a knight of the realm or otherwise, who is supposed to have fraudulently used a telephone betting account? Can the Minister inform the House whether such action would constitute a relevant offence under the National Crime Authority Legislation? If there were evidence of organised crime resulting from such fraud, would the Minister expect the matter to come before the Intergovernmental Committee of the NCA? Mr Spender —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: That matter is either within, or perilously close to, the sub judice rule in the sense that inquiries, as we read, are taking place. Mr SPEAKER —Has a criminal charge been laid? Are criminal proceedings under way? Mr Spender —It is being investigated, and therefore is a matter about which you should be scrupulously careful. Mr SPEAKER —It is not covered by the sub judice rule. I call the Special Minister of State. Mr YOUNG —Mr Speaker-- Mr Tuckey —On a point of order-- Government members interjecting-- Mr Tuckey —In response to those Government members who are questioning my legal experience, I say that I had enough legal brains to find out that he was a tax avoider. There is no worry about my legal ability. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will come to his point of order or he will take his seat. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I was waiting for you to be handed the book. I draw your attention to standing order l44, regarding questions, which says that questions should not ask Ministers for a legal opinion. In that question there was a definite request for a legal opinion. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I call the Special Minister of State. Mr YOUNG —A relevant offence under the National Crime Authority legislation is a serious offence that involves two or more offenders and substantial planning and organisation; that involves the use of sophisticated methods and techniques; that is committed in conjunction with similar offences and involves a range of matters including theft, fraud, bankruptcy and company violations and tax evasion. While I am not aware of the full details of the matters currently under consideration by the Public Prosecutor in Queensland, newspaper reports of matters raised in the Queensland Parliament indicate that at least some of the necessary elements for a relevant offence may be present in the case. I should just say, in addition to what the Prime Minister said, that there is a very close contact-- Mr Sinclair —How do you come to be giving a legal opinion? Mr YOUNG —I could give as good a one as you. Mr Sinclair —I can tell you that it would be a damn sight more accurate-- Mr YOUNG —It would be a contest, would it not? Mr Sinclair —It would not cost the taxpayers as much, though, Mick. Mr YOUNG —All the time you did was not in law school. Mr SPEAKER —Order! While the House is used to the exchanges between the two honourable members, I suggest that the Minister proceed with his answer. Mr YOUNG —There is a very close tie between the Chairman of the Totalisator Administration Board in Queensland and the Queensland Premier. Let me refer to an interview given on 2l October last. The report of the interview stated: Millionaire businessman Sir Edward Lyons revealed for the first time yesterday his role as minder, political watchdog and personal confidant of the Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Sir Edward told how he arranged the elevation of the Premier's wife to the Senate, convinced the Premier to accept a knighthood and advised him on personal financial matters. Later he was asked whether he would invest in the coal industry. Sir Edward said: For the record, I've got far more lucrative schemes for making money than investing any of mine or my associate companies' money in a depressed coal market. I refer back to the fact that Sir Edward had the persuasive powers necessary to get the Queensland Premier to accept a knighthood. As you know, Mr Speaker, for many years there has been a philosophic debate going on in Australia over the continuation of the imperial honours as against the institution under the Whitlam Government of the Australian honours system, which we believe in and which we think has now been consolidated and accepted by the vast majority of people as being the proper awards to be given to Australians. However, for a long time the Government accepted that at least our opponents were taking a decent, conservative, philosophic position in wanting to keep imperial awards. That was until we saw what was happening in New South Wales, where Sir Robert Askin used to go around with his brown paper bag. If people tipped in they got the nod. Apparently he was going around with this brown paper bag so often that people thought he was suffering from perpetual air sickness. So it was not a great philosophic debate that our opponents were having with us; it was a debate on how to fill up the coffers of the Liberal Party of Australia. Not only have we done Australia a great honour, a great service, in replacing imperial honours with the Australian honours system, but we have also helped to clean up the Liberal Party. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Joint Commonwealth and New South Wales Task Force on the security of wharves and containers. I move: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Australian delegation to the l984 session of the Conference on Disarmament held in Geneva, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 99(2) of the Australian National University Act 1946, I present part 2 of the university's annual report for 1983. This report contains the financial statements of the university for the year ended 31 December 1983, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) relating to the report. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Commonwealth Schools Commission on the funding of Commonwealth programs for schools in 1986. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section l2 of the Non-Government Schools Loan Guarantee Act l977, I present the non-government schools loan guarantee annual report for the year ended 3l December l984. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 65 of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act l982, I present the report on financial assistance granted to each State. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —For the information of honourable members I present the Industries Assistance Commission's interim report on apples and pears. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SHIPTON —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SHIPTON —Thank you, Mr Speaker. My attention has been drawn to page 3 of the Australian newspaper of Monday, 22 April, which reports a debate that took place at the Liberal Party State Council meeting in Melbourne last weekend. The newspaper states: Mr Shipton said the Liberal Party would seek the repeal of the legislation and draw up a new Act. I was talking about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act at that meeting. I did say that the Liberal Party would seek the repeal of the legislation. I did not say that we would draw up a new Act. Mr McVEIGH(Groom) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McVEIGH —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr McVEIGH —Yesterday, as recorded on page l57l of Hansard, in the debate on the matter of public importance concerning farm costs I was grievously and mischievously misrepresented by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). I quote: I must point out how interested the National Party is in agricultural policy. All through l984, when the honourable member for Groom, 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. I have asked the Parliamentary Library to check out the total number of questions that I placed on notice in 1983 and 1984. The printout which I was given would cover almost half a rugby field. The real facts of the matter are that-- Mr Charles —How many questions was that? Mr McVEIGH —I am just going to give them to the House. Obviously one cannot ask a Minister a question if he is always overseas globe-trotting. In l983 I placed 55 questions concerning primary industry on notice and I asked six questions without notice. In l984 I placed nine questions on notice and asked five questions without notice. The Minister was very tardy in answering all these questions. If the Minister would like to check my facts, as opposed to the information given to him-the incorrect information given by his office-he is quite entitled to do so. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member must not start to debate the matter. Mr McVEIGH —He is quite entitled to peruse these official statistics given by the Library. In conclusion, I am always disappointed when a Minister comes in here and does not tell the truth. I expect that he will not apologise because he is too much of a coward. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Groom should not impute improper motives. He will withdraw the remark. Mr McVEIGH —That is how long it is. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Groom will withdraw the remark alleging that the Minister has told an untruth. Mr McVEIGH —The remark that it is only half the length of a rugby field? Mr SPEAKER —No. I warn the honourable member for Groom. Mr McVEIGH —Which remark? Mr SPEAKER —The remark alleging that the Minister told an untruth. Mr McVEIGH —There is the proof. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Groom will withdraw. Mr McVEIGH —I am happy to withdraw because the facts show the situation. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has sought my indulgence to correct an answer. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —I wish to correct an answer which I gave in the House on l6 April in response to a question by the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) concerning the sugar industry in Bangladesh and aid provided by the Australian Government. I said: This year, the concluding year of the program, an amount of $6.8m is being spent. I continued. The tense was wrong. What I should have said is this: By the end of this year, which is the concluding year of the program, an amount of $6.8m will have been spent. Of that, $6.2m will have been spent in Queensland acquiring equipment and machinery to improve the operation of sugar mills in Bangladesh. The remainder of the $6.8m will have been spent on Australian technical experts and advisers working in Bangladesh. I regret the error. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of 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 horses protected from industry and discriminate slaughter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free. 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 Langmore and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent,Mr Scott and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of certain undersigned Australian and overseas students respectfully showeth that: 1. The overseas student program brings in a multitude of cultural, political and educational benefits as well as a net financial gain of A$5 million p.a., in foreign exchange. (Ref: Goldring Report) 2. Overseas students are under financial constraints. Most depend on their families for this financial support. The Goldring Report found 62% of overseas students come from families with annual combined parental income of less than A$15,000. 3. The imposition of high overseas student charges will deprive many overseas students from getting a tertiary education and qualification in Australia despite their academic abilities. High charges will determine education in Australia for overseas students on economic grounds. 4. The imposition of sudden and drastic increases in visa charges will also particularly disadvantage those current students, many of whom will be forced to discontinue their studies. 5. Overseas students do not displace local students. They represent a mere 3.4% of tertiary students. (Goldring Report) 6. The fluctuations and uncertainty in overseas students policy has led to uncertainty, stress and fear in overseas students. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray that: 1. The Government re-affirm a commitment to its policy that supports the social and economic development of people and institutions in developing countries through access to Australia's education and training resources. 2. The Government formulate a consistent and considerate policy concerning overseas students. 3. The Government reconsider, as a matter of urgency, the legislation of such a high increase in visa charges. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cross and Mr Humphreys. 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 every 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 Commissions 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 of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitats be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia Psittaci which is killing the koalas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free. 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 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. 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 the 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 every pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega, by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter-killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a ''first strike'' attack. Omega is also used by AWACS, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne. 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped. Your petitioners pray that Members of the House assembled will close Omega. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of Australia respectfully show their desire that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement more equitable guidelines for payment of independence allowance to enable young Australians who have been employed in the work force to be eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance allowances where that employment has been undertaken while still at school. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: Whereas space technology involves many of the very highest engineering and scientific disciplines that Australia possesses, which may be applied at an international level to reap significant economic and technological return to the nation, and; Since an appropriate space program for Australia must involve presently unco-ordinated industry, government and research agencies, united together with Federal Government funding; Your petitioners therefore pray that you will support the establishment of an Australian Aerospace Agency to manage aerospace programs under a Federal Budget, promote technology transfer, and market our expertise overseas, while ensuring the continued operation of existing space-related facilities within the nation. by Mr Peacock. 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 the undersigned respectfully showeth. 1. That the present Federal tax system is not equitable, readily understandable or manageable. It is making a material contribution to the decline in ethical standards in Australia, and in the opinion of many eminent Australians it is a tax system that basically makes us into a nation of cheats. 2. Some classes of taxpayers are more heavily taxed than others and two groups, wage and salary earners and small businesses, through the impact of inflation on the progressive rate structure, have suffered disproportionately in recent years. 3. A great many people see cheating the tax system as a necessary response to what they regard as cheating by Governments. 4. Through excessive marginal income tax rates, the spirit of free enterprise and hard work is being stifled. The groups in the community who generate savings are being discouraged from investing those savings in capital for business. 5. Any reform of the taxation system needs to be comprehensive and not piecemeal. Further, it requires an unimpeachable commitment from all political parties and parliamentarians to adopt a totally bi-partisan approach in debating tax reform proposals and legislation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government will use the forthcoming Taxation Summit meeting as the occasion to announce the formation of one or more working parties committed to the development of a taxation system that will ensure that the necessary Government revenue is raised in the most equitable and efficient manner possible and that such working party (parties) be provided with adequate resources so as to permit the tabling of their recommendations in the Parliament not later than June 30, 1986. Further, your petitioners believe that one of the most significant ways this country could celebrate its Bi-Centenary is through the introduction, by 1988, of legislation that will give the people a fair and equitable taxing system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-87) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 concerned people of the Electorate of Farrer respectfully show their desire that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement more equitable guidelines for payment of independence allowance to enable young Australians who have been employed in the work force to be eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance allowances where that employment has been undertaken while still at school. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 7 May 1985, unless Mr Speaker fixes an alternative date or hour of meeting. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.03) —I want to talk to this motion, only briefly, for two reasons. The first is that we on this side of the House would have thought it better if the House had not met for just two days. There are many matters before us and the demonstrable prime ministerial incompetence this morning on a matter of major economic concern to the nation is such that it is, I think, very sad that we will not have an adequate opportunity to debate and consider the matter at length. The second problem to which I refer is the fact that the Government has announced its intention to introduce a number of Bills later this day. Under our Standing Orders there is a requirement that notice be given and that the Bills be introduced the following day. In the present instance we have accepted that the Bills should be introduced and we will give leave for them to be introduced, only because we believe it proper that the back bench members of this Parliament be given the opportunity to consider the Bills' contents before they are debated in the House when we resume. I say to the Leader of the House (Mr Young) and to the Government that the Opposition believes that the procedure of giving proper notice of the introduction of Bills should be complied with. It is there for the protection of the interests not just of members of this place but also of people outside the Parliament who have a concern with the effects of legislation which is considered by this place. Any procedure which is avoided, thereby denying people the proper opportunity to consider the details of legislation, will be very strongly resisted by the members of this Opposition. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.05) —I thank the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair). I do not like breaking the convention any more than he does in terms of giving notice of Bills, but the Opposition will have possession of the Bills a fortnight before it otherwise would have. It is because of this peculiar sitting week when we are sitting for two days instead of four days that this has occurred. Hopefully, it will not occur again, but it will give the Opposition a better idea of the business that will come before us in the last three weeks of sitting. I add that the Government is also giving thought to sitting on Wednesday nights when the House resumes so that Opposition back benchers are given a lot more time to discuss the business before the House in the last three weeks. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Hawke Government's attempt to cover up the consequences of its irresponsible economic management. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.06) —If any evidence, verbal or otherwise, were needed as justification for proposing this matter of public importance it was provided by the total incompetence of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in Question Time today. He gave no answers, no statement and no comprehensive reason as to why he called that dramatic Press conference yesterday to announce that Australians must pull in their belts. In fact, today blew the cover on yesterday. We on this side of the House knew that yesterday's announcement was a desperate attempt to prop up sagging public confidence in the Prime Minister himself and in his Government. Whether it is Kelty, business or the public there is a steady diminution in support for this Prime Minister. The one conclusion to be drawn is that the attitude we took this morning in our Party room that this was the reason for it was confirmed by the man's incompetence throughout Question Time today. Of course, it may be that Sunday's attacks of the killer tomatoes have got to him. It may also be that beyond the problems of the Victorian Labor Party there is a recognition that it is not the Australian people, to whom he is appealing to tighten their belts, who have been profligate but this Government, which has been profligate throughout. The only answer that could be given to any questions today relating to the so-called $l billion cut in the forward estimates was that $l billion has been taken from what there was before but which is not there now. If honourable members can interpret what that leads to in terms of consistent economic management they are doing better than the Government itself. The Prime Minister's statement yesterday on the so-called $l billion expenditure cut is a further sign of the bankruptcy of the Government. It has a bankruptcy in ideas, a bankruptcy in courage and even, as Mr Kelty puts it, a bankruptcy in vision and direction. Instead of responding to the real problems of the economy the Prime Minister's response yesterday-as incomprehensible as his response today-was an endeavour in public relations. The days in which such an endeavour was successful for this man are now past. So-called tough talk is no substitute for tough action. The time for blaming someone else, indeed everyone else-in his words, the 'irresponsible community', the 'irrational money markets', the 'ungrateful Labor Premiers' or the 'mythical $9.6m deficit'-is gone. This man stands bereft of policy and the only people suffering are those whom he is supposed to be administering, namely, the Australian people. The bungles continue and the results are there for all to see. The Australian dollar has hit new lows, despite the highest interest rates in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development area and despite gross domestic product figures showing significant growth in the last quarter of l984. That is the background to yesterday's unsubstantiated statement that the Government intends to reduce expenditure by $l billion from some unknown baseline figures in some unreleased and unknown forward estimates. There is one test of whether someone is fair dinkum in trying to convince one that what he is doing is correct-that is, is he telling the details and is he telling the truth? We have not been told anything which would give us a marker to test whether what the Government is saying is correct. We have had unknown baseline figures, unreleased and unknown forward estimates. There has been no check on the statements made by the Government, and, despite constant questioning today, no further information. The fact is that the statement made yesterday was the act of a very desperate man. I said I was sorry to hear that he had a cold. I repeat: I was unaware that that cold had taken residence in his feet. But he gave verbal evidence of that both yesterday and today. There was a belated attempt to create the impression of being in control; an attempt to shore up confidence in a directionless, failing government and a failing economic strategy; and an attempt to compensate for the confusion and the conflict which are now the hallmark of the Hawke Government. It is a government, which as I say, in the words of Bill Kelty-they are not my words; the sorcerer's apprentice himself came out with the words-which appeared on the front page of the Australian Financial Review, lacks vision and has lost direction. The response of the Government in yesterday's half-baked statement was not the required comprehensive review of its economic strategy and not the required bench-mark against which to measure the purported expenditure cuts. It had all the signs of a hastily prepared, desperate statement. As I say, it was an exercise in public relations. Quite frankly, although all Australians at this moment feel justifiably concerned about the dollar, I think the overwhelming majority of them accept the floating of the dollar. We do. We do not now-as the Prime Minister has done-having given it to the market to make a judgment, call into question that market's judgment. We respect the decision that was taken. But Australians want to know: What is the truth about the so-called fundamentals of the economy upon which the market is making its judgment? What is the program that will at least start to correct these fundamental weaknesses in the economy? Where is the clear sign that this Government will break away from union control over its economic decision making process? The fact is that not only have those fundamental weaknesses been masked over by the endeavour of this Government over the last six months, but they were created by this very Government, by the combination of failed economic management and a failure to be able to recognise and-again I say it-tell the truth. This was a feature of yesterday's statement and a consistent feature of the lack of answers in this Parliament today. The ridicule that members on this side of the Parliament heaped on the Prime Minister is symptomatic of the ridicule directed towards the man in the public arena. It is not confined to the lunatic Left in his Party; it is spreading into the community. This desperate endeavour was brought about because he has twigged to the fact that he has been unable to explain any central purpose for the Government. Yet he had the gall to tell the Australian people that it was the Australian community who 'cannot simply go on running up debts and living beyond its means'. This was stated by the man who leads the biggest spending, highest taxing government in Australia's peacetime history. The Prime Minister will not give details of the so-called belt tightening. Everyone else out there must do that, but he will not give any reason: Blame the Australian people-dump it on them. But they are not the profligates. It is this Government that has been profligate. It is the Government now, it alleges, which will slam on the brakes. But the runaway lorry the Prime Minister seeks to bring under control is the Government itself, or it ought to be. It is important that every Australian understands the real background to yesterday's statement. This Government-not the Australian people-has been living beyond its means. If one goes into the community-and members of the Opposition know this-one sees a significant growth in the number of people who are finding it difficult to cope out there. Let not the Prime Minister tell them they have to tighten their belts when this Government continues its high taxing policies, when it impacts on the community all the on-costs, taxes and charges that make this the highest taxing government in Australia's peacetime history. Let him not come in here and tell those people, who are struggling day after day, week after week to make their ends meet, that they will be the ones who will have to tighten up. It is the Labor Government which has created this situation, not people out there who are depending on this Government for a blueprint and vision which this Government has not called forth in Australia. It is this Government that is profligate. It is this Government that budgeted to increase real expenditure by 6.l per cent in l984-85 following the 7.7 per cent increase in l983-84. And it is this Government that increased Budget outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product from 29.9 per cent in l982-83 to 3l.l per cent in l984-85. Those wild Whitlamesque expenditure increases in the last Budget represented an increase of $l.3 billion for the so-called new policy initiatives. Only eight months later the Government now says it will take back one billion of it. What kind of economic management is that? Let us make no mistake about it, the Opposition has always said, and continues to say, that major expenditure cuts are required. The point is that Australia should never have been in the position where, to paraphrase the Treasurer (Mr Keating), it has the world's fastest growing economy and the world's fastest sinking currency; where recovery is being blunted by real interest rates which are the highest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development area and the highest in Australia since the Second World War; where it has the second highest current account deficit in the OECD area; where it has the highest money supply growth of any major OECD country, and where it is the only OECD country with full wage indexation. These are the fundamentals of the economy, yet the Prime Minister keeps trying to hide the truth. In the election campaign some six months ago the Prime Minister falsely boasted: Never in the last decade-and more-has there been anything like the combination of favourable circumstances that now exist. Only last week the Prime Minister again stuck his head in the sand by claiming: The fundamentals of the Australian economy are stronger than virtually any other economy in the world. What was the response of the market to that? It was total disbelief. We saw what transpired thereafter. One statement of vague, unsubstantiated intent about expenditure cuts will never restore confidence. Let me tell the House what the Opposition would do and what we say is needed. What is needed is a set of decisive commitments and actions, including, first, a clear statement that the Government will support discounting of wage indexation for the effects of devaluation; secondly, a clear statement that the Government will oppose any wage increases for productivity increases; thirdly, a clear direction for monetary policy and the reinstatement of monetary targeting as soon as is feasible; fourthly, a clear commitment by the Prime Minister to achieving tax reform; fifthly, a warning to the Australian Council of Trade Unions that the Government will take action against any industrial action of the type being taken against Queensland and specific companies supporting the Queensland Government; sixthly, a list of substantial expenditure cuts, backed up by substantial evidence that they are real cuts. We can lay it down. These are the minimum requirements to restore confidence. They are the statements that could have been made yesterday, that should have been made yesterday and that should have been forthcoming in the Parliament today. It is no longer enough for the Prime Minister to run the economy on the so-called accord for his own imagined accolades. The time has come for the Government to tell the truth and in fact admit the failure to date. Until that happens Australia's underlying economic problems and the loss of confidence will remain to damage not just the Government but the interests of all Australians. It was this Prime Minister who talked up the economy. Throughout the election campaign it was this Prime Minister who told Australians that they had never had it so good. It was this Prime Minister who said that interest rates would fall throughout l985. It was this Prime Minister who failed to tell Australians the truth. I say to this House that he is not telling the truth today and that he was not telling the truth yesterday. It is this Prime Minister who, having floated the dollar, blames the market for its interpretation of his actions-actions beyond economic actions. It is this Prime Minister who ought to be coming into this chamber, not with exhortations and misleading rhetoric, but with a blueprint and a schedule akin to the matters I have spelt out today. Profligacy is the Government's sin, not the people's. Whether it be on monetary supply, budgetary policy or wages policy, this Government has failed. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr Howard —Where is the Prime Minister? Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(3.22) —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) would not waste his time responding to such a pathetic contribution. The point is that members of this bereft Opposition, not content with sabotaging the economy when they were in office, are now doing their damnedest to do so again in Opposition. I know of no other democratic country where such disgraceful conduct by a major political party would not be considered not only as disloyalty but indeed as economic treason. Australia can no longer afford this kind of political self-indulgence at the expense of the fortunes of the Australian economy. What has to be recognised is that the Opposition today is indulging in absolute, unbridled self-indulgence. We know-and Opposition members know in their heart of hearts-that once we decided, with the approval of the Opposition, to float the Australian dollar, we were going to live in the harsher reality of the real world and we were going to be constantly under the spotlight of the international markets as they made their judgments, as it is put, on the performance and on the future of the Australian economy. We had to acknowledge that the kinds of information on which the markets would make their judgments would be from the serious to the superficial. What the Opposition has to answer is: Does it really think that in its continual attacking and in its unsubstantiated criticism of the Government's performance it is doing any credit to Australia in that new, more difficult context? It was only a couple of days ago that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), in a rare intrusion into honesty, acknowledged that the economy had been doing well, that the national accounts statements did confirm the strength of the recovery in this country. Yet we are confronted now with this puerile notion that there is some attempt to cover up the consequences of our economic mismanagement. Of course, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is the world expert not only in cover-up but also in economic mismanagement. I will come to that in a moment. Let us examine where Australia is in this new environment of having to live in the real world. Let us examine where we got to during the time when our predecessors were in office. What we have to recognise is that Australia's performance internationally was pretty abysmal during that period. This Government has before it the task of turning that around so that we can make our way in the world, so that we can prosper in these circumstances. In the period prior to our coming to office, whilst Australia's exports grew by 8 per cent the exports of other countries grew by ll per cent. From l973 to l983 Australia slipped from being the world's twelfth greatest exporter to being the world's twenty-second greatest exporter. This appalling decline took place mostly during the period in which our opponents were in office. Australia's share of the world export market declined seriously during the decade prior to our coming to office. The international purchasing power of our exports actually declined in the decade to l983. This was the context in which we decided to take Australia into the international economy and to float the dollar in a way which would ensure that we were judged day to day, week to week and month to month. Let me return to my major theme of the Opposition's sabotage in office and economic treason in opposition. The greatest treason of all, of course, was that perpetrated by the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) when, just before the l983 Federal election, he decided to speculate on the value of the Australian dollar which led to a run on it. That is the kind of man who is now daring to condemn the extraordinarily good performance of this Government. Mr Tuckey —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I refer to a resolution brought down in the House on 8 October in respect of the declaration and registration of members' interests which, in part, states: That, notwithstanding the lodgment by a Member of a statement of the Member's registrable interests and the registrable interests of which the Member is aware (1) of the Member's spouse and (2) of any children-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Will the honourable member tell me where this is relevant to the matter of public importance? Mr Tuckey —Yes. The resolution calls on the member to declare such interests at the beginning of his or her speech. It states: . . . if the Member should participate in debate in the House, Committee of the Whole of the House-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr DAWKINS —Madam Deputy Speaker, you do not have to put up with this nonsense and the House does not have to put up with this nonsense from this idiot. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The House will not put up with this. There is no point of order. Mr Tuckey —They passed the resolution. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will be silent. Mr DAWKINS —Madam Deputy Speaker, here again we see the absolute contempt with which the Opposition is prepared to treat not only the fortunes of the economy but also, of course, the processes of this Parliament. If we look at what happened to the economy under our predecessors we find that in four of its last five years in office our international competitiveness declined markedly. In the first couple of years of this Government our international competitiveness has improved markedly. We are trying to establish the circumstances in which Australia can benefit from the new improved international competitiveness which now exists in this economy. That will not be made any easier by the fact that for well over 25 years the Liberals when running this country were unable to get the kind of durable and relevant international structure which would provide us with an opportunity to compete effectively with the rest of the world. So we have a very difficult task on our hands, and it is not helped one bit by this kind of unreasonable and totally dishonest sabotage of the efforts which are being made by this Government. Let me examine a little more the credentials of our opponents who are trying to criticise this Government. The Leader of the Opposition touched on some topics which are close to the heart of his deputy, the honourable member for Bennelong. His deputy had the task of trying to manage five Budgets during the time that he was Treasurer. Seeing that the question of expenditure seems to be so much on the mind of the Leader of the Opposition, it is interesting to note that in four of the five Budgets brought down by the Leader of the Opposition there were blow-outs in expenditure. In three of those Budgets there was an increase and in two of them there was a dramatic increase in the size of the Budget deficit over that planned for. So the record of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in trying to contain expenditure is, of course, lamentable. It has to be recognised that we have imposed on ourselves a discipline which has never been imposed voluntarily by any political party in Australia's history and which, indeed, has never been followed by any government, particularly that of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. From l979-80 to l982-83 in the last four Budgets over which he presided, we actually saw a growth in outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product. On the other hand, we have imposed a discipline on ourselves to ensure that that does not happen this year, in the coming year or, indeed, in the life of this Parliament. That task has not been made any easier by the fact that during the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's management of this economy the Commonwealth debt doubled. In the Budget for l984-85 we had to find $2 billion-worth of expenditure which was directly attributable to the blow-out in the Commonwealth debt under the mismanagement of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. During the Liberal Government, the Commonwealth debt doubled, and interest on the debt grew by 25 per cent, or $2 billion. So our task of trying to restrict, indeed reduce, outlays as a proportion of GDP would have been made very much easier had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues not made such an appalling botch of running the economy. When examining our statements, particularly on budgetary matters, one must examine our record compared with the appalling, deplorable record of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he was Treasurer. He was not able to stick to his monetary targets in any year. The majority of his Budgets blew out, in terms of both the deficit and outlays, from what had been budgeted for. Not only did that happen; we also saw a disintegrating economy during the years of his abysmal mismanagement. On the other hand, this Government has ensured a strengthening economy. Wherever we look, we see signs of strengthening growth. We have had an increase of 340,000 jobs since we came to government and a decline in the unemployment rate. The rate of growth has dramatically turned around from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's last year in government when growth, in fact, fell by 1.1 per cent. It then spun around to grow by 5.3 per cent and then grew by 4 per cent. This is the kind of economy for which we are now being called to account by these economic vandals who, when they were in office, saw the economy disintegrating beneath them and, more importantly, saw our international competitiveness decline and our trade performance decline dramatically as well. We decided that the only reasonable thing to do with the economy of this country was to expose it to the harsh light of international competition. That is a course on which we are determined to continue. Indeed, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have said-I am happy to add my voice as well-we will not see gains created by the devaluation frittered away in any way. Australia needs to take advantage of this new opportunity to ensure that it can begin to reverse its international performance and to strengthen its performance in every way that it can. This is the context in which this debate must be seen. The allegation of cover-up seems to be based on the fact that we have not announced the details of the $l billion expenditure cuts that we are intending to announce in May. There is nothing particularly surprising about that. We have foreshadowed, as is quite sensible and responsible of us to do, that there will be expenditure cuts of $l billion, and the Opposition will be able to make its judgments at the time. We have this degree of luxury as a result of having won the last election. At least we are not confronted with $l billion-worth of additional extravagant promises made by the Opposition prior to the last election. At least we did not have to abandon $l billion-worth of expenditure promises which, of course, the Opposition would have had to do as its first step if it were to begin to impose the kind of fiscal discipline that we have decided to impose on ourselves. There will be plenty of opportunities in May, when our expenditure cuts are announced, for the Opposition to display its imaginative skills in pointing to other areas where we might be able to further reduce expenditure. I am sure that we will value its advice. It also has to be remembered, when it comes to cover-up, that it was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who has, and who always will have, the gold medal for cover-ups for his unforgivable delinquency in refusing to acknowledge and to reveal the magnitude of the $9.6 billion deficit which was confronting Australia in l983-84. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.36) —The first thing I want to say is that this debate is not about whether there should be expenditure reductions in a May economic statement. The Opposition welcomes the fact that the Government has decided to bring down a May economic statement-what used to be called a mini-Budget. I note in passing that this is done in defiance of a clear statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) when he was opening the Australian Labor Party's campaign in the electorate of Dundas. He had fond hopes of winning Dundas. On 7 November, he said: 'I have completely ruled out any mini-Budget next year'. So much for the projections of the Treasurer in the election campaign! However, the important thing is not whether there should be expenditure cuts-of course there should be-but whether the Government is fair dinkum about expenditure reductions. That is the question that the Government has not answered. That is the issue that the evasiveness of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), his lack of comprehension of detail and complete inability to answer direct and relevant questions must plant in the minds of many Australians, since they start with a prejudice against a Labor government because of Labor's longstanding historic commitment to high deficits and high spending. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), who has just left the table, enjoys talking about the past. Let me enjoy talking about the past just for a moment. I remind the House that the Hawke Government has increased Federal Budget spending by treble the rate that it increased in real terms under the Fraser Government. For all that he denigrates the Fraser Government, and me as Treasurer in the Fraser Government, for what it did on the Budget front, the undeniable, unvarnished truth, as revealed in the Treasurer's Budget Papers, is, of course, that no post-war government in Australia has exercised more expenditure restraint than did the Fraser Government. Its record of expenditure restraint far exceeds that of the Hawke Government, the Whitlam Government, the Menzies Government, the Gorton Government and even the McMahon Government. In fact, no government of any political colour had a better record of expenditure restraint than we had, because in the seven years we were in power-the figures are undeniable-government spending grew, in real terms, at a rate of a little over 2 per cent. In two Budgets, the 'world's greatest Treasurer' has given us increases of treble that rate. No wonder honourable members opposite have tarnished credentials on the question of expenditure restraint. That is not the end of the story. They are behind the eight ball not only because of their bad track record and because of the fact that they have produced the two largest money deficits since Federation but also because in the last two or three weeks they made an attempt at expenditure restraint. Where did Senator Walsh's proposals on university fees end up? They ended up in ruins on the Caucus room floor. So much for all of this nonsense that we got from the Prime Minister yesterday at his Press conference when he said: 'There was blood all over the floor. It has really been tough in there. We have had to fight every inch of the way. You ought to see the expressions on the faces of the Ministers'. There was only one expression on the face of Senator Ryan, and that was an expression of gloating triumph. Senator Ryan had taken on the Government; she had rolled the Prime Minister in good old Whitlam style-Caucus overrules Cabinet fashion-and she had sent a chill reminder through the Australian business community that the Hawke Government was really a good old-fashioned Labor Government. No wonder the business community suspects it. No wonder we doubt its credentials on expenditure restraint. All I can say to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in response to the promised expenditure cuts is: 'I will believe it when I see the colour of the cuts'. Until I see the colour of the cuts no amount of huffing and puffing and no amount of tortured syntax from the Prime Minister on AM or, indeed, any other program are going to convince me otherwise. This morning when I was driving to Tullamarine Airport I was listening very intently to the Prime Minister. I always listen to the Prime Minister. In his tortured syntax he said that he did not have the power to push economic buttons and to make everybody happy but he then declared: 'But life and economics are like that'. I must confess that for one fleeting, eye-glazing moment I thought that he was going to say that economics was not meant to be easy. Of course the Prime Minister did not say that. The real depth of the Prime Minister's inability to understand what he is on about with expenditure restraint was revealed today. I asked him a very simple question. I asked him to promise the Parliament that, if he cut $l,000m off the forward estimates, he would not later add another $l,300m to them and cancel out the effect of the $l,000m. What did the Prime Minister say to that? To get away from that question, he ducked, he bobbed and he squirmed like a cockroach impaled on a nail. He could not answer that question. I will tell honourable members why he could not answer it. He could not answer it because that is the thimble and pea trick he has given us in his two Budgets. In l983-84, he took $l,2l4m off the forward estimates of expenditure. He struggled so hard to get those forward estimates down to $9.6 billion that, having taken $l,2l4m out of them, he just could not resist adding $2,485m in additional expenditure, leaving a net discretionary spending increase of $l,27lm. The Government wonders why we attack the integrity and seriousness of this Prime Minister on the issue of expenditure restraint! This Government's economic record has been a combination of good luck, two giant deceptions and one or two significant and creditable economic decisions for which this Opposition has always been willing to give the Government credit and support. I refer in particular to the decision to float the Australian exchange rate. The Minister for Trade, who has just left the chamber, has a colossal gall coming into Parliament and saying that the Opposition adopts a negative attitude and that it is sabotaging the Government. There was not a single occasion when the Australian Labor Party was in opposition that it supported an economic decision taken by the former Government. What was its attitude to import parity pricing? Yesterday we heard the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, waxing lyrical about the market realities of import parity pricing and how important it is that we be tough and resolute and that we face the outside world. What happened when we were in government? What did the Labor Party say about import parity pricing? It took the short term, politically opportunistic path of total blind obstruction. Remember the famous words of the present Treasurer? He said: 'They have opened a branch of the Australian Taxation Office at every petrol bowser in the country'. All I note in passing is that he has been the Treasurer for two years and he has not closed down any of the branches of the Taxation Office that he said we opened. In other words, he has been very happy to embrace import parity pricing. Not only has this Government been very fortuitous-a fact acknowledged by the Minister for Trade-but it has built much of its economic rhetoric over the last couple of years on two giant deceptions. The first of those is that the prices and incomes accord lowered Australia's rate of inflation. The reality is that the back of Australia's high inflation rate was broken by a combination of the 9 per cent cut in real wages produced by the wages pause and the normally depressing effect on prices of an economic recession. The wages accord did not come into operation until September l983 and it did not start to have a beneficial effect on the price index until well into l984. In those circumstances, to argue that it in some way contributed to breaking the back of inflation is absolute economic nonsense. However, the greatest deception of all is the claim that the Government inherited an unmanageable deficit of $9.6 billion. As I listened to the former Minister for Finance stuttering and stammering to the end of his speech, I remembered that the second last Budget we brought down had a deficit of a bare $548m, 0.4 per cent of gross domestic product. Far from reducing the deficit, this Government increased it by $4 billion in its first term in office. Two years ago the forward estimates of expenditure and revenue were holy writ, one year ago they were illusory and this year they are totally non-existent. In other words, figures that had to be published two years ago are now so unbelievable, so irrelevant, so illusory and so meaningless that they cannot be published. Until the Government demonstrates far greater credibility, until the Government demonstrates a stomach for expenditure restraint, I will continue to believe it-the Opposition will continue to believe it-when we see the colour of the cuts. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(3.47) —It is a pleasure to join this debate, having heard the two big guns of the Liberal Party of Australia. I have never heard so much hypocrisy and so much nonsense about the Australian economy and the Opposition's performance when it was in charge of the Australian economy between l976 and l983. As the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) remarked, not only did the members of the Opposition wreck the economy when in government but now in opposition, through the types of comments and statements which they are making today, they want to sabotage the current strong economic growth that we enjoy in Australia. There are two major claims to this spurious matter of public importance which have been raised today. The first is that the Government is covering up aspects of the consequences of its economic management; the second is that economic management under this Government has been irresponsible. In the time available to me I will address each of those claims. I start with the claim of the so-called cover-up of the consequences of the Government's economic management and the cover-up of a number of other matters that were raised during the contributions of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). The first matter is the so-called lack of information about forward Budget estimates' spending programs and taxation estimates of the Government. I ask Opposition members who are in the House and who have an interest in this debate: When under their Government were those estimates ever published and when were they available to the Australian people and to the members of this House? When were those estimates about which honourable members opposite talked so glibly today ever available on an open basis to members of the public? (Quorum formed) I am pleased for the support of honourable members in the House. As I was saying, under the Opposition the market place and the people of Australia, the wage and salary earners, were always guessing about the economic policies of the Opposition. There was never any reliable guide in terms of forward estimates. The Opposition ought to contrast that situation with the best and the clearest guide that the market and the Australian public have of the economic policies of this Government through its trilogy commitment. No government has ever given a clearer, more straightforward and simpler guide to the market than this Government has given in its trilogy commitment. We have said that outlays will rise at less than the rate of real growth in gross domestic product. We have said that receipts will increase at less than the real rate of GDP increase. We have given a commitment that the deficit will be reduced. That is quite different from the situation that existed under the policies of the Opposition. Under the Opposition's policies, the market place was continually guessing. No one really knew, until one dark night in August, what the economic policies of that Government were. Rather than a cover-up, the fact is that consultation and communication have been the hallmark of this Government. The Government's trilogy commitment is a clear, simple and unequivocal commitment to the market place and the Australian people. It indicates our commitment to bring down the Federal deficit. As was announced yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), there will be a May economic statement and that will involve expenditure reductions in the order of $l billion. If we consider the question of a cover-up, I think we all ought to remind ourselves of what the biggest ever cover-up has been in terms of economic management and policy in Australia. When Americans think of cover-ups they think of Watergate. When Australians think of cover-ups they think of the l983 Federal election and that massive lie, that massive untruth, perpetrated on the Australian people. The then Government went before the polls in March l983 and the then Prime Minister and the then Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), said to the Australian people that the deficit was about $6 billion. They knew-they had had advice-that the real level of the deficit was $9.6 billion. That is the legacy that they left this Government. That is a legacy which we have managed to address. We have managed to bring that deficit down. When one talks about cover-ups, that is the fact, because more cover-ups were evident-- Mr Ruddock —It was never that; it was only a forward estimate. Mr BRUMBY —The honourable member for Dundas might be interested in a few more cover-ups that occurred under his Government. He might like to explain why the Fraser Government abolished the collection of a whole range of Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. They were crucial in two areas. The former Government abolished the collection of figures in critical areas of the economy, such as the degree of foreign ownership and control, when it was concerned about interest displayed in who was really managing large areas of Australia and slabs of Australian resources. (Quorum formed) In the few seconds that are available to me after these absurd tactics by the Opposition, I say that it is a matter of great shame that on a matter of public importance, called by the Opposition which is allegedly concerned about the state of the economy, only five members of the Opposition are in the House. So much for their concern about the Australian economy. Returning to the question of cover-ups, the Australian people will never forget the billions and billions of dollars of tax avoided by people whom the Opposition protected when it was in government and whom it continues to protect in this Parliament by defeating tax avoidance legislation. The Opposition covered up that practice for years. It cost the average Australian taxpayer $43 a week. That is what the Opposition's cover-up of tax avoidance was. The Australian people will remember that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill l985. Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill l985. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Introduction This is an historic day for the Federal Government in Australia. For the first time a concerted national effort is being made to come to grips with the problems of occupational health and safety in the community. This Bill which I have introduced in the House today is the first of three. The others will be presented at a later date. One will relate to general duties of care and regulations in respect of occupational health and safety in areas of Commonwealth jurisdiction including the Australian Capital Territory, external Territories and areas of Commonwealth employment. The other will relate to the establishment of a mandatory notification and assessment scheme for industrial chemicals. The Bill before the House is the product of sustained dialogue with the States and Territories, employers and unions and has been developed in a spirit of full co-operation and with a recognition of the appropriate areas of responsibility of all parties. The level of consensus makes this Bill a unique document. Representatives of both the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Australian Industry have been in agreement at all stages of development of the national focus and strategy. As well, the Opposition has indicated its support on two previous occasions. The Government welcomed this support and trusts that it will continue. Background In presenting this Bill I want to repeat part of what I said in November of 1983 when announcing the establishment of an Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. I said on that occasion that one of the most important and far-reaching policy proposals to which the Labor Government was committed was a national strategy on occupational health and safety. The nation as a whole is incurring enormous losses from unsafe and unhealthy working environments. Individual employees suffer the hardship of physical pain, disabilities and loss of income. Employers bear losses through reduced output and higher workers' compensation insurance premiums. The community as a whole faces higher prices and taxes to meet the spiralling costs of occupational injury and ill health. Conservative estimates are that more than $6 billion a year is wasted through loss of production and associated costs because of occupational injury and ill health. About 300 people are killed each year in work-related accidents and a further 150,000 people are injured at work each year. This is a gigantic social, human and economic penalty that can be reduced significantly only by concerted action on a national scale and this Bill represents the first substantial legislation by a Federal government to bring about a change for the better in the working environment. The origins of this Bill derive from the Government's efforts comprehensively to implement Australian Labor Party policy in this area. This led to the establishment of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission in 1983. In May 1984 I tabled the report of the Interim Commission as a first step towards achieving a national focus and plan of action for occupational health and safety on the broadest possible scale-an issue, we believe honourable members will agree, transcends party politics because at the heart of the matter is the health and well-being of everyone in the work force and his or her family. For too long occupational disease, injury and death have been seen as an almost inevitable part of the human and social cost of production. Companies must produce an adequate return and often the company that is only marginally economic is also the one with the worst problems in the health and safety area. There is often not enough incentive within an organisation to improve health and safety conditions because a great deal of the cost of illness, injury or death is borne by the community at large-medical, nursing and hospital costs, lifetime care for the permanently disabled worker and the value, in national terms, of lost production. To this has to be added the almost incalculable personal and human cost when an employee suffers injury, illness or death. Although the top management of a company may believe in principle that it is in the long term interests of the company to adopt sound health and safety practices, it may at the same time assess the short term performance of its middle management by production measurement criteria that could result in injury and other incidence rates higher than they would otherwise be. Such commitment at the senior level must be translated into action through all levels of management and on the shop floor. This is one reason why a national focus and strategy is so necessary. If the nation is to enhance the working environment, not only to improve the health and safety of its citizens but also to enjoy the very real economic and social benefits that are available, there has to be a concerted and co-ordinated national effort. The problems the Bill sets out to alleviate are many and varied, and include that of inadequate knowledge and the poor transmission, access and utilisation of the knowledge that is available. Larger firms are often able to obtain information and, perhaps more importantly, know where to seek information and assistance, but smaller companies have a more difficult task. This lack of co-ordination between the various elements making up the work environment highlights the need for much better reporting systems and co-operation at all levels. Health and safety hazards are so numerous and diverse that it is beyond the practical confines of a second reading speech to detail them all-and new ones are being identified all the time. For instance, there are thousands of materials of known toxicity in commercial use already, and all the signs are that this number will keep pace with developing technology. But even the most common hazards represent a threat, and therefore a challenge, to the community. The community's goal-and consequently that of the Government-must be to reduce the unacceptably high national level of occupational death, injury and illness. This objective is not just something the Government sees as desirable, something that everyone is in favour of for its own sake. It is a soundly-based economic objective as well as a socially desirable one. Improvement in working conditions is a basic goal of the prices and incomes accord and a national safety strategy is therefore an essential component of the non-wage aspect of the accord. The success of any national health and safety strategy rests heavily on the commitment of employers, employees and their respective organisations and governments to an equitable system based on the principles of participation and acceptance of appropriate responsibility. Finally, it is up to employers and employees to bring about necessary improvements. Central to this is our commitment to consultation and co-operation with State and Territory governments, the trade unions, employers and their organisations, occupational health and safety specialists and community groups. This consultation led to the establishment by the Government of a non-statutory National Occupational Health and Safety Commission with representatives of Federal, State and Territory governments, employers and unions in October, 1984 following acceptance of the main recommendations of the Interim Commission. Since then it has initiated positive action in priority areas such as chemicals, information, repetition strain injury and training. As well, the transfer of relevant senior administrative and specialist staff from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Health to the Commission has been completed. Aims and Objectives This Bill provides for the statutory national commission to be tripartite in nature because it is the Government's clear belief that progress can best be achieved through the close co-operation and involvement of employer and employee peak councils and Commonwealth, State and Territory governments. The Bill underlines the Commission's primary role of co-ordination and facilitation, with the major jurisdiction over occupational health and safety remaining with the States, some of which have recently taken significant initiatives in this field. It will still be up to each State to implement standards within its own jurisdiction. The National Commission will be required to report annually to the Minister and at that time the Minister will provide the House with a report on progress throughout Australia on the implementation of declared national standards. The roles and responsibilities of the States, Territories and the Commonwealth are clear and distinct and the Bill does not seek to transfer any of these. The Bill specifically sets up the Commission within the limits of the constitutional power afforded to the Federal Government. It will enable the Commission to undertake additional beneficial activities in the fields of standards development, research, training and information collection and dissemination at a national level, thus representing a positive initiative in co-operative federalism. There are about 160 Acts and ordinances relating to occupational health and safety and this is one of the areas where the Commission will seek to work with State and Territory governments towards the introduction of national standards. It has been recognised on many occasions that there exists a serious deficiency in our Australian occupational health and safety systems in the lack of a uniform reporting system. The new Commission has the important task to develop and implement such a data base. Only then will it be possible objectively to determine the national priorities. The objectives of the establishment of the Commission are, in brief: The development among the community of an awareness of issues relating to occupational health and safety matters and facilitation of public debate on them; the provision of a forum where all parties can consult and debate matters pertinent to the subject; and development of a national focus for activities. The functions of the Commission as envisaged by the Bill will include such things as the formulation of policies and strategies on occupational health and safety matters; recommendations on co-operation with Commonwealth, State and Territory governments and groups and individuals engaged in occupational health and safety matters; the declaration of national standards and codes of practice; research; testing; training; funding; and provision of information. This will ensure that all Australians, regardless of language and occupation, have an opportunity to participate in the promotion of a safer and healthier working environment. A fund to be known as the National Occupational Health and Safety Research Fund will be set up under the Bill and the Commission will be empowered to provide funds for research projects relevant to occupational health and safety measures. The existence of this Fund will enhance the Commission's ability to attract funds from the public and private sectors so as to ensure a co-ordinated approach to research in priority areas. The Commission will not limit itself to investigations and research within Australia but will seek to participate in the international transfer of ideas and information and to draw on the expertise of such bodies as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Health Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. There is an additional reason for intensifying the information links with such bodies-the development of internationally accepted work practices. This in turn can have a distinct economic as well as social benefit for Australia. Thus we need to work for international agreements so as to level out the impact of appropriate standards worldwide and so enhance the emergence of higher productivity, decreased absenteeism and improved work safety stemming from the encouragement of new technology, substitute materials and redesigned jobs. It is the Government's intention, and indeed it was the firm recommendation of the Interim Commission, that Australia should work toward ratification of ILO convention 155, 'occupational safety and health and the working environment'. The members of Australia's tripartite delegations to the 66th and 67th sessions of the International Labour Organisation conferences held in 1980 and 1981 participated in the formation of convention 155 and its associated recommendation 164. Though there is not yet full compliance with the provisions by the Commonwealth and all State governments we believe the successful introduction of the national strategy need not be delayed by this and indeed represents a positive move toward ratification. The Bill provides for the Commission to consist of 17 members, namely: A chairperson; three members nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions; three members nominated by the Confederation of Australian Industry; one member nominated by the Premier of each State and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory; one member nominated by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations; one member nominated by the Minister for Health; and one member nominated by the Minister for Territories. The emphasis on consensus in the operation of the Commission is underlined by the requirement that there be 12 affirmative votes before a decision can be made by members. The Bill provides for the Commission to function in two divisions to be known as the National Occupational Health and Safety Office and the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety. The national office will be the operational arm of the Commission, providing the secretariat and policy development functions, working with the State and Territory governments and playing its part in the dissemination of information. The National Institute will be the technical and scientific arm of the Commission. It will carry out research, statistics, specialist training and other matters to be determined by the Commission. The Director of the Institute will be a statutory appointment. While the National Institute's work priorities will be determined by the Tripartite National Commission, the scientific objectivity of the Institute and its work has been protected within this legislation. In the Bill the scope of the definitions has been defined broadly because the most significant powers being given to the Commission are those of inquiry and information gathering for the purpose of developing appropriate national standards. Under the Bill, 'Occupation' means a full time or part time occupation and includes occupations such as those traditionally recognised as an employee, an independent contractor, a statutory appointee, government service-including the Defence Force or a police force-a member of parliament, a self-employed person, a worker in a family business, or a director. It also encompasses within this definition persons undertaking occupational activities whether or not they work in paid employment, for example, voluntary workers, students, prisoners. These persons are often exposed to injury and illness which is occupationally related. The definition of 'occupational health and safety matters' means matters relating to occupational health and safety including: The physiological and psychological needs and well-being of persons engaged in occupations; work related death or work related trauma; prevention of work related death or trauma; the protection of persons from work related death or trauma and the rehabilitation and retraining of persons who have suffered work related trauma. This definition is in line with international conventions and practice in other countries particularly in so far as it encompasses the areas of work related stress-a condition all too common in today's modern work force. Because of the multiplicity of regulations affecting occupational health and safety, one of the important aims of the Bill is to enable the Commission to declare national standards and codes of practice. These will be advisory in character and will only be declared after consultation with interested parties and after interested persons have had an opportunity to make representation. The application of national standards will be a matter for State and Territory governments in their jurisdictions and for the Commonwealth in respect of its own employees, the Australian Capital Territory and external Territories. As indicated earlier, it is my intention to introduce later this year specific legislation to afford occupational health and safety protection to employees of the Commonwealth and those in the Australian Capital Territory and external Territories. The Commission will be empowered also to conduct an inquiry into an occupational health and safety matter. For this purpose the Commission may appoint a commissioner who may not necessarily be a member of the Commission. In general, the commissioner appointed to conduct the inquiry will be required to provide a copy of the report to the Commission and the Minister to enable the Minister responsible to provide a copy of the report to the House within 15 sitting days of receipt of the report. The commissioner's powers will be broadly those exercised by the Industries Assistance Commission in its inquiries. There is provision in the Bill for the inquiry, or part of it, to be held in private if the Commissioner is satisfied that this is desirable in the public interest because of the confidential nature of any evidence. The commissioner may direct that publication of evidence be restricted or prohibited. The Bill affords protection of the commissioner and witnesses in the conduct of an inquiry. The commissioner will have the same protection and immunity as a justice of the High Court in the performance of duties and any witness will have the same protection also. No employees appearing as witnesses or giving evidence at such an inquiry could be dismissed or have their employment prejudiced because of their appearance at an inquiry. Nor could an employer threaten to dismiss an employee because that employee proposed appearing as a witness or giving evidence at an inquiry. For anyone contravening this provision the Bill provides for fines similar to those of comparable bodies. It is fundamental to the Government's philosophy that the principles of openness and participation are basic elements of our national occupational health and safety strategy. This is reflected throughout the Bill in the dissemination of information functions required of the Commission. As mentioned previously, the Commission will have the power to establish a research trust fund. This will enable the Commission to assist research by an individual as well as by Commission staff, and to provide funds for organisations to assist in implementation of the national strategy. It will also promote the joint funding of Australian research into occupational health and safety referred to earlier. Conclusion The Federal Government has demonstrated the ability to achieve uniformity of legislation in many areas. The national companies code is one example. We are confident that we can work with State and Territory governments, unions and employers, to develop uniform national standards for occupational health and safety to rectify the serious neglect of past Federal governments and to work in a spirit of co-operation. Regardless of party or politics, there is every philosophical reason why society should be as protective of men and women in their working environment as it is with regard to the food they eat or the non-working environment to which they are exposed. The time is long overdue for the construction of a national framework of action. Other countries such as Canada, the United States, Britain and various other European countries have been implementing major programs but we have lagged behind despite the general belief that we are among the most advanced countries in the developed world. This Bill, and the Commission which it sets out to establish, will provide the national framework and a positive impetus to collective efforts to improve the working environment of all Australians. Debate (on motion by Mr Tuckey) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(4.18) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to allow the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee greater flexibility in setting the rate of special levies on local cargo. I will now explain briefly to honourable members the background to this Bill. The stevedoring industry is characterised by a high degree of labour mobility between employers and ports, labour pooling in some ports and rotation of labour through terminals in major ports. These are important factors in ensuring efficient labour utilisation and higher industry efficiency. These factors also make central funding of many employer obligations the practical and cost saving alternative to individual company arrangements and complex portability provisions. As a result of this, the stevedoring industry has a long history of levies on employers to fund these centralised arrangements. Successive Federal governments have been involved in the industry since 1942. Although that role has been substantially reduced as a result of agreement reached at the National Stevedoring Industry Conference in 1976-77, the Government still provides statutory support for certain levy arrangements agreed between the parties. In determining rates for the levies for which it is responsible, the Government acts on advice from the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee, which is made up of representatives drawn from the industry. Other non-statutory levies are managed by the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour. At present, there are two types of levies applied in the industry-statutory and voluntary industry levies. There are currently two types of statutory levies: One is a general levy on man hours which finances employers' retirement fund contributions, long service leave provisions, administration costs, the port conciliator service and, in non-permanent ports, attendance money, guaranteed wage and retainer and annual leave; and The second is a special levy on tonnages and on man hours employed on bulk cargoes, which has been used to pay out the undischarged deficit of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority which was wound up in 1977. Various voluntary levies are imposed by the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour to cover sick leave, annual and long service leave provisions, early retirement benefits, idle time, and ancillary labour redundancy and long service leave provisions. As with the statutory levies, these apply both to cargo tonnages and man hours. Between 1977 and 1984, redundancy in the stevedoring industry was financed through voluntary levies imposed by the AEWL, with local cargo levied at 20 per cent of the rate applicable to overseas cargo. This differential rate reflected a much greater contribution by overseas cargo to the technological and trading pattern changes that have contributed to redundancy in recent years. In 1984, amendments to the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act 1977 enabled the SIFC to fund redundancy through an increase in the statutory special levies. This allowed the SIFC to refinance an existing AEWL loan and take on responsibility to fund identified redundancy in the industry. However, section 7 of the Stevedoring Industry Levy Act 1977 requires that local cargo be levied at 75 per cent of the rate applicable to overseas cargo. This essentially reflects the relative contribution to the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority deficit referred to above. This compares with the 20 per cent differential applying under the voluntary levies. Consequently, the amendment currently before the House seeks to amend section 7 of the Stevedoring Industry Levy Act to provide discretion to the SIFC to recommend a rate of levy on local cargo-loaded-less than 75 per cent of the rate on overseas cargo-loaded and unloaded-should the Committee see this as appropriate. This would allow the redundancy component of the statutory special levy to be set closer to the initial 20 per cent. The exercise of this discretion by the SIFC is appropriate for several reasons. Firstly, with the long-standing 'industry deficit' now fully amortised, the special levies will, from 1 May 1985, solely provide funds to meet repayments of borrowings made to finance redundancy in 1983 and 1984. Secondly, scope to allow a reduction in the levy on local cargoes will offer some relief to those operating the coastal trade. Coastal operators at present are facing severe competition from road and rail transport and an improvement in their cost structure will assist the industry in providing a more cost effective service to its customers. Honourable members should note that an increase in the special statutory levy on overseas cargo will be necessary to maintain sufficient funds to meet the Finance Committee's obligations. However, this increase will be small because the special statutory levies apply to a far greater volume of overseas cargo than local cargo. In 1983-84 the levies applied to approximately 23.9 million tonnes of overseas cargo and 4.9 million tonnes of local cargo. Furthermore, any such increase would be more than offset by the overall reduction on the special statutory levies which will occur as a result of the amortisation of the industry deficit component of those levies. As I have indicated, this is currently scheduled to take effect on 1 May 1985. There will be no cost to the Federal Government as a result of this amendment. The Government believes that this amendment represents a further step along the path of improving the efficiency of this vital industry. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tuckey) adjourned. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Scholes, and read a first time. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories)(4.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957 to modernise the structure of the Commission and make it more accountable and responsive to both the Government and the Australian Capital Territory community. The Bill seeks to do this by replacing the Commission's corporation sole with a board of seven commissioners and by inserting a ministerial power of direction clause. The amendments proposed in this Bill arise out of the report of the Committee of Review of the role and functions of the National Capital Development Commission-known as the White Committee-which was tabled on 21 September 1983. That report found that the National Capital Development Commission, as established in 1957, had been an outstanding success in transforming what was then described as a 'bush capital' into the national capital it is today. It did, however, recommend that a community of a quarter of a million required different and more democratic structures then were necessary in 1957 and proposed a representative board to replace the existing Commission, to balance national and territorial interests. The Government believes that decisions on most of the Committee's recommendations should be made in the context of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. The particular matters covered by this Bill are framed in such a way as to be compatible with future decisions on self-government, and should therefore proceed now. Further, a restructured Commission will facilitate speedy action on the remaining recommendations once the final decisions on self-government have been taken. Under the proposed amendments, the Commission's corporation sole will be replaced by a seven-member board, comprising three full time and four part time members. Of these, at least two will be drawn from the local community and at least one from outside the Australian Capital Territory. The Government considers a more broadly based structure than that recommended by the White Committee is appropriate. Currently, unresolved policy disputes between the Commission and the Minister are referred to the Governor-General-in-Council for resolution. Notwithstanding that there has been only one such situation in the past 25 years, it is a cumbersome procedure for the resolution of disputes and conflicts with the Government's policies on the role and operations of Commonwealth statutory authorities and the provision of adequate accountability and ministerial oversight. Consequently, this Bill seeks to amend the Act to include a ministerial power of direction. However, the Government rejects the White Committee's recommendation for use of the 'Commonwealth Bank model' of policy direction as an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes. That model would be even more cumbersome than the present power, and would be inconsistent with practice elsewhere. This Bill provides that directions would be issued by the Minister only after consultations between the Minister and the Commission had failed to resolve a particular matter and would be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and, subsequently, in the Commission's annual report. Such powers of direction are a feature of the enabling legislation of other statutory authorities such as Telecom Australia and the Parliament House Construction Authority. It is anticipated that, as in the past, such disputes would be rare indeed. The House will be aware that last year the Government made an in-principle decision on self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. The Government will be considering a more detailed proposal shortly. The changes proposed in this Bill are consistent with any move to self-government, particularly in terms of a more broadly based decision making structure for the Commission. The Bill has no financial impact. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tuckey) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.30) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Laboratory development at CSIRO Floreat Park Laboratories, Perth. The proposed work involves construction of new laboratories, the provision of additional support services and refurbishment of existing laboratory accommodation in response to a need to rationalise and upgrade the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's Floreat Park complex, and to overcome sub-standard conditions which are now posing very real occupational health and safety hazards to staff. There is also a need to provide additional facilities to implement CSIRO's decision to enhance the Organisation's research activities in Western Australia, particularly in the areas of water and agricultural research. The Floreat Park Laboratories are located some nine kilometres to the west of the city of Perth. The site of 10.9 hectares was acquired in 1965 from the University of Western Australia. Although several additional support and laboratory buildings were constructed in recent years, the provision of facilities and service has been outstripped by the growth in research activities and staff numbers. From an original staff of some 110, there are now 251. The proposal will accommodate 277, which allows for some projected growth. The main elements of the proposals are a new building for the laboratory for rural research; upgrading the existing mineralogy and geochemistry laboratory; a new common facilities area housing an enlarged library, lecture theatre, administrative space and amenities; remodelling of the existing main laboratory building; and general improvements to car parks and various site works. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $7.75m at January 1985 prices. The current plan of work is for tenders to be called in the latter part of the next financial year, with completion by mid-1988. I present plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.32) —As shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, on behalf of the Opposition I support the reference to the Public Works Committee. We wish the Committee every success in its deliberations and we look forward to receiving its report back in the Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 16 April, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.34) —I am afraid my remarks on the First Home Owners Amendment Bill will not be as warm and glowing as my brief remarks a moment ago on the reference to the Public Works Committee. But, on behalf of the Opposition, and indeed on behalf of the home owners and prospective home owners of Australia, I have to say that, whilst accepting the need for overall budgetary cuts in government spending, the plain fact is that this deceitful Hawke socialist Government has cut the throat of its own first home owners scheme. This is the first home owners scheme, about which we have heard so much-this highly successful, much-vaunted, much-publicised scheme-and it has now had its throat cut deliberately, with malice aforethought, by the Prime Minister, (Mr Hawke), and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), who is present for this debate. It must be said that housing industry schemes and assistance schemes cannot be switched on and off like a tap. Above all, the housing industry needs consistency and dependability in government policy; otherwise there will be a tragic return to the boom or bust days. That is precisely what happened during the Whitlam era. I acknowledge the presence in the chamber of representatives of the Tasmanian Resettlement Scheme, sponsored by the Tasmanian Development Authority. If ever there is an opportunity for people to buy land and to buy houses in Tasmania, that opportunity is right now. Tasmania is offering itself as the perfect place for people to come to live, the quality State of Australia, where one will never be able to buy land or houses cheaper. I hope on that aspect the Minister will be bipartisan and indicate his support. Last year the Prime Minister in his policy speech, which again was at the Opera House-it seems to be the favourite place for the present Prime Minister of Australia to sell his wares, to make his promises and to perform his con act to get back into power-lavished praise on the first home owners scheme and used those historic words 'And we are going to keep it that way'. I want to read into the Hansard record what the Prime Minister of Australia actually said, and what has happened just l6 weeks later. He stood on the steps of the Opera House and said-I quote from page 4 of his policy speech, delivered at l p.m. at the Opera House, Sydney, on l3 November l984: We introduced the first home owners scheme to bring home ownership within the reach of thousands of young Australians of limited means . . . The number of new houses being built in Australia has increased by one-third. And we are going to keep it that way. What was he talking about when he said: 'We are going to keep it that way'? He was talking about the first home owners scheme. He went on to add these words: In the next l2 months l45,000 new houses will be built in Australia, an increase of 40 per cent over the level of two years ago. And beyond the next year we will maintain at least this level of housing activity. So what was he saying there-this deceitful Prime Minister, this man who is prepared to say anything and promise anything if it will get him a vote? He was saying quite categorically that beyond next year-that is, l985-he would maintain the building of at least l45,000 new homes, and he said that clearly and categorically. Then he went on to say: . . . and ensure that our housing industry never again slumps into the contraction and despair of the year before we were called to office. The Prime Minister gave a solemn assurance that beyond l985 his Government would at least maintain the level of l45,000 new houses. It has to be said-and if the Minister is honest he would admit this-that that promise cannot now possibly be honoured. The Prime Minister's solemn election pledge has now been torn into shreds. Mr Goodluck —The same as petrol. Mr HODGMAN —The same as the one on petrol, as the honourable member for Franklin reminds us all in his eloquent and persuasive way. This was the Prime Minister who promised faithfully that he would reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre upon election to government. What do we now see? It is getting close to 60c a litre under the Hawke socialist Government. The question on everybody's lips is whether the price of petrol per litre will cross over the dollar because it is now down to US62c. That is what a Hawke dollar is worth in the world today. The deceitful-and I emphasise that word-Hawke socialist Government used the election promise to con the votes of thousands and thousands of young Australian prospective home buyers-decent young people. Their votes were conned. That solemn election pledge lasted just 16 weeks. I shall nominate it for the Guinness Book of Records as the shortest possible time in which an election promise has been broken in any Western parliamentary democracy. The Government used it to get the votes of the young people, the prospective home purchasers of Australia, and l6 weeks later that promise is in shreds. Therefore, it is the first solemn election pledge deliberately dishonoured by this shameful Government. It is the first national scandal of the second Hawke socialist Government and it will cost it dearly at the next Federal election, mark my words! The former Minister for Housing and Construction, now the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), cannot escape unscathed. He was the man who went right around Australia and said: 'Look at this wonderful thing, the first home owners scheme'. Of course, that scheme was originated by the Fraser Government, but the former Minister picked it up quickly and he ran with it. On l6 November last year, three days after his Leader deceived the people of Australia from the Opera House, the former Minister said: 'We introduced the first home owners scheme and brought home ownership within the reach of thousands of young Australian families of limited means'. He is now winging his way to Europe to tell British and European migrants that they really are welcome in Australia after all. He would be interested to know that his successor, the present Minister, in a conspiracy with the Prime Minister, has now brought in a Bill which will effectively put home ownership out of the reach of thousands of young Australian families. I believe that these mostly young people-some of them are old people-will remember for a very long time the way this Minister came into this Parliament last week and almost boasted about the fact that he was first cab off the rank in the Government cuts. He tried to sell it as a virtue. The day before the Minister came into Parliament to do that there was a selected leak to the Australian. Mr Paul Ellercamp wrote a front page article which said, effectively, that there were going to be cuts of about l0 per cent. Of course, we have now had a chance to look at the figures. I tell the first home owners of Australia that the lowest cut is l4.28 per cent-nothing like l0 per cent-and the highest cut is 23.53 per cent. So much for the deception of a 10 per cent cut. The cuts range from 14.28 to 23.53 per cent. This Minister, with the Prime Minister, has now put home ownership out of the reach of thousands of Australian families. To make it even worse-I will prove that this is so-the heaviest cuts will fall on the poorest and most needy members of the community. Is that just? The cuts that the Hawke socialist Government has brought in in this Bill are going to hit the poorest and most needy members of the community the hardest. What a bunch of hypocrites they are. I will demonstrate that, because of the Minister's rush to the chopping block to volunteer himself as the first sacrificial lamb for government cuts, he did not stop to look to see where the cuts were going to fall. He has effectively brought down the axe most heavily on the poorest and the most needy, the underprivileged and the pensioners of Australia. Those with the most limited means are going to feel the most severe cuts of the Hawke-West conspiracy and their dreams of owning their own home will evaporate. Before I turn to the Bill, let me put aside one furphy which was raised, firstly, by a journalist in the Parliamentary Press Gallery-a literary genius called Mr Russell Barton who writes for the Melbourne Age or, as some would have it, the Spencer Street Pravda. That was followed yesterday in this House by a member-he is a nice fellow, but he has not opened his mouth for months-putting a dorothy dixer to this Minister. The furphy they started to run around the traps was: 'Big split between Howard and Hodgman'. What a lot of poppycock. I ask the Minister to check the Hansard record and see whether he can find one word in my remarks in response to the Minister's statement in this chamber last Tuesday criticising cuts in government expenditure. He will not find it. If he reads the Hansard record he will find that I made three fundamental points. The first point was that the Minister and the little Caesar of Australian politics, the current Prime Minister, had set a world record in breaking a solemn election promise within l6 weeks. Mr Slipper —Shame! Mr HODGMAN —I thank the honourable member for his interjection. It is a shameful situation, particularly when we remember the way in which the Prime Minister spoke at the Opera House and the way in which the former Minister spoke all around Australia. How many votes does the Minister think the Government would have lost if last November it had told the people of Australia that within l6 weeks of the election it was going to cut the throat of the home owners scheme, that it was going to cut the throat of its own baby? How many votes does the Minister think the Government would have lost if it had come clean? It is no good the Minister pretending that he did not know. He was not appointed Minister until about 8 December, but it was about 8 December that the Department of Housing and Construction found out that it had already committed about 75 per cent of the total funds for l984-85. The Budget was only 20 weeks old and the Department was suddenly starting to run out of money. What happened then? We had the famous memorandum which I read from the other day; the memorandum which went out, with the Minister's approval, to Mr J. Wisken, the Regional Director for Tasmania and Victoria. That memorandum set out ways and means of fobbing off applicants and delaying the processing of applications. It even proposed a draft letter with a blank: 'The delay in your case will be . . . weeks'. I criticised that and at the same time I criticised the Prime Minister's action in going to the National Housing Industry Association's Twentieth Convention in Canberra on 30 March and reading out a speech, but leaving out three nasty paragraphs so that the delegates to that convention did not find out the bad news until the next day, when they read the full speech in the newspaper. The Prime Minister of Australia is quite happy to give the good news but he does not have the guts to stand up and tell people the bad news. The Minister was at the luncheon. He was at the next table to me. He must have writhed with embarrassment. I do not wish to be unfair, but the Prime Minister is not very tall; nevertheless, I was able to look across and see him at the podium-it was a very large podium-as he was going through his speech. I wondered why he was shuffling the pages like somebody shuffling cards. Of course, we found out. The following day the nasty bits were in the Press. The full speech had been given to the Press, but the Prime Minister did not read it all to the delegates at the convention. Mr Donald Cameron —He didn't want to be booed. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member is quite right. I am quite certain that when the Prime Minister goes to the next Housing Industry Association convention, if he is still Prime Minister next year, which I doubt very much, the Housing Industry Association is going to say: 'Listen, Robert, next time we want you to read the whole of the speech'. Mr Donald Cameron —Nothing but the speech. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member is quite right. The plain fact is that one of his aides said afterwards: 'I'm awfully sorry; the Prime Minister ran out of time'. I give the Prime Minister a bit of friendly advice: If he wants to retain his reputation for integrity-and he is running out of time-he should leave out all the self-congratulatory pieces and read out the bad news. The third thing that I said was that it appeared at first blush that the cuts were going to fall hardest on those who could least afford them. The very next day the shadow Treasurer, the next Treasurer of Australia, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), was in the chamber talking about the overall budgetary situation and the economic prognosis. He said quite categorically that in budgetary terms he had no argument with the cuts in the first home owners scheme. Mr Russell Barton of the Melbourne Age then said: 'Ah, ha, there is a big split'. He wrote an article in the Melbourne Age which was reproduced in the Hobart Mercury. Nobody else in the Press Gallery saw this big split. Mr Howard, very promptly, the following day, wrote a letter to the Mercury making it very clear that there was no split at all between him and me. To put the matter beyond doubt, so that even my friend Mr Russell Barton will not get it wrong a second time, I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst accepting the need for overall budgetary cuts in Government spending, including in the First Home Owners Scheme, the House condemns the Government for- (a) introducing this Bill which amounts to a shameful dishonouring of an election pledge to maintain the First Home Owners Scheme, and (b) its arbitrary action in determining that the heaviest costs would fall on the poorest and most needy members of the community'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) — Is the amendment seconded? Mr Goodluck —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr HODGMAN —We hear squeals from Government supporters. The squeals that we hear from them are nothing compared with the squeals that are coming from the first home owners of Australia because they now realise that they were conned. The figures themselves show what a disgraceful situation we have on our hands. Let me give honourable members opposite some examples. Mr Hand —Since when have you been concerned about the poor? Mr HODGMAN —Oh, we hear the man who abstains, the honourable member for the Coburg Town Hall. He is the one who abstained the other day. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Every time the honourable member makes those sorts of remarks about honourable members I will ask for them to be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —Do members of the Hawke socialist Government approve of the fact that joint home purchasers with an income of less than $l0,000 per annum will suffer under option three a cut of 23.5 per cent? Two pensioners in receipt of less than $l0,000 a year will be subjected to a cut of 23.5 per cent. Do honourable members opposite agree with this? I ask the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child), who is a great champion of the homeless in her electorate, to tell me what she thinks about this. Under option three a single applicant with no children-in many cases a young employed female-will have her grant cut by 23.53 per cent. This is a drop from $4,250 to $3,250. If she takes option two, the cut-this is for someone on a salary of only $l0,000 per annum-is 22.22 per cent. If she takes option one the cut is 20 per cent. Why is the Hawke socialist Government saying to the young women of Australia who want to purchase a home on their own account: 'You have been singled out. You are earning only $l0,000 a year; you are going to be chopped'? A young single mother or a deserted wife who wishes to apply under option three will be subject to a cut of l7.39 per cent-that is, from $5,750 to $4,750. Let us take the case of a single home buyer without dependent children. If the income is $l3,000 per annum that home buyer's grant under option three will be chopped by 23.5 per cent. On option two the grant has been chopped by 22.27 per cent and on option one it has been cut by 20.03 per cent. Why has the Government decided that the heaviest cuts will fall on the poorest and most needy members of the community? Is it because the Government did not do its sums, or does it not care about pensioners who cannot get homes? The Government does not care about single mothers with children. It does not care about the battlers and the underprivileged. Mr Saunderson —What did you do about it? Tell us about your scheme? Mr HODGMAN —Would the honourable member for Aston, the man who lasted less than one round at the Coburg Town Hall the other day, be interested to know that whilst the Government has increased spending for housing by 70 per cent since March l983, in real terms the funding for pensioner housing in Victoria has been cut? Mr Saunderson —No. Mr HODGMAN —If the honourable member does not believe me he had better talk to his own welfare agencies because they know, as I do, that it is true. Mr Hand —You have never been near a welfare agency in your life. Mr HODGMAN —Honourable members opposite are yapping and yapping. We had a deputation in this Parliament only two weeks ago. The point was made very forcibly in the office of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) by welfare housing groups in Victoria that as a result of the mismanagement of the Hawke socialist Government, aided and abetted by Mr Cathie and the Cain socialist Government, the amount in real terms for pensioner housing in Victoria has been cut in l984-85. This shows the absolute cant and hypocrisy of those on the other side of the House in the Hawke socialist Government who say: 'We really believe in housing; we really want to help these people.' They bring in a first home owners scheme; they pump it up, they get all the publicity they can for it and l6 weeks later they cut its throat. The chickens will come home to roost. The Indicative Planning Council has told the Minister that housing commencements have peaked, that they have now flattened out, that they will drop before the end of l985 and that they will continue to drop in l986. According to one set of figures the Minister has effectively chopped $l5.37m off the appropriation for the first home owners scheme for next year. The cut will be the same as the inflation figure of 5.3 per cent because the Minister has simply repeated the same figure of $290m that was given for l984-85. However, that figure becomes $40.37m if we add the $25m which the Minister let slip in his ministerial statement. Mr West —Rubbish. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister says 'rubbish'. It is like what happened yesterday. The Minister can say 'rubbish' as much as he likes. The first home owners of Australia are awake to him. I would like to say in passing that the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), who is a very genuine member of this Parliament, has drawn to my attention a letter which I will read in a moment. The letter concerns a young couple in his electorate whose grant will be chopped as a result of actions of this heartless Minister and this deceitful Government. I will read the honourable member's letter to me, excluding only the names of the young couple because, with respect, I would not put it past someone to try to victimise them. The letter states: Dear Michael, I am writing to provide you with details of how the Minister's reduction of the limit of the First Home Owners Scheme has affected my constituents, Mr and Mrs . . . West Ryde. A letter which I have sent to the Minister for Housing and Construction is attached. First inquiries indicated that only those applicants who had exchanged contracts would be eligible to receive the maximum $7,000 grant. However, I have since been in touch with the Department's Sydney office and received information that the Minister has, in fact, indicated to them that they have the discretionary power to approve applications which are close to contract exchange if the details of the case warrants it in their opinion. In Mr and Mrs . . . case, they are already fully extended as far as their borrowing capacity goes and I think it would be appalling if this young family lost their chance of home ownership due to the Minister's recent announcement. I shall keep you informed of progress in this matter. That letter was written 24 hours after the Minister's statement was made. I have had phone calls in my electorate office asking why the scheme has been cut out. The changes have been so badly presented that many people think it has been cut out. I have had to explain on behalf of the Minister's Government and his Department that it has not been cut out completely but that it has been cut back. Mr Deputy Speaker, I come back to the basic and fundamental point. You, sir, are a man of honour who would not go around the electorate before an election promising things which could not be honoured and 16 weeks later turn around and up those promises. The Minister received a warm reception, even though he did not speak, at the twentieth National Housing Industry Convention. He will get a very hot reception next year. We know what the Minister is going to say and, with the greatest respect, without his cue cards he is not all that hot. The Minister is going to say that the Housing Industry Association of Australia welcomed and accepted the cuts because they would lead to a reduction in interest rates. That is quite true. But what did the National President, Mr John Graham, say in his address, which was heard by the Minister? He called upon the Government, in the interests of dependability of policy, consistency, fairness and equity, not to change the scheme. I ask the Minister the $64 question: Did he have the courage to tell Mr John Graham and the directors of the Housing Industry Association of Australia while he was at the convention that barely l6 days later the industry's throat would be cut and that applicants would find their grants reduced by l4.28 per cent, and in some cases up to 23.5 per cent? Did the Prime Minister have the courage to point it out? Honourable members know that the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry has already said that housing commencements will drop before the end of this year. That means that jobs will be lost in the building industry and retrenchments will take place. The Government will accelerate that process because, as a direct result of its actions and its breach of promise, it is now creating a situation which will lead to many thousands of Australian workers presently in the housing and building industry being out of jobs before Christmas this year. What about the heartbreak the Government is bringing to the young people of Australia who were conned by it and by a Prime Minister who proclaimed to the world: 'And we are going to keep it that way'? He called in the Minister for Housing and Construction and said: 'Stewart, you are the first cab off the rank'. Stewart said: 'Yes, Prime Minister'. He did not fight. Had I been the Minister for Housing and Construction I would have put my job on the line because this breached a fundamental election promise. Even accepting, as I do without any equivocation whatsoever, the need to cut back government spending-even under the first home owners scheme-had I been in government, I would have taken this right down to the line, because I would not want to be part of a shabby, crooked and dishonest government which tears up election policy promises 16 weeks after making them. I certainly would not want to be part of a government which said that the heaviest cuts were going to fall on the poorest and most underprivileged. I challenge the Minister, when he replies, to explain his rationale. When he looks through his figures he will find that it is the poor people in the community who are really getting the heaviest cuts. Why is it, for example, that applicants on $20,000 a year and with one dependent child will suffer a cut of only l5.38 per cent but the single home purchaser, who could be a young woman on an invalid pension, will have a cut of 23.5 per cent? What is the Government doing? Is it playing up to the Tooraks and Vaucluses? Where is its sense of social justice when it takes a stock whip to the poorest? The Minister should never come into this Parliament again and say that his Government cares for the underprivileged, the poor and the needy. He should never parade his conscience on his sleeve. He should not say, as the Prime Minister said: 'We are here to look after the little people of Australia'. Mr Goodluck —Like the motorists. Mr HODGMAN —Exactly. In its first l985-86 cuts, the Government has belted the poorest, and it does not seem to realise what it has done. In conclusion, the amendment accepts the need for overall budgetary cuts in Government spending, including under the first home owners scheme, but we condemn the Hawke socialist Government and the Minister-in particular, we condemn the Prime Minister, because in my book he is more guilty than even the Minister-for bringing in a Bill which amounts to a shameful dishonouring of an election pledge within l6 weeks of its being given and for taking an arbitrary decision with the effect that the heaviest cuts will fall on the poorest and most needy members of the community. Shame on them! The Government stands condemned. I believe that, if there were an open and free vote in this House, the amendment moved to the motion for the second reading would be carried, as, quite frankly, it should be. Mrs CHILD(Henty)(5.05) —It is interesting to hear the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) once again with his pseudo moral indignation over what this Government is proposing in the housing area. Evidently, he has been a shadow Minister for Housing and Construction for far too short a time to be aware of his own Party's track record when in government. If he bothered to bone up on his Party's antics in the housing area throughout its seven years of government, he could wax morally indignant with perfect sincerity. I am sure he will remember that the then Treasurer introduced a housing policy statement which included a one per cent increase in the rate for savings bank owner-occupied home lending, and a one per cent increase in trading bank interest rates for overdrafts of less than $l00,000. The statement was not so much about housing as about an increase in all the regulated interest rates, not just for housing, but also for overdrafts. The then Treasurer introduced a one per cent increase-a further step in the continual upward trend of interest rate increases which so dogged the economy under the Fraser Government. An attempt was made to sugar-coat the bitterness of yet another interest rate increase in the housing area. The key proposal to soften the blow was a tax rebate for some home buyers. One only has to look at the figures to recognise the con game. The total impact of a one per cent rise in interest rates was not offset by the scheme. The cost of the rebate scheme was $230m but the cost of the interest rate increase was $300m. As well, the then Treasurer admitted that only 28 per cent of home buyers would qualify for a rebate, so that 72 per cent-about l.2 million people-received nothing but a higher interest rate bill on their homes. In fact, 450,000 households covered by the scheme represented l0 per cent of all households. Under the previous Government 90 per cent of them received no sugar coating at all-just a bigger pill. As the interest bill went up over two years $1.2 billion came into the coffers but home buyers received only $230m back. They were $l billion worse off under the previous Government's policies. Even the family man with a wife and child who received the maximum rebate was $l0.45 a week worse off. If the honourable member for Denison wants to whinge deceit, he should look at his own Party. We bitterly criticised the increase in interest rates at the time but the most interesting criticism came from the Opposition's ranks. It came from the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). I quote from page l2l0 of Hansard of 18 March 1982: . . . it seems to me that this is obviously-the statement and the intentions-a collision between political necessity and economic reality. He continued: . . . I believe this scheme falls far short of where it should reach. He was bitterly opposed to what his own Party was introducing. In 1975 the then Prime Minister said that he would not interfere with the housing interest rate deductibility scheme. In 1976, he wiped it for everybody but the first home buyers. In 1977, he wiped it out altogether. The honourable member for Denison should consider that for a moment. That was just one more of the 30 broken promises collected during those seven years. Before the honourable member for Denison tries to make political capital out of the First Home Owners Amendment Bill and its provisions, let him ponder his Party's deplorable record in government, particularly in the area of housing. The history of housing under previous Liberal governments has not been happy. In February l982, the Victorian Housing Minister, now the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, showed publicly and clearly what he thought of the Federal Liberal Government's attitude to housing, in particular to welfare housing. He called on the then Prime Minister to provide more money for housing in Victoria or to keep out of the Victorian election campaign. I quote from the Herald of 20 February l982 in which he was reported to have said: If the Federal Government does not recognise the plight of the community here in Victoria and in Australia as a whole, then I would be very concerned as to the value of any Federal Minister participating in a campaign here in Victoria. That is strong criticism from within the honourable member's Party, totally endorsed at the time, and still, by every Labor member in this House. We then saw the Victorian Minister for Housing and the Federal Minister for Housing trading abuse and frantically trying to duck-shove responsibility for the tragic decline of public housing in Victoria and in Australia. Mr Kennett described the l982 Budget allocation for public housing as an absolute disgrace and accused the Federal Minister of deliberately misleading the public. In retaliation, the Federal Minister accused Mr Kennett of arrogance and insincerity. Strangely enough, although they were poles apart in their opinions, they were both right. At that time the Federal Government applied a continual squeeze on finance for public housing and callously abandoned thousands of families who were finding great difficulty in paying high rents. Paragraph (b) of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Denison and seconded by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) states that the Government's arbitrary action would fall heaviest on the poorest and most needy members of the community. Both gentlemen do not really understand the poor and needy, who are the ones who are paying high rents in private housing because honourable members have failed, both in the States and federally, to provide welfare housing or public housing. I read from Hansard of 24 August 1982; it is what I said to members of the Opposition when they were in government: Because of this concentration on the needs of home buyers, the difficulties of both private and public tenants have been largely ignored. The trends within the housing sector should be seen in a broader context-a massive shortage of public housing and a dramatically shrinking private rental sector, together with a serious decline in the housing industry. It is essential in any discussion on housing that it is recognised that the housing sector has been permitted to operate on the basis of a fundamental inequity-a substantial proportion of the population has been denied any access to home ownership and has been forced to live in an unregulated private rental sector or grossly inadequate public rental sector. . . . . People on low incomes, on pensions and on unemployment benefit- I say this for the benefit of the honourable member for Denison- are increasingly disadvantaged by the increasingly high rents they are forced to pay. The Government's- that is the previous Government- housing policy is an example of the neglect of the poor and needy by the Government's economic policies. It has been produced as a major contribution towards enhancing high private ownership. Not only will it not achieve this objective, but its effect will be to exclude even more Australians from owning or renting a home. The Labor Government's first home owners scheme has been a key element in the remarkable recovery in the housing sector. When the first home owners scheme was announced housing activity was at a 20-year low. In l982-83 there were only 105,500 dwelling commencements; in 1983-84 there were 137,000, a dramatic increase. The Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry expects l47,000 commencements in l984-85. The Government also expects improvements. Over 430,000 people are employed in the housing and construction industry. It contributes 7 per cent of the nation's gross domestic product, is a key sector of the economy and is an important catalyst to economic recovery. The Government recognises this, even if the Opposition does not. Expenditure on housing and construction is an investment in the future. The benefits do not stop there. As almost all the inputs are supplied by the Australian industry, it has strong linkages with other sectors of the economy. Small and large Australian industries gain from an increase in construction activity, which has a high employment multiplier. I am not surprised that after the honourable member for Denison spoke in the House he had many telephone calls suggesting that the Government had put an end to the first home owners scheme. From the way in which he spoke one would have thought that the Government had decapitated the scheme altogether. I refer to the Press statement of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) in which he said: As from midnight, April l6, the maximum benefit under the Scheme's payment options and dependant categories will be reduced by $l,000. Masses of intending Australian home owners will still benefit under the first home owners scheme. The Government rejects the carping from the honourable member for Denison. For over two years its economic and housing policies have been helping Australian families. Those policies have helped the housing and construction industry, they have got thousands of people back to work, and they have bumped productivity. Against a background of the Liberal Party's policies, particularly in the area of public housing, the Government has worked a miracle. We intend to reduce the deficit and we do not resile from taking the tough decisions necessary to do so. I congratulate the Minister on having worked out a proposition that will keep the first home owners scheme operating in the interests of the housing and construction industry and the people of Australia. However, we intend to ensure that eager would-be home buyers do not suffer and that the industry maintains the vigorous activity it has shown under a Labor government. I totally reject the comments of the honourable member for Denison. He obviously has not yet come to grips with his shadow portfolio of housing and construction. That is understandable; he has not been in it for very long. However, I assure him that we will remain on the government benches for long enough for him to at least understand the fundamentals about housing, which are that the poorest sections in the community never get an opportunity to own a home. When we do not increase money allocated for public housing we force them to pay high rents to private owners. The Minister has shown enormous responsibility in this area and I congratulate him. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(5.l6) —In May l967, which was many years ago, I made my maiden speech in this place on the subject of the home savings grants scheme. When one listens to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), who is at the table, and to Government members one gains the impression that the first home owners scheme-FHOS-was the first one ever introduced in this country. I turn back to l963-some 22 years ago-when Sir Robert Menzies announced the first ever home owners scheme in City Hall, Brisbane. So the scheme is not a new arrival. People listening to this debate and others should bear in mind that all the Government has done is simply shuffle the pack, give the scheme a new name and say: 'That is our brilliant new scheme'. The Minister is smiling. This happened before his time, but that is what has gone on in this country. Mr West —At least there is not a l2 months delay. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I concede that point because I am a generous man in conceding improvements, but by eliminating the l2 months delay the Government has had to wipe $l,000 off the top. I remember that in February l983-it was five days after the end of that February that I lost my seat of Fadden-the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) traipsed around this country giving his solemn word to my constituents and the rest of Australia, who were conned, that a Labor government would retain the rebate schemes and other incentive schemes for people buying homes. The Minister is again smiling. It was a little Mr Magic; first you see it, then you do not. Bang! On l3 November l984-this was mentioned by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman)-the Prime Minister was at the Opera House, although it was more of a comedian's performance. He referred to the first home owners scheme and to what the Labor Government was doing. Then-here is the quote of excellence-he said: 'And we are going to keep it that way'. I can almost hear that promise being made. Unfortunately, a bare majority of Australians believed him. However, I believe that the good will which exists in this community is fast running out. The Minister for Housing and Construction has not given Australians a thing. To finance the first home owners scheme the Government got rid of three pre-existing schemes which were not supposed to be removed. First, as from 30 June l983, it abolished the housing interest rebate scheme which was introduced by the Fraser Government in l982-83. The special home loan interest tax rebate scheme, which was introduced in March l982 for first home buyers, finished in October l983. Then the Government wiped the home deposit assistance scheme. Mr Saunderson —How much was it worth? Mr DONALD CAMERON —It was worth $l06m for the nine months it was in place. The Government, by wiping those tax rebates, saved itself over $300m. I heard a very interesting justification for that by the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child), who told us a few minutes ago that the assistance was going in the wrong direction, but not everybody was being assisted. The fact is that the Government clawed back over $300m from the people. I am not referring now to the level of income which those people were on. The Government took more than $300m from the people, which is something it promised it would not do. The Government shuffled the pack again, dealt it out and then introduced certain limitations. All it did was remove the requirement that people had to save so much money to qualify for assistance and then introduced income levels. Having reshuffled the pack, the Government redealt the cards and said: 'Aren't we marvellous?' I concede, in my generosity, that there are some people out there who would never have been able to save the original deposit as required under the previous Government's scheme. Mr Saunderson —Ha, ha! Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member for Aston laughs, but it is true. The newspaper headlines which we read now indicate that some of these poor people who were enticed by the Government's scheme are now losing their homes because factors which are crumbling down upon their heads are preventing them from continuing their repayments. They are simply walking away from the dream that was put there by the Government's scheme. I say to the Minister-I say this objectively-that I hope his Department is monitoring the situation very carefully because it may well be that he will have to re-examine the extent of fatalities along the way in terms of success. If there are a few fatalities, okay, let the present system continue; but, if the fatalities are disproportionate in terms of the lower income levels, perhaps we should help more with another form of assistance than a scheme which encourages people who have hardly a penny in their pocket to run along to buy a house. Mr Hollis —Public housing. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member opposite says 'public housing'. Of course, many of these people have managed to move away from public housing but I still think that the situation should be monitored. Perhaps more counselling should be involved in the first place. The honourable member for Denison, who is at the table, mentioned the real con that has gone on in this card trick. As I have said, the Government has reshuffled the cards and has redealt them, but now the cards are being pulled back in again. We now have the clawback. I notice that all the Minister says in his statement, in his generosity, is that the Government promises that the scheme will stay in place for another year. Yet the Prime Minister said in November l984 that the Government would keep the scheme in place. Even now the Government is clawing back money. I have spoken to people in the housing industry. They have told me that they are just relieved that the scheme is being allowed to go on for another year. That is how much trust they have in the Minister. I am not saying that about the Minister personally because I know that these days he goes into Cabinet and is told what is happening. It is the man who paraded at the Opera House who is the source of disappointment to me and to so many people in this country-and things are starting to catch up on him. I refer also to the difficulties brought about by the fact that the Government has not moved the income level for a person qualifying under the first home owners assistance scheme. The income level which was set in l983 has been eroded. Like it or not, the inflation figure that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) parade in this Parliament and around the nation is a false one. People who would have just qualified in l983 earn well above that figure now. What is more, many of those were are below the qualifying level are now at around the cut off level. Their living costs-despite what the Government says about inflation-are infinitely higher than those which existed at the time. I do not believe the inflation costs which have been given. Honourable members opposite should get out and ask every housewife who pushes a trolley around a supermarket whether or not prices have gone up by only 5 per cent or 7 per cent in the last couple of years. What is more, this Government and this Minister-this is where the cap does fit, because the Minister is a lefty-are pushing capital gains taxes and so on. The Minister is nodding his head and is smiling as he does so. I like him because he is basically honest. The imposition of those taxes will mean that housing costs will be pushed up. Builders who are building spec homes will have to up the price of those houses. What every member of this Parliament understands but rarely admits is that whenever we impose a new tax it is John Citizen out there who carries the brunt of it. When a tax is imposed on one John Citizen that John Citizen reshuffles his pack of cards and loads it on to the rest so that he recovers the extra outlay that he has to give the Government. I refer further to the imposition of indirect taxes on materials. Heavens above, what will this do to the cost of housing? If the Government introduces a l0 per cent indirect tax across the board it will add literally thousands of dollars to the cost of building a house. I refer to the service tax. When people try to get little jobs done in their homes to make them more livable they will be hit further. We have a government that has not learned to stop spending. The previous speaker from our side, the honourable member for Denison, pointed out that whilst the Government is clawing back $25m the real figure is, in fact, $40m. In terms of inflation and real growth, a 5 per cent factor on $290m represents another $l5m. The Government has taken back from the people out there some $40m. It is absolutely beyond my comprehension how the Government can continue to say how marvellous is what it is doing. I observe that the Government is saving $40m by this measure today. I submit that the Government certainly has its priorities all wrong. Last year it made the decision to spend an additional $80m over the next three years by having an extra 23 members of the House of Representatives and another l2 senators. The Government incurred the cost of another $45m just to rearrange the new Parliament House to accommodate the additional 35 people. The Government increased the number of staff for members of parliament from two to three. Altogether this comes to about $80m. There are other hare-brained schemes. The day of sudden reckoning is coming. Who is paying the price? It is the little people outside who are having their money withdrawn. I go right back to where I commenced: This scheme is a phoney after all. The money which the Government has clawed back from the people as a result of cancelling the rebate scheme, which it promised it would leave in place, and getting rid of the other schemes, virtually pays for this scheme and probably leaves a little bit left over to pay the accommodation costs of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) during his grandiose lifestyle when he is out of this country. I conclude with the observation that out there in Australia the credibility of this Government is really shattered. I hope that the Minister will not stand up like a parrot once again and say to us: 'Heaven forbid, the Government is doing something to pull the deficit down. Why criticise us?' The answer is that in the first l8 to 20 months that this Government was in office it was like a mad woman in a kitchen-it spent money hell, west and crooked. As a result, this nation is in trouble and the rest of the world has no confidence in Australia. Our dollar is falling to such a low value that, as the honourable member for Denison said, very soon the overseas value of the Australian dollar will be the equivalent of a litre of petrol. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(5.30) —I support the First Home Owners Amendment Bill. When one looks at the range of speakers that the Opposition has put up to speak on this Bill, one starts to realise that it is really not serious about this whole matter. Probably that is because members of the Opposition know that if they were in government their Treasurer would have cut the scheme altogether, would have wiped it out. This legislation is far more generous than anything they have ever contemplated. Let us look at the range of Opposition speakers. We have a Queen's Counsel and a solicitor, a returned politician who has already picked up part of his superannuation payment-he is not worried about getting a home loan-and, finally, a person whose family owns half of Victoria. He is going to tell us about the problems of getting a first home mortgage! The shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), said that we have cut the throat of the first home owners scheme, that we have broken our promises to maintain that scheme. He used a lot of rhetoric and he tried to get a lot of emotion into his speech. What is the real situation? Firstly, we have maintained the scheme. In case the shadow Minister has failed to notice, we will continue the scheme into next year. Sure, we have modified the scheme. We have reduced the benefits slightly, dropping the maximum benefit by $l,000, but we have not altered the qualifying conditions, so people who are in the salary brackets of those who are eligible to benefit from the scheme now will still be eligible after the changes. The first home owners scheme is the most successful scheme ever implemented. It will continue to provide assistance to thousands of Australian families. In fact, in the next financial year, l985-86, it is expected that some 82,500 families in Australia will receive benefits under the scheme. If we look at the performance of the first home owners scheme since it was introduced we see that by the end of June this year some l42,000 families will have received benefits. By June l986, 225,000 families will have received benefits under the scheme. As the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) said, that is a spectacular figure. It is spectacular because those families have received substantial assistance under this Government, enabling them to get a house. We have to look at why we introduced such a generous scheme. The shadow Minister said that if the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia were in office they would show that they have a real concern about housing. When we came to office housing commencements were at a 20-year low. The housing industry was in a disastrous situation because honourable members opposite, when they were in government, could not manage the economy and did not care about housing. The whole of the housing industry was in turmoil. There were only l05,000 commencements during l982-83. During l983-84 commencements built up to l37,000 and the expected number of commencements in l984-85 is l47,000. The industry itself has told us that it is now running at a peak. In fact, in some areas there are now shortages of tradesmen and the industry is unable to meet the demand. With our change to the scheme we will ensure that the demand generated by the scheme does not lead to a drastic reduction in the numbers of commencements, thereby resulting in unemployment. The change will ensure that there is a constant demand which will provide for full employment in the housing industry and at the same time allow for long term planning. The housing industry associations have supported the move. They recognise, as do all responsible people in Australia, that as a government we have a responsibility to manage the economy properly and that in many instances we have to make hard decisions in order to cut the deficit and to ensure that the Budget is handled properly. The one thing that the Opposition cannot say is that we do not have a concern for housing and we have not put a lot of effort into it. As I said, the scheme is the most successful ever implemented. We hear the Opposition complaining about the cut in the scheme. The public may well like to know that even with that cut we are providing nearly twice as much in our scheme as the Opposition was providing in any of its schemes. We are now providing a maximum benefit of $6,000. Under any of the Opposition schemes the maximum grant available was $3,500. Our maximum is twice as much as the Opposition's maximum. Members of the Opposition had absolutely no interest in and no concern for first home owners. When in government they provided no benefit to first home owners to help them to get their deposit and to move into their homes. They provided benefits afterwards, so that nine months later the new home owners might have received a grant or a tax rebate but the new home owners received no direct sum at the time of handing over the deposit or signing the contract to enable them to bridge the deposit gap. The shadow Minister has told us that he and his Party have a real concern for housing. I have already pointed out that during the previous Government's years of mismanagement there was a 20-year low in the housing industry, a complete slump. He was also critical of the amount of money that we are putting into housing. He said: 'You are reducing funds'. I point out that in l984-85 the Federal and State governments will spend between them almost $l,600m on public housing. The Federal Government's direct allocation to that sum is $623m. Honourable members opposite say they were concerned about housing. Let us compare that figure with the previous Government's allocation of $260m during its last full year in office. We are today supplying 2* times the amount of money that honourable members opposite were putting into housing. They have an absolutely appalling record in housing, and in particular public housing. The shadow Minister also said that home ownership in Australia had fallen under the current Labor Government. As in everything else, he likes to say things without thinking. That is probably because he does not have all that much up top. The official figures, the census and survey figures, show that in 1978, which was a high point in housing in the years of the previous Government, home ownership in Australia totalled 73.4 per cent. By 1980 honourable members opposite had had the remarkable success of reducing that figure to 7l.9 per cent. By 1981 they had managed to reduce it further as part of their assistance to the housing industry! Home ownership had fallen to 70.1 per cent. That indicates how much concern they had, not only to help people move into houses but also for the housing industry. The last survey figures for 1984 show that home ownership has risen from the low of 70.1 per cent in 1981 to 71 per cent. Once again, we show that the Opposition shadow Minister speaks without knowing the facts. Let us look at the whole picture. Honourable members opposite say that they have a concern for housing. What were they putting into housing in their last year in office? They were providing two-fifths of what we are providing. That is why there is such a disastrous situation in public housing today. They had absolutely no concern for that area. They were not interested in whether people had roofs over their heads, so they put no money into public housing. During their years in office they managed to achieve the remarkable record of reducing home ownership in Australia, even though they purported to be helping people. Mr Hand —They never helped them at all. Mr SAUNDERSON —The honourable member is quite right. They never helped them at all. In fact what happened with climbing interest rates is that under them people were forced to sell their houses because they could not afford the repayments. The Opposition has said that it compensated for the effect of interest rates. However, what did it do then? It introduced all sorts of meagre schemes which in fact never compensated people for the costs they were incurring. I say again that the best benefit which the former Government provided in any of its schemes amounted to a single payment of $3,500. What do we provide as the maximum in our scheme? The current figure is $6,000. This is nearly double what the former Government was providing. Let us look at the concern of Opposition members. What was their performance in the housing industry, an industry they are so concerned about? They achieved a 20-year low when they were in office. They drove builders broke and put thousands of tradesmen on to the scrap heap because they could not manage the economy. Not only have we lifted home building in Australia to a peak that can be managed but also we are providing stability in the industry. It is quite obvious that the Opposition is clutching at straws. Honourable members opposite are frauds in this area. Their record shows they are frauds and that they did absolutely nothing which can counter our performance. The Opposition's amendment is a joke. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(5.42) —I am very pleased to be given the opportunity to take part in this debate on the First Home Owners Amendment Bill 1985 and to support the amendment moved in a very able and effective manner by my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). The Bill before the House rips up utterly, completely and absolutely the letter and intent of the policy speech of the Hawke socialist Government delivered prior to the last election with the specific intention to deceive the people of Australia. I ask honourable members to remember that classic performance at, of all places, the Sydney Opera House. Let us cast our minds back just a few months to that day in late l984, that black day of shame, when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) uttered the words which are now repudiated in this Bill. He stated: We introduced the first home owners scheme to bring home ownership within the reach of thousands of young Australians of limited means . . . He continued: and we are going to keep it that way. Mr Cadman —It is a joke. Mr SLIPPER —It certainly is a joke. The Prime Minister continued: . . . and beyond the next year, we will maintain at least this level of housing activity and ensure that our housing industry never again slumps into the contraction and despair of the year before we were called to office. What empty words! What a charade! What a shameful way to trick the Australian people. The Hawke socialist Government undoubtedly must be the most discredited government ever. It must be the most unfeeling government-the government least interested in the situation of ordinary average Australians. It is a shocking situation. The Housing Industry Association made a submission to the Commonwealth Government in relation to the l985-86 Federal Budget and stated that the first home owners scheme boosted national income by about $2.5m and created additional taxation revenue and savings for Federal, State and local governments of around $700m. The HIA believes that the scheme has played a vital role in bolstering industry confidence and housing demand. In its report it urged the Government to ensure that the program remains effective in its ability to provide the necessary level of home ownership assistance. We have only to look at the results of the last election when the Hawke Government was almost swept from office to realise that the people of Australia are sick and tired of the sort of administration which is being doled out. I use the word 'doled' advisedly, bearing in mind the enormous number of young people forced on to Labor's dole queues day by day, week by week and month by month. While many people have been helped into a home by virtue of the First Home Owners scheme, perhaps the Australian Labor Party views these people as being little capitalists. Let us look back in history to the last Labor Government in Queensland. Honourable members will remember that freehold title was almost unattainable. Everyone had to have a lease and people occupied their homes at the whim of Labor. They had no security of tenure. Is this the shape of things to come? The National Party of Australia fully supports the right of every Australian to home ownership. It is obvious, as increasing numbers are being able to buy their own homes, that they are rejecting the socialist policies of this Government. I challenge the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) to tell the House whether the Government has seen that as home ownership increases people refuse to vote for a government which believes in the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Is this Bill an ideological attack on the principle of home ownership for young Australians and those who are older? I can understand that honourable members opposite are totally disillusioned with the policies, or lack thereof, of their own Government, the faction fighting and so on. Mr Hodgman —They have fled from the chamber. Mr SLIPPER —They have fled from this debate. Very few Government members are interested in the situation of young Australian home buyers. I am certain that if any of those opposite wished to walk across this chamber and join the progressive forces on this side the Opposition would very much welcome them. Mr Hodgman —Of course, not all of them. Mr SLIPPER —I suppose we would not want some of them. In fact, I am certain that the constituents of many Labor members would be appalled, shocked and horrified at the way in which a major election promise is being destroyed by this Government. Every honourable member in this place would agree that the honourable member for Denison, who sits before me at the table, is one of the most objective and open-minded persons in this place. He is very much an expert on the subject of housing and construction. Of course, after the next election he will be a Minister in this area and is superbly qualified for that role. Therefore, when he chooses to speak we should sit up and take notice. That goes for those opposite as well. The honourable member has been moved to say: The Hawke socialist Government has betrayed the first home owners of Australia. With premeditation they have torn up their election pledges and cut the throat of their own scheme. I am heartened that the honourable member for Denison agreed with me when he claimed, quite rightly in my view, that the Government's Bill is a shameful betrayal of many thousands of Australian home buyers conned into voting for Mr Hawke on l December. Mr Hawke talks a lot about consensus. What about a little less of the 'con' and a bit more of the 'census'? Mr McGauran —Well said. Mr SLIPPER —I thank the honourable member for Gippsland for his support. The Government states that this Bill amounts to a cost cutting measure. One must admit that on first appearances this is the case. While many prospective home buyers have been deprived of home ownership through lower grants or grants which simply will not be available Australians must seriously question whether ultimately any money will be saved. While money will be taken-I should say stolen-from the FHOS applicants I ask: Will this result in fewer new houses, fewer jobs in the building industry, fewer apprentices, fewer carpenters, fewer bricklayers and so on as well as more, many more, people cast out on to Labor's jobless scrapheap? What will be the cost of increased unemployment benefits compared with the amount of money taken from new home buyers? In our present climate it is vital that we have measures that will stimulate the private sector at the expense of the public sector. However, Labor's Bill has been brought in at a time when the outlook for industry is indicating a downturn in overall construction activity of some 5,000 units for the l985-86 financial year. This figure has been calculated on the hoped-for containment of interest rates and the maintenance of the FHOS at its present level. Obviously, there will be a substantial decline in the number of new homes. The Australian building industry based its plans on Labor's campaign promises. These were worthless promises, in this area at least. Is compensation to be paid to contractors and to people who entered into financial commitments on the basis of the great fraudulent performance at the Sydney Opera House in late l984? What we need in this country is monetary restraint and cost cutting; however, it is inappropriate for a disproportionate burden to be placed on the housing sector. Instability in this area will contribute to instability in the economy and to higher unemployment. Is this instability to be for nothing? Will expenditure simply be transferred from home savings grants to dole payments? On our side we have made fewer promises but we have kept the promises we made. Those honourable members opposite made extravagant, wild and outlandish promises and shortly afterwards-just 16 weeks later-they ripped them up and cast forth the pieces, the shreds, of those promises unto the breeze. The Government's decision could essentially be one of false economy. Surely it is evident that, although a primary saving may be obtained through cut-backs, the secondary costs could result in increased unemployment and increased costs in this area. I am surprised that this so-called compassionate Government-what a joke-will take steps obviously designed to increase the number of jobless in Australia. Prior to the last election the Government knew that nearly 76 per cent of the entire FHOS appropriation for 1984-85 had already been committed. Were the people of Australia informed? Mr Hodgman —No. Mr SLIPPER —No, the honourable member for Denison says, and he is quite right. Were they told? Were they advised? The simple answer to these questions is no. The then Minister for Housing participated in a cover-up-shades of Watergate-to keep this information from the people of Australia. He used splendid diversionary tactics. The Minister himself fobbed off anxious applicants. A few weeks ago, without any ministerial announcement, an extra $25m was injected into the FHOS and now most of that amount has been grabbed back. The behaviour of this Government is consistently atrocious. Think about its attack upon our senior citizens who have worked throughout their lives to make our country what it is today. I refer of course to the way in which Labor's assets test has undermined the security of our retired people. Mr Nehl —Disgraceful. Mr SLIPPER —It is an absolute disgrace. Another aspect that is interesting to note is the way in which, for some peculiar reason, the ALP has decided to attack those people who are most in need of government assistance. Why is it that this Party, which claims to champion the cause of the underprivileged, which claims to try to make Australian society-to use its words-'more just', has decided viciously to attack those who have no capacity to look after themselves in a financial sense? Australia's poorest people will be kicked hardest by this Government. Those people who were originally to be the main beneficiaries of the first home owners scheme will be the first to lose benefits. Is this a policy about-face by the Government, or is it simply sloppy drafting of this Bill? We in the National Party believe that government must be reduced to a manageable size. That is why we believe that government expenditures must be reduced and slashed. We believe that the Australian taxpayer is entitled to a fair return for the tax dollar, even though under Labor our dollar is virtually worthless. Government expenditure must be cut, and if money can be genuinely saved, we support the amendment to the motion for the second reading that is before the House. We are however opposed in particular to the way in which the ALP before the last election promised the world and gave the people of Australia almost nothing. What we cannot tolerate is the hypocrisy of this Government, which claims to be a government which supports those in need. We believe in reduced government expenditure and see the importance for government to move in this direction. But we must point out to the people of Australia the way in which this Government comes before the people time and time again, pledging the world and giving them next to nothing. The Labor Party is an utter disgrace. We are opposed to it and it must be exposed for all the world to see. As has been said so eloquently, the Hawke socialist Government will pay dearly for this ill-advised Bill at the next election. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(5.53) —When the First Home Owners Bill 1983 was introduced into this House by the then Minister for Housing and Construction, the present Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), he stated that the Labor Government's housing policies were an essential element of our national recovery strategy. He has been proved correct in this assessment in light of the first home owners scheme's substantial contribution to the remarkable recovery in the housing and construction industry, a contribution which enabled the Hawke Government to haul that industry back from the all-time 20-year low presided over by the Liberal Government. Since Labor attained office, more than 55,000 jobs have been created in the housing industry alone. Dwelling commencements have increased from 105,000 to an anticipated 147,000 by the end of June this year. Approximately 142,000 households will own their own homes as a result of the first home owners scheme at a cost to the Government of $431m. With the legislation before the House today the first home owners scheme remains what it has always been-a flexible benefits scheme to assist low and moderate income earners into home ownership despite the hysterics of the Opposition. Earlier programs concentrated on providing a single grant linked to savings accumulated over a period. The greater the savings, the larger the grant. The Labor Government considered this to be a discriminatory arrangement that did little to assist those potential home buyers most in need. It was in this context that Labor developed a scheme which provided for financial assistance over the first five years of home ownership. The spread of the benefits was specifically designed to help people meet their loan repayments and took account of the differing financial requirements of home purchasers by providing a number of options for payment of the assistance. The first home owners scheme was developed in close consultation with housing industry organisations and financial institutions. Their support for the scheme remains because they recognise its value to the housing and construction sector of industry in employment and economic terms as well as its flow-on effects on the finance area and the economy as a whole. In introducing the First Home Owners Amendment Bill the Government is concerned to see that the integrity of the 1985-86 Budget appropriation of $290m for this scheme is assured in the face of expenditure constraint and public uncertainty as to its continuation which has been fuelled by the Opposition. So this is a very important proposal. The annual appropriation of $290m will ensure that eligible applicants can plan their home purchases secure in the knowledge that the scheme criteria will remain firm for the foreseeable future. It will enable the Government to budget for a maximum expenditure commitment during the next financial year and it will provide the housing and construction industry with the stable and certain environment which it requires to continue its growth. On the subject of deficit cuts and the need for them, I refer members of the House to the comments of the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), who stressed that the best way in which the Commonwealth Government could help the housing sector of the building and construction industry would be to set about reducing deficit spending to manageable levels. The honourable member for Curtin made that comment in the Parliament on 30 September 1983, at the time the first home owners scheme was introduced. Heaven knows, this Government would be reluctant to accept too much advice from the honourable member for Curtin on economic strategy, but his comments provide us with further evidence of the Opposition's inconsistent attitude on this subject. For all its rhetoric in defence of this scheme, the Opposition has no integrity on the matter of real and sustained assistance to the home buyers of this country. Under the provisions of this Bill approximately 82,000 more households will benefit from the grant in 1985-86. By the end of the next financial year about 225,000 households will be purchasing rather than renting their homes. In my electorate of Cowan, which is primarily a fast growing residential area, 765 applications for the first owners scheme were approved in the period from October 1983 to April 1985. In people terms, that means 765 families have been assisted with the purchase of their homes. Many of those people would not have been in a position to buy a home without the aid of the scheme. This is a particularly relevant factor in Western Australia, where property prices are considerably lower than in the eastern States and where, accordingly, the first home owners scheme grant bears a greater relationship to a deposit on a home. In money terms, those approvals represent $2.438m paid to date, or $3.797m over five years. Those people in my electorate who have already benefited from the first home owners scheme will not be disadvantaged by the changes contained in this Bill. Their payments will continue at present levels. Persons who had entered into contracts to purchase or construct a home on or before 16 April will still be eligible under the previous arrangements and criteria. Although the grant has been reduced in respect of future applicants, I am sure that those families which have not yet availed themselves of the home owners scheme and are still saving for a home will be greatly relieved to have the speculation concerning the future of the scheme put at rest and will be gratified to know that their eligibility remains. Mr Hodgman —Instead of being murdered, it is just being raped. Ms JAKOBSEN —Western Australian housing industry groups will be particularly pleased, despite the comments of the honourable member for Denison, to have the legislative assurance that the scheme will continue, given its importance to the maintenance of growth of the industry in that State and its recent representations to the Government on that basis. As the Housing Industry Association states in its Press release of 16 April, this scheme: . . . has unquestionably been the most effective scheme of home ownership assistance. The State Government is also to be congratulated on its initiatives in the area of public housing provision in Western Australia, in conjunction with industry and finance groups. Their combined endeavours, together with those of the Federal Government, have assisted a considerable number of low middle income families to exercise the option of home purchase in lieu of public housing rental, and have thus alleviated to some extent the pressure on State housing commission waiting lists. All in all, the Government's achievements via its housing policy and the first home owners scheme have been extraordinary. The Government is to be congratulated on the inception and introduction of the scheme in 1983 and its determination to legislate for its continuance at the present time. The Bill before the House also addresses a number of machinery amendments, which have already been alluded to in the Minister's second reading speech. Of these amendments, I particularly draw the House's attention to clause 9, which permits applicants who have received assistance in respect of contracts which have fallen through to offset that assistance against a subsequent entitlement rather than to have to repay the earlier benefit as is now the case. It is interesting to note the comments of Opposition members on this Bill and, allegedly, in defence of the first home owners scheme-a scheme which they would never have introduced themselves. Some of them condemned the scheme as administratively complex at the time of its introduction while advocating the continuation of previous unsatisfactory and discriminatory schemes introduced under the auspices of their discredited Government. At that time Mr Groom, the then member for Braddon, declared that the 'package' would not assist private home ownership. Once again, the Opposition has been shown to be incapable of judging the prospective effectiveness of innovative Government assistance measures. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(6.05) —It is a great shame that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has been coerced into making the changes to the First Home Owners Act that we are debating today. The Minister even in his speech to the House said that it is better to have part of the cake than no cake at all. I am sad that he uses that sort of argument that it is better to have this much of a scheme rather than have no scheme at all. Is the Minister hinting that it was seriously considered that the scheme be disbanded? Is he putting the proposition that Treasury officials, against the Minister's judgment, almost prevailed in the cost-cutting exercise the Government is now undertaking? I think the Minister's proposition to the effect that people should be glad to have something when he seeks to make a change of this type, despite commitments made just a few months ago, is unreasonable. Again I will quote to the House some of the details of the Prime Minister's policy speech made at the end of last year at the Sydney Opera House on 13 November. The Prime Minister said in regard to the building of new houses, 'And we are going to keep it this way'. He continued: In the next twelve months, 145,000 new houses will be built in Australia, an increase of 40 per cent over the level of two years ago. And that is correct. He continued: And beyond the next year we will maintain at least this level of housing activity, and ensure that our housing industry never again slumps into the contraction and despair of the year before we were called to office. The Government is heading for that right at the moment. The Prime Minister also said on that occasion: We are not offering a grab-bag of unrelated, unachievable election promises. We are not offering a fistful of dollars. That is exactly what the Government has done-and it has grabbed it back. That is the cost-cutting exercise in which the Government is now engaged. I would like to put the proposition to members of the Government that what they are doing in this area is exactly the wrong policy. At a time when interest rates are on the way up, at a time when the Government is trying to make savings and when a contraction will take place in the economy, the Government is cutting back on a major area of employment and economic activity. Some 20 per cent of domestic activity is involved in the housing industry. That is an area where the Government is heading for a big crash. The Housing Planning Indicative Council has indicated that the years ahead are not as certain as the year we have gone through. It is a sleight of hand by the Government. The Government makes extravagant promises and then, in a furtive way, dishonestly withdraws commitments. The Government makes loud claims and then makes secretive decisions at a later stage about those claims. The Government cannot have it both ways. Under this Government interest rates are rising, with people in need of homes, and the Government has made a decision that will put the housing industry into a dive over the next two years. The Prime Minister's words will not stand; there is no way they can. There is no way that this Government can deliver on the promise: We are not offering a grab-bag of unrelated, unachievable election promises. The Government made the promise to maintain housing at a level of 145,000 a year or at about that level. The Government will not achieve it and it will drop back substantially. The average loan in Sydney at present is about $50,000. The average interest rate for a housing loan is 13.5 per cent. That is the highest real interest rate individuals have paid for many years. If one takes the average cost of living and the average cost of putting a home together, one finds that the most significant real cost is the cost of money-the cost of getting hold of a loan to have a home built. This scheme encouraged young people to consolidate their finances and establish a home for the first time. The Minister for Housing and Construction is making significant and drastic changes to the scheme at a time when he should not be making those changes. It is completely the wrong policy. I agree with my colleagues that there needs to be a restraint in Government expenditure, but this is not the area in which to do it. There are many other areas to which the Government can apply restraint. To use the housing industry, a significant sector of the domestic economy, to which to apply this restraint is not the right way to go. The Government should mark my words. We will be here in 12 months time and we will make a comparison then. The Minister can chuckle; he may think it is a great joke. Mr West —Tell me which areas you suggest. Mr CADMAN —Although the Minister is flippant and nonchalant about this proposal, the fact is that average weekly earnings around Australia are at different levels. In New South Wales average weekly earnings are $403-which is right on the margin for the first home buyers scheme. In Victoria the figure is $385; in Queensland, $370; rising to $434 in the Northern Territory and $449 in the Australian Capital Territory. Already many people are beyond the range of this scheme. As time passes, with the brakes the Government has put on to the scheme, the small amount of assistance the Government will be giving will mean that if the average loan for a person in Sydney is $50,000, paying 13.5 per cent, the Government will put a first home beyond the reach of first home buyers. This scheme was a good scheme; it consolidated previous government schemes. It used about the same amount of money, so the claims the Government has made for it are not realistic because the previous Government was putting the same amount of money out in housing, or slightly more. The present Government consolidated the scheme. That is fine; it is a good scheme, but now the Government is spoiling it and changing it at the wrong time. I am fearful as to what the Government will do to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. What is coming up in the Budget for the housing commissions, the landcoms and all those lovely socialist organisations Labor thinks so much of? What changes will be made in the Budget in the welfare housing sector? Is the Government to maintain such schemes? What are the Government's commitments to the Australian community? Can we believe the Government? In 16 weeks the Government has snatched back a benefit which was announced in the election campaign. It was a policy announcement put firmly by the Prime Minister of this nation that the Government would not change policies. I repeat, that was a promise not to change policies. Then, 16 weeks later, the Government changed that policy. What does the Government intend to do in the area of welfare housing? Does the Government intend to be consistent or is that another area which we will find, on Budget night, has been caught up by the Expenditure Review Committee? What is the Government to do? It is inconsistent, it cannot be relied upon, and the Government's word is not its bond. I believe that the amount the Government is expending in this area is $290m this year-the same dollar amount as in the previous year. The cost of materials has not increased greatly over the last 12 months and, based on that alone, the Government could hold the line. The cost of labour component has not risen greatly, except for the strong unionisation of the home building industry in New South Wales which is occurring and which, by the way, will increase costs in that industry by 25 per cent. That figure of 25 per cent is from the Housing Commission of New South Wales. However, let us set aside the cost of labour. What about the cost of money-the cost of borrowing? It is now as high as or higher than it has ever been. With inflation running at comparatively low levels, on top of inflation the Government is paying a good 8 per cent to borrow money; a real interest rate of about 8 per cent. That is the highest it has been for years. That is the factor that is not under control. That is the factor that is worrying the international community. That is the factor that will prevent many first home buyers from becoming eligible under the scheme that we are debating today. The Government can congratulate itself for introducing a good scheme. I join the Government in that, but I am extremely critical of it for making changes to the cycle of home building in Australia at a critical time. It has been a worry and a concern of the housing industry of Australia that there is cyclic activity-booms and busts year after year. For a long period the previous Government kept it stable, but now we are back into the cyclic effect. It is a boom and bust process again, because the Government is on the downhill run. Mr Hodgman —Like the Whitlam years. Mr CADMAN —Like the Whitlam years, it will be up every two or three years and down again after that. The Government has had a boom. It is heading for a very low level of activity. I have explained the reasons. As members of the Government they can dismiss that. I suppose the Labor members' fetish for being loyal to their Party means that they must do that. It means that the Government must do that, but mark my words, right at this moment it is facing a most dangerous condition in the housing industry, brought about by this decision. It indicates a wish to cut expenses willy-nilly in a major sector of economic activity. I am extremely disappointed with the attitude of the Minister and the attitude of the Government. It is claimed that it is a cost cutting measure. The fact is that it will be a cost-cutting measure that will result in fewer people purchasing their first home in the next 12 months than there have been for a number of years. The boom and bust cycle of the home building industry is about to recommence. I regret that. The Government should be strongly condemned for it. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(6.12) —The comments that have just been made by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) are interesting because back in 1980-81-one of the periods of Liberal-National Party government-there were something like 149,000 commencements. By 1982-83 this had been reduced to 105,000. The honourable member spoke about fluctuations; I would like to know what that is. This year we expect to have 150,000-odd commencements and next year about 146,000 commencements. It is a matter of history that Labor governments have demonstrated their determination to increase both the public and the private housing stock of Australians. The Budgets of 1974-75 and 1975-76 allocated $391.4m and $377.7m respectively for all housing. In 1984-85 prices, these figures represent the equivalent of $1,027.4m and $839.6m respectively. When the Australian Labor Party was returned to office in 1983 we inherited a situation in which the Fraser Government, the Liberal-National Party coalition Government, had deliberately run down the Commonwealth's commitment to putting Australians in their own homes. I outlined those figures a short time ago. The Liberal-National Party Administration, in its last two full years, allocated $264.1m and $64.2m for housing. In 1984-85 terms, that represented only $338m and $470.4m respectively. As you may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the latter year, 1982-83, there was an increase in funds-a panic measure aimed at plugging holes in a leaking ship. From 1975 until 1982 the Liberal-National Party coalition had deliberately reduced the amount available in assistance to potential home buyers. As anyone with experience of that time will recall, at that time those who did receive the benefits were those who were more affluent. That cannot be denied. People on lower incomes found it increasingly difficult to bridge the deposit gap. Hence, more and more of these people saw their hopes of owning their own homes drift further away. What made things worse for them, of course, was the disregard that the Liberal-National Party Government had for the public housing stock. At a time when the economy was running down we heard these strange noises about the evils of government intervention in the economy in every aspect. Had the Liberal-National Party Government had the wit and had it been less blinkered by its viewpoint, it would have recognised that the building industry was a fundamental industry into which an injection of funds would result in a range of benefits greater than would occur with any other industry. Prior to the introduction of the first home owners scheme the situation in the building industry was nothing short of critical. To use a favourite adjective of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the Government of which he was a member was guilty of shameful neglect of the industry and was guilty also of having deliberately forced this industry into recession. The results were multiple in their effects. As well as fewer people owning their own homes as a result of this policy, in many cases builders and sub-contractors faced bankruptcy. Thousands of tradesmen in the industry were thrown out of work and as a result, of course, their wives and children suffered appallingly. Many communities suffered from a decrease in available funds, resulting in even more people being thrown out of work. The building industry is a classic industry. Not only is it labour intensive, but also it generates many jobs in feeder industries. It also provides much needed money to inject into service industries, manufacturing industries, road construction and community business. In communities such as Ararat and Ballarat in my electorate, the effects of the downturn in the building industry were felt most keenly. Today the situation is remarkably different. In every aspect of the domestic building industry the level of business has improved-and improved markedly. The prime factor in this dramatic recovery has been the Government's first home owners scheme. To illustrate the way my electorate has benefited I illuminate the following figures: From 1 October 1983 until 11 April 1985, 935 applications were approved. The amount of benefit paid to home owners is $2,822,000. The amount of benefit approved to be paid over the five-year period of the grant is $4,458,000. Not only are these people in their own homes-or will be in their own homes-much sooner than they would have been under the niggardly and inequitable scheme of the Liberal-National Party Government, but also the funds generated by this scheme have provided a much needed injection of funds into the local economy and, of course, into job creating possibilities. Assuming that each house is valued at $40,000, the amount injected into the economy is in excess of $37m. Together with homes that would have been built anyway in the region, this represents a massive contribution to the regeneration of the economy in the Ballarat electorate. I put to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the figure of $40,000 per home is a conservative estimate, because the average cost of homes purchased is considerably higher than that. From 1 October 1983 to 21 August 1984 the figure was $49,958 and from 22 August 1984 the figure is $46,969. When the total figures for the first home owners scheme are taken into account the Australian total of approvals for the above period is 123,663. When translated into benefits paid, this represents an outlay of $373,434,000 in benefits approved and $602,331,000 in forward grants. This brilliantly conceived program has led to the creation of 55,000 new jobs in the building industry alone. In terms of jobs and new dwelling commencements, the program to date has outstripped expectations. As the Minister indicated in his second reading speech, around 147,000 to 150,000 dwellings will have been commenced during this financial year, which is an increase of some 40 per cent since the Labor Government assumed office in 1983. While I am mentioning the increases in dwelling commencements, I feel compelled to comment upon a statement made by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) in which he claimed that fewer people own their own homes in Australia today than was the case when the Government assumed office. As with so many other statements made by the honourable member, this is wide of the mark. It is a pity the honourable member is not a little more careful about the way in which he makes his statements. He knows full well that there is no evidence to support his claim. It is with regret that the Government has felt obliged to reduce the grant available through the first home owners scheme. As I have indicated, the Government has been more than pleased by the success of the scheme which has helped many people to overcome the deposit gap and to obtain a home much sooner than they might otherwise have expected. The Bill before us seeks to reduce the size of the grant. It also seeks to make a number of minor adjustments to the scheme in respect of obvious anomalies. The reduction in the size of the grant has become necessary as part of the Government's program of trimming the deficit. While this might disappoint a number of people-it probably disappoints us all in a way-it is important to remember that a blowout in expenditure would be counterproductive. It would not only result in serious inflationary pressures but also increase interest rates. Therefore, I believe that most people will accept the decision, although it is tough, because they will recognise it as a sign of responsible, and not weak and opportunistic, government. It is interesting to note that the Housing Industry Association of Australia has also come out clearly and supported the Government's position. In conclusion, this legislation is of vital importance to all of those who aspire to own their own homes. The Government has very firmly reasserted its commitment to the first home owners scheme. Vast numbers of first home owner scheme application forms and accompanying information have been distributed from my electorate office. Members of my staff have assisted many people in their applications. They have been particularly happy to co-operate with lending agencies, real estate agents and solicitors in an endeavour to make it easier for people to acquire a home. In fact, my electoral assistant has held seminars along those lines with members of those industries so that they also can assist people to gain the advantages of this scheme. I assure my electorate that this service will continue as will this scheme. While I am sorry that the grant has been decreased I am confident that the scheme will continue. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the amendment and support the Bill. Dr WATSON(Forde)(6.25) —I rise to support what the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) had to say about the First Home Owners Amendment Bill 1985. I would like to follow some of the advice that was offered to the House last week by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) who suggested that we should look at both the positive and negative effects in considering any legislation. The Government, of course, undoubtedly will continue to argue that the short run benefits of increased home ownership and building stimulation are all that matters. However, I think it is wise to look at the underlying and continuing long run effects of the legislation as well as the proposed amendment. I would like to do two things tonight. First of all I will consider some of the long run issues. Secondly, I will become a little more parochial perhaps, and talk about the effect that this legislation will have on a very significant part of my electorate. Let me start with one of the negative effects. The original Bill, and the continuation of the scheme, in effect raises the cost of housing for all Australians. That is something that should be noted. People who move from one place to another, people who change their lifestyles and younger couples who are buying a home for the first time all face higher housing costs. That implies that they will have to make a greater investment and consequently, over time, they will face a higher interest bill. That is one of the negative effects. Before honourable members opposite start congratulating themselves on the positive effects they should bear in mind that the majority of Australians in the longer run will pay more for home ownership. This will happen in two ways. Firstly, of course, the price of a limited supply of land will be bid up as more people come into the market place. That, by itself, has probably wiped out most of the extra funds that are made available under the first home owners scheme. Secondly, of course, the cost of building a house is being increased in areas which face capacity constraints. These effects, of course, are already being felt most by the exact people whom the Government claims it is trying to help. Most people purchase houses which cost somewhere around two and a half to three times their average annual earnings. The people the Government is trying to help are earning incomes between about $10,000 and $27,000. In other words, the Government is looking at helping people who intend to purchase on average homes worth $30,000 to $80,000. The Government has significantly increased the cost of housing in this very area. The second group of people to be hurt are those who cannot afford to purchase houses to begin with. Young people, university and tertiary students and people on welfare benefits who are being forced to rent are being hurt because there is now a smaller supply of rental housing. Rents have risen and, as a result, people on lower or fixed incomes have to pay more in rent. So the primary negative effects are hurting exactly the kinds of individuals whom the Government claims it wants to help. Finally, there is a more long run and sociological effect, an effect which a caring government would not want to enforce. We are now starting to see a situation in which young couples have been enticed by the home ownership scheme to enter into contracts which they simply cannot fulfil as unemployment starts to spread. This is certainly a problem in part of my electorate. Young couples are being devastated by the loss of their homes and their hard-earned capital. I believe that the Government is partly to blame for this situation. I now refer briefly to the southern part of my electorate, which includes the suburbs of Woodridge and Kingston, and which is generally referred to as Logan City. Ninety per cent of individuals and 70 per cent of families in this area who earn less than $27,000 are the very people who will be affected by the Government's $1,000 reduction in the maximum grant under the first home owners scheme grants. However, they are not the only people who will be affected. Home building is a major manufacturing industry in my electorate. When the Government was running its election campaign, builders in my electorate entered into long term building contracts which certainly exceeded 16 weeks on the basis of the Government's previous policy. The Government has now pulled the rug from under them. Although builders were encouraged by the Government to undertake this work it is now withdrawing funds. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Dr WATSON —As I was indicating before the suspension of the sitting, I should like to discuss two aspects of this Bill. One is the long run negative impact of this amendment and, of course, of the principal Act in basically raising the cost of housing for all Australians, in particular the group that this Government said that it wishes to help, namely, those people earning less than $27,000 a year and those families with an income of less than that amount. As the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has already said, it is those individuals, particularly at the lower level of average income around $10,000 a year, who will be hurt most by this amendment. The second aspect, which I started to address before the suspension, concerns my electorate, in particular parts of Woodridge, Kingston in Logan City, where some 70 per cent of families have an income of less than $27,000 per year and 90 per cent of the individuals earn less than that amount. These people in my electorate who, in the last election, undoubtedly tended to support this Government and voted- Mr Hodgman —They were conned. Dr WATSON —That is exactly right. They believed the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Less than 16 weeks later, even though a number of these people had already developed plans for home building, and despite the fact that builders in the area-I reiterate that building is one of the major industries in the Logan City area-who concentrate on building homes in the $30,000 to $80,000 range, particularly around $50,000, had developed plans and could have expected the Government to continue its promises, they now find themselves faced with a Bill to amend the first home owners scheme by reducing the maximum grant by $1,000. What is particularly unfortunate is that this represents simply another aspect of the Government's promising one thing and then retracting it and its inability to stick to its policies as formulated. We have already seen this in the build up to the taxation summit and with regard to ANZUS and the MX missiles. This inconsistency in government policy is one of the things to which the Australian dollar is reacting at the moment. Australia requires a government with a firm economic policy, one it is willing to stick to, to encourage individuals to make the investments that they need to make. This Government does not provide it. Less than 16 weeks after a critical election, the Government changes its mind again. Although I realise that there is no hope of the Opposition defeating this amendment, I hope that the Government might learn something for the future and set down a blueprint-and not simply change its decisions after people have made their plans and developed their expectations but start to provide a stable environment in which individuals and firms can make the long run investment decisions that they need to make. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(8.05) —The First Home Owners Amendment Bill is very important. It raises a great many questions which I believe the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has failed to address on behalf of the Government, let alone answer satisfactorily. The Bill seeks to amend the First Home Owners Act 1983 by reducing the maximum benefits payable by $1,000 as from 16 April 1985, that day being the day on which the Minister made the announcement. It seems to be somewhat incongruous that the Minister and Government members have praised to the high heavens-if I may use that colloquialism-the benefits of the scheme and yet have praised themselves for reducing the benefit applicable and payable to successful applicants. The Government wants it both ways. It talks up the success of this scheme and, at the same time, it is significantly reducing its effectiveness. The Government cannot have it both ways. To a large extent the Opposition welcomed the introduction of this scheme and has watched its progress with some satisfaction. We agree with many of the points put by the Minister when talking of the significant number of jobs that it has helped-I stress 'helped'-create in the building industry. Indeed, the Minister has told us that about 55,000 jobs have been created there since he took office. This scheme has played a significant role in that. However, it now appears that a number of jobs will be lost, or that the opportunity to create new jobs will be lost, by the slashing of the first home owners scheme. One wonders whether that is false economy, or twisted economics, to cut back on this scheme when it has-as is acknowledged by the Opposition-been somewhat successful in stimulating the private sector and the building industry, and creating a number of jobs. The Minister has advised the House that the first home owners scheme will have a Budget appropriation of $290m over the 1985-86 financial year. That $290m will purportedly assist 82,500 applicants. The savings from this legislation are estimated to be, at best, $25m over that same period. For the sake of that $25m has the Government properly thought through the consequences of turning off the tap to the private sector in the building industry? Mr Hodgman —No. Mr McGAURAN —No, I do not believe, as the honourable member interjects, that it has. The Government has failed to address a number of questions which this Bill raises, the major one being that the budgetary restraints that we would all like to see the Government impose on spending programs are not contributed to satisfactorily by this $25m cut. It is kindergarten economics to say that a cut here and a cut there of this proportion will, in some way, contribute to a significant-or in any way measurable-reduction of the deficit. Instead, we have to look at a whole range of Government economic policies. We have to look at its commitment to a centralised wage fixing system and at the present devaluation of the dollar and its continuing fall. We have to look at interest rates, taxes and the phoney tax summit in which the Government-no doubt together with its Australian Council of Trade Unions friends-will completely and utterly rehearse and carry into effect its policies. We have to examine at length our declining position in world trade. Government policies in all of these areas have a very significant effect on the deficit and render the $25m which this Bill will save to an almost infinitesimal amount. The Government ought to be addressing the pressing economic problems of this country rather than in a piecemeal and discriminatory fashion introducing ineffective budgetary cuts. Moreover, we have to look at the integrity of the Government. We know that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his policy speech before the last election, delivered on 13 November 1984, made a specific commitment to retain the first home owners scheme in its present form. There was no suggestion, let alone announcement, at that time that the Government was considering or would bring into effect major substantial structural changes to the first home owners scheme. Mr Cobb —Another broken promise. Mr McGAURAN —That was another broken promise, as my colleague and contributor to this debate the honourable member for Parkes interjects. It is not surprising that in the field of economic management this Government has broken its word. We only have to look at interest rates, which are of far more importance than a $25m budgetary cut, bearing in mind that under this Government the deficit is approaching $9 billion. It is a mockery that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) should say before the last election that Australia would see reductions in interest rates in 1985. We know that very recently, in the last three weeks, housing interest rates have been increased by all major banks by one half of one per cent. The Bill before the House this evening is a false economy. It hits at the wrong sector of private industry; it hits at a scheme which has been somewhat successful in creating new jobs. Instead of this scheme I, together with my colleagues, would like to see the Government engage in proper economic management on a whole range of issues on which I have touched. We want to see the Government engage in proper budgetary restraint. We know that as late as yesterday the Prime Minister made a grand announcement that the Government would present a major statement on expenditure to the Parliament in May. We are grateful that he is making it to the Parliament and not to a staged summit, a means by which he endeavours to replace the authority and contribution of elected members of Parliament. Nonetheless the statement of expenditure will cover savings decisions contributing to a reduction of at least $1 billion in 1985-86 Commonwealth outlays. Why are the Prime Minister and the Government not somewhat more honest than they have been in the past? Why do they not treat the intelligence of this Parliament and the elected representatives who sit in it, not to mention the people of Australia, with more respect. We want to know just where these $1 billion cuts will be made. To whom will they apply? To what sectors of the community will they apply? If the Government's record is anything to rely on, I know very well where the cuts will be made. They will be made in the rural sector first and, if the assets test is a guide, they will be applied to the infirm and the weak in our society. In the two years I have sat in this Parliament I have seen time and time again, beginning with the mini-Budget of May 1983, the rural sector disadvantaged. Much of the rural sector's income earning capacity has been reduced by the Government's harsh and discriminatory measures against it. Mr Hodgman —They hate the farmers. Mr McGAURAN —As the honourable member for Denison suggests, the Government hates the farmers. It has been said many times by my colleagues on this side of the House that the Government singles out the rural sector with the proposed introduction of a capital gains tax or that iniquitous test-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should get back to the Bill. He is ranging very wide. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance in so many matters and this one in particular. I refer to the second reading speech of the Treasurer, in which he argued justifications for this cut-back by way of budgetary restraint. He held up this $25m cut in the first home owners scheme as the first step in major budgetary restraint and budgetary cuts. The Minister has introduced that element into this debate and I, together with my colleagues, fail to see the justification for that self-laudatory medal that he has pinned on himself. For that reason I support wholeheartedly the amendment which has been moved by the honourable member for Denison, which condemns the Government, firstly for dishonouring an election pledge to maintain the first home owners scheme and, secondly, for its arbitrary action in determining that the heaviest cuts would fall on the poorest and most needy members of the community. It is a disgraceful action by the Minister for Housing and Construction. He has failed to substantiate his claim that the cut of $25m, which will have severe repercussions, is in any way justified. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(8.17) —The Government will not accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). It is an extremely silly amendment. It states that the Opposition accepts the need to reduce the overall budgetary deficit; it even accepts the need to cut expenditure for the first home owners scheme. But it goes on to contradict itself. It states that the Opposition will not accept any cuts to the first home owners scheme. It condemns any cuts as being shameful and arbitrary. The Government regards the amendment as simply nonsensical. Indeed, I am puzzled by the approach of the Opposition to the debate on the First Home Owners Amendment Bill 1985. The honourable member for Denison and speakers from the other side of the House have fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill, apart from making a number of technical amendments to the original Act, is centred on clause 10, which basically amends the appropriation provided for in section 34 from a standing appropriation to an annual appropriation. Standing appropriations will continue until 30 June 1985, subject to a maximum amount of expenditure of $290m for 1984-85. Clause 10 imposes a fixed appropriation from 1 July 1985, which I have said will be $290m for 1985-86. In my statement the other day I announced six months early the Budget decision to spend $290m on the scheme in 1985-86. I make no apologies for that and I will give my reasons in a moment. Basically, the Opposition has fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of the Bill, which was not to make the $1,000 across the board reduction in benefits. The Government did that by altering the regulations of the existing Act, as I explained in my statement the other day. The Bill complements the statement in so much as it imposes a fixed appropriation for 1984-85 and 1985-86. Nevertheless, the Opposition has taken the opportunity-I do not blame it for that-to initiate a wide-ranging debate on housing, in particular the first home owners scheme, and it has put forward a number of positions. I think most of those positions are mistaken. I will deal with them briefly. The first point I want to make is that the Opposition is really divided in its approach to this matter. Its attitude seems to range from a deep dry position which was encapsulated by, I think, the second last speaker, the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson), who seemed to be arguing for the abolition of this scheme altogether and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who basically applauded me. He said: 'West is no monetarist'. I would agree with that. He said: 'I agree with him in what he says; that it is necessary to make some reductions in the Budget deficit and to do that one has to be prepared to make some reductions in specific programs'. He appeared to be agreeing with me. The Opposition spokesman on housing, the honourable member for Denison, seemed to be saying: 'Yes, we agree with your position that you should make cuts to the deficit, but we do not want you to touch any particular program'. That makes the whole job very difficult for a government. I would suggest that the position that the Opposition is taking is quite divided and quite irrational to boot. It was said by the Opposition during the debate that the changes as encapsulated in the statement and the Bill were not very well received within the industry. I have dealt with that before, in Question Time. I have before me a Press release from the Housing Industry Association in which it expresses some slight disappointment that changes have been made, but it said: Nevertheless, the overwhelming need to cut back on government expenditure to avoid increases in interest rates imposes a burden which must be shared by all sectors of the economy. It continued: Despite the reduced benefits of the FHOS, we are very relieved that the Government has affirmed its commitment to the program, which has unquestionably been the most effective scheme of home ownership assistance. The Real Estate Institute of Australia said something similar. It said: The scheme would continue to provide industry stimulation through assistance to a substantial number of first home buyers. It continued: More than 140,000 applicants who otherwise would be queueing for rental accommodation have been placed in their own homes . . . The Institute went on generally to laud the scheme. Let me deal with several specific points made during the debate. As I said, I was puzzled by the division and the lack of cohesion in the Opposition position, but what I found simply impossible to understand was the allegation, which is included in the amendment-it is one of the reasons we will not accept it-that the cuts bear hardest on those who can least afford to pay. The Opposition has misunderstood the way in which the $1,000 cut affects the amount paid under each category of applicant and each payment option, because the lowest percentage cuts have gone to single or joint applicants with two or more children. The figure is 14 per cent under option 1, 15 per cent under option 2, and 16 per cent under option 3. The highest percentage cuts have gone to single and joint applicants with no children. The figure is 20 per cent under option 1, 22 per cent under option 2, and 24 per cent under option 3. Let me cite the figures again so honourable members opposite will understand them. Single or joint applicants with no dependent children, under option 1-taking the subsidy over only five years-will now get $4,000. That is a cut of 20 per cent. Single or joint applicants with two or more dependent children will get the $6,000 over five years, down from $7,000-which is a 14 per cent cut. I could go on. If one cuts $1,000 off the highest figure-obviously it is a lower percentage cut than $1,000 off the lowest figure-it becomes a higher percentage cut. The people who are getting the lower figures are those with no dependants. So there is no rationality in paragraph (b) of the Opposition's amendment. The Opposition said also in the debate that we were engendering a boom-bust set of conditions in the industry. This sits very strangely indeed with the people who, in 1982-83, achieved the lowest level of housing construction in Australia for 20 years. Mr Beazley —No boom for them; just bust. Mr WEST —No, they had their boom two years earlier when there were 149,000 starts. They sent the industry through the floor in just two years, the figure reaching 105,000. We have gone in the other direction. I said yesterday that the Indicative Planning Council was predicting 147,000 starts, but we are now informed that the figure could be 150,000 due to the high level of lending, the high level of approvals during December and January and the high level of commencements, comparing the December quarter of 1984 with the December quarter of 1983. So I am revising that figure upwards a bit. We look like getting 150,000 this year, but we certainly expect that that will continue on to an average of at least 139,000 or 140,000 next year. So bouncing down from 105,000, bringing it up to 150,000 and then holding it at around 140,000, which we can continue to expect, is a lot different from the situation which existed under the previous Government. The Opposition spokesmen also alleged that somehow or other the $25m cut had become $41m. Let me patiently explain again what happened. Last year in the Budget we said that we would allocate $265m under the standing appropriation in this Budget and that would allow some 80,000 applications to be approved. In the event, earlier this year we found that we were running over the Budget appropriation and that we ought to let the situation run. The Government decided that it would make an extra $25m available which would be enough to approve, as fast as practicable given the staff we have on the job in the Department, all those which ought to be approved, meaning we would get 87,000 applications approved at a cost of $290m this year. That is the position. When we looked at the next Budget, the decision of which I have already announced, we found that the revote would cost about $315m, given the existing guidelines and the continuing number of applicants being constant. The $1,000 reduction across the board, which I have already announced, results in a saving of $25m, bringing the appropriation down from $315m to $290m. So there is no $41m involved. The $290m is assessed to be enough to cover the existing forward assessments of the number of applicants who would be approved, except they will be getting $1,000 less. There is no shonky arithmetic in what I am telling honourable members. Mr Hodgman —It is a fiddle. Mr WEST —It is not a fiddle. We appropriated $25m more in 1984-85 than we said we would in the last Budget. We said we would allocate $290m. I am informing the House and the people of Australia in advance of the position. We have not kept the decision to ourselves. We have an enlightened approach to budgeting procedures. We think it is not appropriate to keep these Budget decisions to ourselves for six months while people, aided and abetted by the Opposition, speculate as to whether the scheme will continue. Once we made the decision we felt the appropriate thing to do was to announce it in order to kill any speculation that the scheme might be killed off and to reassure the people who were in line for a grant that they would still receive it and that there would be no changes for people who were already the recipients of grants or who had already contracted to buy their own house. We cleared the air. I make no apologies for the fact that we will get the full year's financial effect of the saving. I was saying that there was no boom-bust mentality in the housing policies of this Government. We have been able to achieve a remarkable recovery in the housing industry. This year we will get the highest level of approvals and the highest level of commencements. We will have built the largest number of public housing dwellings and we will have put the largest number of low income people into housing in many years. Over the past 12 months the number of housing loans has increased by 26 per cent across all significant lenders. We have achieved that remarkable 50 per cent recovery in a non-inflationary way. In the three months to January, the building industry materials prices index has risen by only 0.8 per cent-0.3 per cent in January, 0.2 per cent in December and 0.3 per cent in November. That is a second remarkable achievement. In addition, this increase in housing and construction activity, since it was achieved in such a non-inflationary manner, has resulted in a great boost to employment. The figures from August 1983 to February 1985 show that in the housing and construction industries combined we have created an additional 83,000 jobs in that period-48,000 jobs in the period from August 1984 to February 1985 and 30,000 in the past three months. That certainly shows that we have been able to get a far greater kick into employment through the housing industry than through any other industry sector in the Australian economy. When we achieved office early in 1983, the unemployment rate in the building industry was 14 per cent. It is now 7.3 per cent. There is only one State in Australia where the unemployment rate in the building industry is higher than the national unemployment average. There are no prizes for guessing which State that is. It is Queensland. Unfortunately, Queensland currently has an unemployment rate in the building industry of 11.7 per cent compared with the national average in the building industry of 7.3 per cent. That compares with 4.3 per cent in Victoria. I digress by advising the Premier of Queensland that, given the deleterious economic situation he is facing, the confrontation with the trade union movement in Queensland is not helping the Queensland economy at all. To conclude, I must reject the spurious arguments that have put by the Opposition in attacking our position on the first home owners scheme and most emphatically reject the Opposition's rather silly amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Hodgman's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. G. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Theophanous, A. C.Grace, E. L. Tickner, R. E.Griffiths, A. G. Uren, T.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Hayden, W. G. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Wright, K. W.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Beale, J. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Coleman, W. P. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Conquest, B. J. Sharp, J.Cowan, D. B. Shipton, R. F.Downer, A. J. G. Slipper, P. N.Drummond, P. H. Smith, W.Edwards, Harry Spender, J. M.Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Hurford, C. J. Hodges, J. C.Keating, P. J. Carlton, J. J.Holding, A. C. Macphee, I. M.Jones, Barry Shack, P. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(8.45) —I intend to speak on clauses 2 and 10 of the First Home Owners Amendment Bill. I will speak to them at the one time thus saving the necessity for two speeches by myself and two replies by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West). It is a matter of profound regret that the House has just voted to defeat the second reading amendment. Tonight we have present in the public gallery boys and girls from the Grammar School at Sale, Victoria. Therefore, I will explain this matter in very simple terms so the listeners of Australia will know exactly what this deceitful, dishonest Government has done. Before the last election the Government promised $1. However, on 16 April the Government said that it was not a dollar after all but only 80c. Mrs Sullivan —How much? Mr HODGMAN —Only 80c! The Government has cut back on the home savings grants by an average of 20 per cent. I note that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) is in the chamber. I remind him that clause 2 of the Bill provides that: Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 14 shall be deemed to have come into operation on 17 April 1985. The Bill therefore is technically retrospective. However, I do not stay to debate that. It means that the election promise to maintain the first home owners scheme has been broken. Here I quote Robert James Lee Hawke, the impostor who on 13 November 1984 said in the Opera House: 'And we are going to keep it that way'. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask the honourable member to refer to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister. Mr HODGMAN —Madam Chair, I will refer to him as the Prime Minister for the time being; the Prime Minister on the way out and the Prime Minister who will not even be leading the Hawke socialist Government by Christmas this year. The Special Minister of State grins. The Prime Minister is on his way out because the people do not believe him any more. What is the point of a promise made on 13 November which is torn up in shreds by 16 April 1985? I am sorry to say that the Minister for Housing and Construction, who said that our second reading amendment was silly, is being conned because he is basing his whole argument on clause 10 of the Bill. Clause 10 of the Bill amends section 34 of the principal Act. The Minister has been conned into believing-just as the first home owners of Australia were conned into believing that the Prime Minister would keep his word-that he will get $290m in 1985-86. What does this clause say? There are two quite independent Queen's Counsel in this chamber who will listen to these words and decide whether the Minister is to get his $290m or not. Clause 10 states: Section 34 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section is substituted:. . . . '34. (1) Subject to sub-section (2), assistance payable after the commencement of this section and before 1 July 1985 is payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly. There is no problem with that. However, let us look at sub-section (2) which states: (2) Assistance payable under sub-section (1) shall not exceed, in the aggregate, an amount that, together with the total amount of assistance paid on and after 1 July 1984 and before the commencement of this section, is equal to $290,000,000. I see the look of amazement on the face of the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown). There is no promise of $290m. The Bill states that the amount shall not exceed $290m. Unless the Minister has it in writing his chances of getting that $290m must be looking a little shaky. If the Minister is prepared to put his trust in the honourable member for Wills, the Prime Minister, so be it; but he is one of a rapidly reducing and speedily dying bunch. If the Minister so proudly thinks he has the $290m, why did he not insert in the Bill the grants to be applied for 1985 so that he could have said to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), when he returns from explaining himself overseas: 'You cannot change the grants any more because the figure is locked into the Act'? But that has not occurred. The first home buyers of Australia will be staggered to find, when they receive a copy of the First Home Owners Amendment Act 1985, as it will become, that it does not say what their entitlement is. So what do we have? Tomorrow the Minister for Housing and Construction might be shifted again to another portfolio. He has made as much of a mess of the Housing and Construction portfolio in four months as he made of the Immigration and Ethnic Affairs portfolio in two years. The Minister does not have one word of statutory authority for his statement that grants will be maintained at the level that he has announced. The Prime Minister made a promise on 30 November to the effect that he would keep the first home owners scheme the way it was and 16 weeks later tore up that promise and chopped the scheme. He is cheating the first home owners of Australia by cutting their grants by 23.5 per cent. The Minister has said: 'I was the first to be responsible'. He went willingly to the block. He should have fought right down the line. I put it bluntly that the Minister waffled when he gave his answer. He said nothing about the broken promise. He did not in any way answer the strong arguments put forward by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), who gave an outstanding speech, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), who gave the sort of speech that we expect of him, the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson) and, last but not least, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). I am proud to have led Her Majesty's loyal Opposition in this debate with such an outstanding team of supporting speakers whose contributions were very different from some of the speeches that were made by honourable members opposite. One of the Minister's colleagues said that we should be very grateful that the scheme is still on foot. That is rather like saying: 'Thank God, we have not been murdered; we have just been raped'. The attitude of the Minister's colleagues was to say: 'It does not matter very much'. In conclusion, I want to read into Hansard the explanatory memorandum. I am not having a shot at the officer who drafted it, but this is what was given to us as the explanatory memorandum in relation to this Bill. I will read it because every prospective first home purchaser will laugh his or her head off when the names of Hawke and West are mentioned and these words are remembered. The explanatory memorandum states: The purpose of the Bill is to provide for a number of machinery amendments of minor policy significance-- Mr Donald Cameron —Oh, no! Mr HODGMAN —It is true. It states: . . . of minor policy significance or of a routine administrative nature, and to provide for a fixed-- Mr Donald Cameron —Who wrote it? Mr HODGMAN —I think Bob Hawke wrote it. It continues: . . . to provide for a fixed appropriation to contain expenditure under the First Home Owners Scheme to within Budget appropriation. We have a Bill that does not guarantee the Minister his $290m. We have no statutory provision which guarantees any first home owner that after the Budget is brought down he will get the amounts that the Minister announced one week ago. There is no protection. We have a guaranteed situation of retrenchments in the building industry and in the housing industry as the direct result of what the Minister has done. I say to the Minister that, whatever else his failings may be, I would have thought he would have seen this to be an issue that is critical to the first home owners of Australia. He has even boasted in this Parliament that this year there will be 150,000 new starts and next year there will be 146,000. Yet he does not admit that that is a drop. If he cannot tell the difference between up and down, he is just as hopeless as a government which cannot tell the difference between $1 and US62c. Before the Minister replies, I challenge him to refute what I have put. He has no guarantee of receiving his $290m. The first home owners of Australia do not trust him. They certainly do not trust the Prime Minister. I ask the Minister to take back this Bill, redraft it and bring it back in proper form. I plead on behalf of the first home owners and the housing industry for the Government at long last to do the right thing and not betray thousands and thousands of decent Australian who stupidly trusted it before the last election and now realise that they have been betrayed, deceived, conned and let down shamefully. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.55) — As this is a major matter for the Australian community, it is necessary for members on this side of the chamber very briefly to put the record straight. When it comes to the question of deceit and of misleading the Australian community, the Opposition should be very careful because its performance when in government in relation to housing was lamentable. It is very clear-and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) should remember this-that under the previous Government housing went down to a 20-year low. So it is no good for the honourable member to talk about ups and downs. When it came to getting things down, the honourable member and his crew did a magnificent job of tearing the bottom out of the housing industry. The second thing that must be emphasised when talking about keeping faith with the Australian community is that, if the honourable member for Denison had the patience to talk to people who have actually received grants under the first home owners scheme, he would recognise that their entire housing circumstances were changed by this scheme and by the scheme that preceded it. The third thing that must be said when we are talking about performance of the housing industry is that very clearly the industry is performing exceptionally well. As the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has indicated previously in this place, we are looking now at a very high level of starts-147,000 is the figure which the Indicative Planning Council has indicated. Clearly we will achieve that target. The honourable member for Denison should be more interested in consulting the industry rather than giving histrionic performances in this place. It is very clear that he has not consulted the industry. He has not spoken to the people with whom we have been speaking in the last couple of weeks. If he had consulted the industry, he would be in a far better position-- Mr Hodgman —Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I am pleased to see that the honourable member is actually conscious. Mr Hodgman —Along with the Prime Minister, who spoke on the Saturday, I was the official speaker at the National Housing Industry Convention in Canberra and for the honourable member to say I have not consulted-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —For the honourable member to say that he was the official speaker for the Opposition does not indicate that he consulted the industry and it certainly does not indicate that he has learnt anything, or he would not be giving such an abysmal performance tonight. That must be made very clear. We are looking for the Opposition to put forward a housing policy. The honourable member for Denison knows that it does not have one. As to the question of the $290m, we indicated that we are heading this way and that we have set the closing date at midnight on 16 April to stop a run on the scheme. It is a very simple explanation which the honourable member cannot seem to get in his mind. We will take him through it very carefully. The reason why we set the closing time of 16 April was to stop a run on the scheme. I also add that it stops people such as the honourable member talking down the industry, which is what he is doing now. The honourable member, in the same way in which he tried to stir up the immigration debate, is trying to talk down this industry. It will not work because people in the community have more sense than that. The honourable member might want to give histrionic performances. The reality is that the scheme has been accepted by the community generally as being a substantially sound scheme. It is being continued. The Government is committing itself to providing $290m in the next financial year and that is a substantial performance. All I need to say is that when we are talking about an issue of such major concern as housing the record of this Government is substantially sound, not only in terms of people getting their own homes but in terms of job creation and managing the financial community. The Opposition's problem is that it does not have a housing policy. All we have is the memory of a very poor performance when it was in government. All that we need to say with respect to this legislation is that the amendment to the scheme which was proposed by the Opposition is nonsense. All that the Opposition has done is to reiterate the same nonsense over again and the community is aware of it. Housing recovery is under way. The Minister's position is very clear. He has been successful in terms of what he has fought for in respect of housing and the industry has acknowledged this point. If the honourable member for Denison was in contact with the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Federation of Australia and other associated institutions, he would recognise that point. We do no have to speak at great length about this matter. We do not have to have histrionics. All we have to do is to lay down the factual circumstances. I do so to try to clear the record because many Australians are concerned about housing and so is this Government. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(9.00) —I will be brief. In response to the comments of the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), I have made inquiries about the housing industry and I have been advised that it is anticipating that 9,000 potential home buyers will be unable to buy a home in the next year as a result of the cuts that are being made here this evening. I do not want any Government supporter to try to pretend that the Government is just trimming the edges. It has done a lot more than that. As I said earlier today in my speech on the second reading, this whole concept is a farce in that the Government is to spend $290m-odd on a scheme which this Government has paraded as solely its own. But in the interim the Government, despite promises at the election, has wiped out the housing interest rebate scheme introduced by the Fraser Government, the special home loan interest tax rebate scheme introduced by the Fraser Government, and also the home deposit assistance scheme introduced by that Government. I hope that the Minister will answer one question when he replies to this debate shortly. I ask whether the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child), who is Chairman of Committees, was right when she said that the interest rebate system had saved the Government $300m. That saving is to be taken with the estimate of the home deposit assistance scheme of $106m for 14 or 15 months, and also the amount of money saved on the home loan interest tax rebate scheme. I sincerely believe that the money the Hawke Government has clawed back from the community is more than paying for this present scheme. The Government has perpetrated a great con act on the Australian people. It has taken more back than it is giving, even at the most generous moment of the savings on the first home owners scheme, which is simply an alteration of one of the Fraser schemes. This Government merely said to the people: 'We no longer require a deposit'. The Government also introduced income limits in terms of how much a person could earn to qualify for assistance. Although Government members seek to talk down the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), I believe that he has really put his finger on something and that a great con act is being perpetrated on this country. It is a reflection on the integrity of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Prime Minister stood up before the 1983 election and the 1984 election and said: 'We will not touch any of the existing schemes'. All the Government seems to do is to rip into the little people out there, and Ministers smile while they are doing so. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(9.03) —The Opposition has spoken during this Committee stage debate of previous schemes under the Fraser Government. The first point to make is that the first scheme, the home savings grant scheme, had an inbuilt waiting period of nine months. That was most unacceptable to people who wanted the money to buy their house-to provide the deposit and pay on settlement. Its successor, I think, was the home deposit assistance scheme. The Opposition talks about this Government bringing our scheme back from $7,000 to $6,000. The previous coalition Government had a limit of $3,500. Not only was the limit $3,500, but those concerned had to have a record of 12 to 18 months savings before they could even apply. Our scheme is applicable straight away. When Labor got into office, the Labor Government said that it would put a ceiling of $5,000 on the scheme. In the event we made it $7,000, but at $6,000 we are still well above what we promised back in March 1983 during the election campaign. Mr Hodgman —That is not true. Mr WEST —That is all true. I want to wind up this debate by repeating what I said in my second reading speech on this Bill. I said that if this Bill were passed, we would say there would be no further changes to the scheme in 1985-86, and that we would appropriate $290m to fund it in the next Budget, which would be enough to fund up to the present expected numbers, taking into account the change from $7,000 to $6,000. I conclude by repeating-I do not say this in a nasty manner-that the Opposition has fundamentally misunderstood the procedures we have adopted. The statement simply said that we were reducing the amount of the grant by changing the regulation of the current Act. The major part of the Bill is clause 10 which amends section 34 of the Act to change the standing appropriation after 1 July to an annual appropriation so that we can control the payout during 1985-86 to $290m, which I have already flagged as the budgetary figure. It also allows the standing appropriation to continue until 1 July and allows us to put a ceiling on the 1984-85 figure at $290m, the same amount as we intend for 1985-86. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Mr West)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.07) —This is the final chance for the Opposition to ask the Minister-- Mr Beazley —Oh, come on! Mr HODGMAN —I do not know whether you think you are in Moscow. Let me tell you, you are in Canberra and members can speak on the third reading. What I am about to say-it is all right, comrade, do not try to stand over me-is that the short point is that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has still not been guaranteed his $290m. He has conned 9,000 prospective home owners, who will not get their homes. I suggest he go back to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and get him to put it in black and white because, despite what the Minister says, the Act does not guarantee him $290m in 1985-86. I suggest he check it out with any first year law student, who will tell him that when it refers to 'an amount not exceeding', it does not mean that he will get the full $290m. The Minister might finish up having put his head on the block and still not getting $290m. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(9.08) —At the outset I say that the Opposition does not disagree with the Representation Amendment Bill. I would like to make a few comments. First, it must be said that this is yet another example of the classic handling by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) of his portfolio in that this Bill would not have been needed if there had been proper consideration of the issues when this matter was first put forward. If there had not been a drafting error in the Bill to start with, if the Special Minister of State had been aware of the total ramifications of the proposition he was putting forward, this Bill would not be necessary. The fact is that the 12 senators who came into the Senate as a result of the increase in the size of the Parliament following the decision last year have not been paid at the same time as the extra members coming into the House of Representatives. To be fair, it is obvious that those honourable senators who became members of the Senate from 1 September 1984 should be paid from December last year and not from the first day of sitting, as is now the case under the legislation which now has to be amended. It is a simple drafting error for which the Special Minister of State has to accept responsibility. It should never have occurred. It is yet another example of his incapacity to fulfil the responsibilities of his office. This Bill should not have been necessary in the first place. The gallup poll published on 19 March 1983 indicates that 84 per cent of Australians opposed laws to increase the number of Federal parliamentarians. Not only did 84 per cent of Australians oppose laws to increase the number of Federal parliamentarians, but the Leader of the Australian Democrats-it is not often I quote him-said in September 1983: Increasing the number of senators is not going to improve the performance of Parliament. Whilst I make no personal reflection on the capacities of those individuals who were elected to the Senate, I think that if one went out onto the highways and byways of Australia and asked people whether they felt good or bad about the increase in the number of parliamentarians as a result of legislation passed last year, they would say almost to a man and to a woman that those additional parliamentarians were not necessary and that it should not have happened. I am glad to say that my Party was the only Party that adopted that stance in relation to the increase in the size of the Parliament. The extra expense that we are agreeing to tonight should not be necessary because the size of the Parliament should not have been increased in the first place. I want to make that point absolutely clear because there are some who would suggest that, if we keep on increasing the size of the Parliament, necessarily we will get better representation and the views of individual electors in Australia will be better represented. That certainly is not the case. We only have to look at the way this Parliament is being conducted by the present Government to understand that private members, who have the task of representing their electors, get less of a chance to put forward their points of view now, be it in terms of questions without notice, opportunities to speak in the adjournment debate or notices of motion. Private members of parliament at present are getting less and less of an opportunity to fully represent the views of their people and to undertake in a proper and responsible way the role that they should undertake as private members of this Parliament. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill, but in not opposing it we point out, firstly, that it should not have been necessary and, secondly, that it is yet another example of the inept performance of the Special Minister of State. When the original Bill was introduced it contained this simple drafting error which should have been picked up. It should not have caused the time of this Parliament to be taken up by an amendment of this nature. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(9.13) —I will be brief, but I think it is timely, while this Representation Amendment Bill is going through, that we remind the Australian people why the original Bill which it seeks to amend was introduced, which is a great mystery to honourable members on this side of the House and, of course to some 84 per cent of Australians, according to the gallup poll referred to by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). Additional parliamentarians are not wanted by the people of Australia and they certainly are not wanted by the Liberal Party of Australia. Just as a matter of interest, an extra 35 members of parliament brings the total number of politicians in Australia to something like 850 State and Federal members. In the State of Tasmania, where there are about 400,000 people, there are 12 senators and five members of the House of Representatives. It was bad enough when we had 10 senators from each State, but Parliament has now been extended to accommodate 12 senators from each State. We are not opposed to the Bill. The additional members are here and they deserve to be paid, but it is ridiculous that we go on and on in this country increasing the number of politicians to represent 15 million people. Before the last election I represented the largest electorate in Australia in terms of the total number of people in my electorate. Mr Rocher —And you did it well. Mr WHITE —As my learned and very clever colleague reminds me, I did it well. Since then I have been given another member of staff. Certainly it is beyond me why we have this drastic reduction in the number of people we represent. Let me just mention the costs involved. By my calculation it costs something like $200,000 a year to keep a Federal member of Parliament. Those are the direct costs-salary, office, office staff, et cetera. A member's share of the cost of running Parliament is about half a million dollars. On top of that, it is costing the Australian taxpayer an extra $40m to put extensions, which are not yet complete, on to Parliament House. Mr Donald Cameron —It is going to cost $45m extra to accommodate the extra members. Mr WHITE —That is right, plus whatever the annex costs are, plus all the additions that have had to be made to this Parliament House. This has all been done because the Australian Labor Party thought it was going to gain electorally. In fact, it made no difference. It certainly was returned to government at the last election, but not because there are extra members of parliament. Its little ploy of foisting on the Australian people another 35 members-which it thought would mean it would be entrenched forever-is going to fail. As this Bill passes through the House it should be remembered that the Opposition is not opposed to it, but the people of Australia should be reminded just who was responsible for having another 35 politicians in this Parliament and the associated costs. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(9.18) — When the original Representation Bill was passed it was clearly stated that the new senators would take their place in Parliament at the first sitting of the new Parliament. It was assumed that they would be paid from that day. Mr Rocher —It was precise. Mr STEELE HALL —As my colleague states by way of intelligent interjection, it was a precise time from which the new senators would be paid. From reading the very brief-indeed, exceedingly brief-second reading speech of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), I am at a loss to understand why this Representation Amendment Bill is here now to alter the expectations of Parliament and Australia in regard to the position of the new senators. I would like to know whether or not it is due to the fear the Government may have about the constitutional position of members of the House of Representatives in relation to the nexus which, of course, exists between the two Houses. Is that the real reason why the payment and the recognition of the service of new senators is being backdated to an earlier date than that provided in the original Bill passed in 1983? The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), sitting at the table, is not the Special Minister for State. That is not a strange position, of course, because the various absences of the Special Minister of State due to problems he has had with fulfilling his responsibilities, firstly, in relation to the security of Australia and, secondly, in relation to the entry of certain goods into Australia and the Customs regulations, has meant that the Minister sitting at the table is not a newcomer to electoral matters. He has frequently stood in for the Special Minister of State during the troubled times that the Special Minister of State has had in fulfilling his responsibilities. It may well be that the Minister now at the table was also at the table during the passage of the original Representation Bill. In any event, I will shortcircuit the time that might be taken by moving into Committee by presenting to the Minister a question which he may care to answer in his reply to this debate. I ask him why-the real reason seems to be unstated in the second reading speech-the situation is to be altered from a clear public recognition that senators would take their places officially at the first sitting of Parliament to a statement now that they will take their places, as far as salaries are concerned-they must recognise their service, of course, otherwise they would be payments for nothing-at the same time as the members in the House of Representatives who were elected at the last election. It seems to be quite an anomaly that the previous provisions have been so dramatically altered in this way without any real reason being stated. I would be grateful if the Minister at the table could explain to the House what his colleague failed to explain in his second reading speech. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(9.20) —I wish to speak briefly on this matter which I raised in my own Party room this morning. I do not seek to deny the new members of Parliament who were elected in very special circumstances their unquestionable right to be paid. However, what really galls me is the fact that the Government has introduced legislation to meet the cost of its decision in the last Parliament to increase the number of members in this place by 23 and the number of senators by a dozen. I have been informed that alterations to the new Parliament House to accommodate an extra 35 new members of Parliament will cost in excess of $45m. When one adds the additional costs of wages and so on the cost over three years will be $80m. It is true, as the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) said, that the Government of the day simply introduced this legislation so that it could hold office. I notice that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young)-the member for teddy bears and secret luncheons with Russian diplomats-has come into the chamber to defend the legislation, as he has done in the past. The Government increased the size of the Parliament simply as a means of being re-elected to office. If it were not for this fact, the Parliament would not be confronted with these expenses today. I protest seriously about what has been done. It is no good the Minister telling us that the National Party of Australia supported the Australian Labor Party at the time the original legislation was passed. If the Government had not introduced the legislation the National Party would never have had anything to support. The legislation was opposed by Liberals on this side of the House and in the Senate in conjunction with the Australian Democrats. We are told that Mr Wran is looking at increasing the size of the New South Wales Parliament following the example of the Commonwealth Government. I believe that the Australian people have had enough of their taxes being absorbed by increases in the size of the Parliament. The legislation that we are considering tonight should never have been introduced. It should not have been necessary. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(9.24) —in reply-I thank all honourable members for their contributions. This legislation came about as a result of delegations that were made to the Government by leaders of the various political parties. It has the unanimous support of all the parties. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) — Is it the wish of the House to proceed to the third reading forthwith? Mr Steele Hall —A Committee is required, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Leave is granted. Is a Committee required? Mr Steele Hall —Yes, I want a Committee. A Committee is required, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Beazley —No, it is not. Mr Steele Hall —Well, it is. A member is standing in his place who requires a Committee. Mr Beazley —You didn't get the call, sport. I did for the third reading. I move: 'That this Bill be now read a third time'. Mr Steele Hall —I want a Committee, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Beazley —It is too late. Mr Steele Hall —It is not too late. I was standing on my feet when the Deputy Speaker had spoken. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will the honourable member resume his seat? Mr Steele Hall —I will, but I would have it known, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I was actually-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Steele Hall —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am just going to address the House, if the honourable member does not mind. When I asked whether there was any objection to the third reading proceeding forthwith, there was no objection at all. So that is the stage to which we had proceeded. Mr Steele Hall —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was on my feet at the very-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I had called the Minister. We have gone past the point at which we can go into Committee. I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. Mr Rocher —I take a point of order. I make the observation, sir, that you looked directly at the honourable member for Boothby, when he rose in his place to call for the formation of a Committee. That was before you called the Minister for Defence. I ask you to reconsider, sir. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I gave my explanation just a moment ago that nothing was said when I asked the House whether there was any objection to the third reading proceeding forthwith. That is the ruling I gave. I then called the Minister. Certainly, the honourable member had got to his feet then but the debate had proceeded past that point. Mr Steele Hall —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. Mr Steele Hall —I am allowed to raise a point of order, sir. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —What is the point of order? Mr Steele Hall —I would like to ask you what other action I could have taken. When you made that remark I immediately stood and said that I would like a Committee. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It was after that particular-- Mr Steel Hall —It was before the Minister was called, Mr Deputy Speaker. Whilst I am not going to cause trouble tonight by disagreeing with your ruling, I would like it to be known in the record that, immediately you spoke, I rose, you looked at me and I said: 'Committee required'. I can do no other than that, sir. I will abide by your ruling. However, sir, it must be on your conscience as to what ruling you make. I could take no other action nor could I rise sooner and still observe the rules of this House. I put it to you that I have observed every rule of this House and at the required time I asked for a Committee. There is unfinished business that was not dealt with in the Minister's reply to the second reading debate. I required, as I believe I ought to have done, some answers to matters regarding this Bill. I am therefore at a loss to know what else I could have done. That is the point of order I make. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I have given my ruling on the matter. I now call the Minister. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley) read a third time. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Beazley, and read a first time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(9.28) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I indicate that it will be my intention immediately I complete my second reading speech on this Bill to move the second readings, but not make second reading speeches, on the three related Bills, namely the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Amendment Bill 1985, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 1985 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Retention Lease Fees) Bill 1985. I will not make second reading speeches on those machinery amendments, which are based substantially on the initial Bill. I think that this will save the time of the House as it will subsequently when we deal with this legislation in a cognate debate. I believe it is sensible for these Bills to be considered as a whole. I will therefore address the issues that they raise in my remarks on the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1985. At the end of my remarks on this Bill I will, as I said, introduce the package separately. These Bills propose a number of amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act and incorporated Acts. They provide for: The granting of retention leases over currently non-commercial discoveries and the setting of fees for such leases; The revision of the registration provisions of the Act which deal with registration of legal documents concerning interests in titles and consequential amendments to the fees payable on registration; The improvement of the administrative processes for the making of regulations and the service of directions which control offshore petroleum exploration and development operations; The extension of the scope of access and special prospecting authorities to facilitate seismic survey work; The early release of basic data and interpretive information supplied by titleholders to government; and The review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of discretionary decisions made by the Commonwealth Minister-or the Minister's delegate-as designated authority in areas adjacent to Commonwealth territories, or in exercise of other specified powers. The above provisions have been the subject of extensive consultation with the State and Northern Territory governments and the petroleum exploration industry, and have general support. In addition, the amendments provide that petroleum production in the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands adjacent area will not incur liability for royalties. The amendments also give effect to the agreement between the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments which waives a proportion of the Commonwealth's share of royalties from the North West Shelf natural gas project in favour of Western Australia. The amendments proposed in these four Bills are essential to the efficient administration of offshore petroleum activity. Many of them will also provide further encouragement of offshore exploration and development. With the introduction of a new division into the Act, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1985 enables permittees discovering petroleum which is currently non-commercial, but which is expected to become commercial within 15 years, to apply to the joint authority for the award of a retention lease. Applicants are required to provide details of proposed work and expenditure in a lease area, as well as details of the commercial viability, or possible future commercial viability, of the recovery of petroleum from the area, A fee of $600 is payable on lodging an application for a retention lease. If the joint authority is satisfied that recovery of petroleum is not presently commercially viable, but is likely to become viable within 15 years, it shall grant a lease for a period of five years over all of the blocks applied for by the permittee. Given the uncertainties concerning petroleum prices, marketing opportunities and technological change, a 15 year assessment period should ensure that discoveries with genuine development potential are awarded a lease. The Government does not intend that small, insignificant discoveries will be eligible for a lease as this would 'sterilise' exploration areas with no reasonable prospect for development of the resource. The joint authority may refuse to grant a lease and, if it does so because it is satisfied that recovery is already commercially viable, the permittee may then apply for a production licence. If refusal to grant the lease is on the grounds that petroleum production is unlikely to become commercially viable within 15 years, the blocks applied for will remain part of the exploration permit. During the term of a lease the joint authority may require the lessee to re-evaluate the commercial viability of petroleum production from the lease area. Having examined such a re-evaluation and formed the opinion that production is viable, the joint authority may inform the lessee that the lease is to be cancelled. However, before the joint authority issues a cancellation notice, it must give the lessee not less than one month to object to the cancellation. If the joint authority proceeds with a cancellation notice after consideration of the lessee's objections, termination of the lease will take place 12 months after the notice has been served. During this period the lessee may apply for a production licence, in which case termination of the lease will not take place until the application for the licence has been dealt with. It is expected that lessees will keep development options under detailed attention throughout the term of the lease, particularly where the commercial viability is marginal in the short term. Accordingly, where cancellation action is proposed by the joint authority, 12 months will provide adequate opportunity for lodgment of an application for a production licence. A lessee may apply for renewal of the lease six to 12 months before its expiration. Details similar to the original lease application and a fee of $600 are required to accompany the renewal application. If the joint authority is satisfied that the lease is still not commercial, but is likely to become commercial during the next 15 years, and the lessee has fulfilled the conditions of the original lease, a renewal will be granted. The joint authority may, however, refuse to grant the renewal of a lease, in which case the lessee must be provided with the reasons and will have the opportunity to provide further information in support of the renewal application. Where refusal to renew a lease is because the joint authority is satisfied that petroleum production has become commercially viable, the lessee will have 12 months within which to apply for a production licence. Where additional petroleum is discovered in a lease area, after the grant of a lease, the lessee is required to notify the designated authority immediately. The designated authority has the power to direct the lessee to furnish particulars in connection with the discovery. The designated authority may then direct the lessee to evaluate the discovery. Non-compliance with either of these directions could attract a penalty of $10,000. These provisions are similar to those applying to the discovery of petroleum by a permittee. The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act (Retention Lease Fees) Bill sets annual fees of $4,500 for each block in a lease. This compares with $9,000 per block for a production licence and $15 per block for an exploration permit. Fees collected from retention leases will be paid to the relevant State or the Northern Territory as appropriate. The introduction of the retention lease as a form of title is supported by the State and Northern Territory governments and by industry. The provisions in the Bill include numerous constructive suggestions from those sources which will enhance the effectiveness of the legislation. The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill also revises the registration provisions of the Act. The new provisions take into account recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, and suggestions by industry and the States and the Northern Territory, to clarify the process of registration of transfers and dealings affecting petroleum titles. The status of transfers and dealings which have not been lodged for registration is also clarified. Provision is also made to ensure that the register is kept as up to date as possible, to protect the interests of investors and potential investors. The amendments ensure that a transfer of title is of no force in law until it has been approved by the joint authority and registered. Each registered holder and each transferee of a title will be required to execute the instrument of transfer before it can be lodged for approval. Applications for approval of a transfer of title must be lodged with the designated authority within three months of the execution of the instrument. Applications received after this period are not to be approved by the joint authority unless special circumstances exist. The prescribed instrument of transfer will make it clear that a transfer must involve the transfer of the whole title from all of the transferors to all of the transferees. The transferees will comprise all the parties who will be the registered holder of the title on registration of the transfer. Partial transfers will not be acceptable. Where a transfer is approved by the joint authority the new provisions set out the manner in which the designated authority shall amend the register. The transfer comes into force at the time the register is amended. All applications for transfer of titles lodged after the commencement of this section will be dealt with under the new provisions. Applications lodged before the commencement of this section, but for any reason not dealt with before the commencement, will be dealt with under the old provisions. The Bill also introduces an amended scheme of arrangements for registration of specified dealings affecting titles. The new arrangements will remove deficiencies in the existing legislative scheme, particularly the uncertainty as to which dealings are able to be registered, and the effect in law of instruments evidencing dealings which have not been approved and registered. Dealings which are covered by the amendments are those establishing the initial interests of registered titleholders in a title and any subsequent assignment of those interests, including arrangements which create a charge over an interest; dealings giving rise to or assigning a right, whether conditional or not, to the assignment of an interest in a title; dealings between registered titleholders and other parties with an interest in a title regarding the manner in which operations will be carried out under the title and the rights and obligations of each of the parties; dealings creating or assigning an entitlement of a person to a share of the production of petroleum, or the revenue derived from a current or future discovery; and dealings creating or assigning a right or an option to enter into any of the dealings. The amendments set out the manner in which the designated authority is to amend the register where an application has been made seeking approval for the registration of a dealing affecting an interest in a title. Amendments are also made to the Act covering dealings relating to titles which might come into existence in the future and which would then be subject to the provisions relating to registration of such dealings, as described earlier. This will enable a party to such a dealing to lodge a provisional application for approval of the dealing immediately before a title comes into existence. On the day the title comes into existence, the dealing will be treated as described. Any party to an unregistered dealing which has been entered into before these amendments come into force, and to which this Bill applies, may make application within 12 months for approval of the dealing. As the legislation is not retrospective, this is not compulsory, but it will allow parties to clarify the legal status of their dealings. It is an offence to lodge an instrument relating to transfers or dealings described in this Bill which is false or misleading in relation to the information necessary to calculate the fee payable under the Registration Fees Act. The penalty is $10,000. In addition, a party to an approved transfer or dealing may be required to supply information as to any alterations in the interests or rights in the title as a result of the operation of the transfer or dealing since it was approved, or to supply further information in respect of applications. Failure to comply with such requests could involve a penalty of $5,000. The Bill also provides for corrections to be made to the register by the designated authority where there are obvious errors, for example, misspellings of company names. Entries in the register may also be made by the designated authority, either on application by interested persons or on the designated authority's initiative, to ensure the register is accurate. Before an entry is made, however, a notice must be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and the designated authority must take account of any submissions received on the matter before the register is amended. Appropriate amendments have been made to the incorporated Registration Fees Act. These amendments clarify the calculation of fees payable for application to register transfers or dealings affecting titles. They ensure that excessive fees cannot be charged in relation to the series of agreements which give effect to what amounts to a single transaction. The amendments to the registration provisions of the Act are complex and could not have been completed without the considerable industry support which has been received. At the suggestion of the Victorian Government, amendments to improve the administrative processes for the making of regulations and the service of directions are included in this Bill. The new provisions will facilitate the service of documents, enable codes of practice and standards to be adopted as they exist from time to time, and enable the directions and regulations to control certain activities by making them subject to the consent or approval of specified persons. A direction may apply to a titleholder and also to other persons specified in the direction. These persons include those having a contractual relationship with the titleholder. The responsibility for ensuring that all relevant persons are aware of the directions falls on the titleholder. Where the titleholder fails to take appropriate action to make relevant persons aware of a direction, a penalty of $5,000 may be imposed. To safeguard the rights of persons to whom a direction applies, it is provided that they may not be convicted of an offence for failing to comply with a direction unless the prosecution can prove that they knew, or could reasonably be expected to have known, of the existence of the direction. These parties are also protected from liability for costs incurred by the designated authority. In view of the international nature of the petroleum industry this Bill will enable regulations to apply Australian or international codes of practice or technical standards, as in operation from time to time, to off-shore petroleum activities. Of course, overseas standards will be adopted only where appropriate Australian standards do not exist. The amendments will allow regulations to be made to enable specified operational and technical actions to be taken subject to the consent or approval of titleholders. The amendments will also enable the advice of internationally recognised certifying and classifying bodies to be accepted as the basis for consideration of certain specified proposals such as the assessment of the seaworthiness of vessels. These provisions are fully supported by industry and the States and the Northern Territory. The Bill also extends the scope of access and special prospecting authorities and facilitates their grant to exploration companies. At the present time an access authority applies only to titleholders and exploration areas under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth off-shore legislation. The scope has been broadened to allow a person who holds a State or Northern Territory petroleum title to apply for an access authority to enter the Commonwealth area adjacent to that title. The scope of special prospecting authorities has been extended to allow them to be granted over any vacant area, and more than one person may be granted a special prospecting authority over an area. However, the designated authority must inform each holder of a special prospecting authority of the proposed activities by other holders in the same area. The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill also provides for the early release of basic data and interpretive information supplied by titleholders to government, subject to consultations with titleholders on the release of interpretive information. The new provisions will increase public availability of data and information and will encourage exploration activity. Information contained in or accompanying an application for the grant or renewal of a title may be released after the grant of the title, unless it is confidential or of a financial nature or covers details of the technical capability of the applicants. Further, factual data and information, that is data and information which are not conclusions or opinions, obtained about a permit or lease area may be released after two years. The current provisions applying to data and information about permits provide for five years confidentiality. When a permit, lease of licence is surrendered, cancelled, determined or expires, factual information will be available for release immediately. Factual information will be available for release immediately. Factual data collected on vacant acreage, for example under a special prospecting authority, will be available for release after two years, or earlier if it is deemed appropriate by the designated authority. Interpretive information, that is a conclusion of an opinion of a confidential nature, may be released after five years subject to a number of conditions. Such information was previously not available for release at any time. Before interpretive information is released, a Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notice will be published giving interested persons 45 days in which to lodge an objection to the release of the information. The grounds for objection are that the information is a trade secret, or that disclosure of the information would adversely affect the business, commercial or financial affairs of the objector. The designated authority or the Commonwealth Minister may allow, partly allow or disallow the objection. A person who is dissatisfied with the decision of the designated authority may request a review by the Commonwealth Minister. The latter provision reflects the fact that the Commonwealth Minister is responsible for the administration of the legislation. The Bill provides a more efficient arrangement in relation to the service of documents on titleholders. Where there is more than one titleholder it will allow one titleholder to be nominated as the person on whom documents may be served. This nomination may be revoked by the other titleholders at any time. In the event of such revocation, documents would be served on all titleholders. This will improve the efficiency of administering titles and should be of considerable assistance to titleholders. The Bill includes amendments which will enable review by the Administrative Appeal Tribunal-AAT-of designated authority decisions made by the Commonwealth Minister, or his delegate, in relation to areas adjacent to the Commonwealth territories or in relation to the release of data and information supplied by titleholders. The amendments set out the manner in which the Minister may review decisions taken by a delegate before the matter may be referred to the AAT. The Government has decided that decisions of a policy nature, that is joint authority decisions, and decisions of designated authorities in the State or Northern Territory adjacent areas should not be subject to AAT review. Policy decisions are clearly not a matter for AAT and it would be inappropriate to subject State or Northern Territory Ministers to the AAT legislation in relation to those areas in which they exercise powers in their own rights as designated authorities. In order to ensure that prospective petroleum development projects in the territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands adjacent area are encouraged to proceed at the earliest possible time, the Government has decided to bring forward amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act and the Incorporated Royalty Act which will exempt production in this area from royalties. Currently known discoveries affected by this decision include Jabiru, Challis and Puffin. I make it clear that this exemption from royalties cannot be viewed in isolation. It represents the first legislative step in introducing the resource rented tax arrangements previously announced by the Government. It is being done now, ahead of the overall RRT legislation, to assist the developers of the Jabiru project and to demonstrate the Government's commitment to major and positive changes in the financial regime applying to 'Greenfield' off-shore projects. A prime example is the Jabiru development in the Timor Sea, which will clearly proceed under the resource rent tax regime and may not have been developed under the previously applicable royalty and levy arrangements. Amendments to extend the royalty exemptions to the remaining 'greenfield' areas will be introduced when the resource rent tax legislation is introduced into Parliament. Finally, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill makes provision for the Commonwealth to waive part of its royalties from the North West Shelf project in favour of the Western Australian Government. Details of this arrangement were announced on 11 March this year. This will help Western Australia to meet its contractual obligations to the North West Shelf operators, and so ensure the continued viability of the project. The North West Shelf project is of national significance and will bring substantial economic benefits to the State of Western Australia as well as the nation as a whole. It will play a key role in the future development of Australia's energy resources and in the development of energy trade between Australia and Japan. The Commonwealth's future financial contribution to the project will be the waiver of the proportion of the royalties on the domestic phase of the project amounting to $117.1m, in 1984-85 dollars, over the next 20 years. This contribution is additional to substantial taxation and other concessions provided by the Commonwealth for this project. The amendments proposed in these four Bills are essential to the efficient administration of off-shore petroleum activity. Many of them will also provide further encouragement of off-shore exploration and development. I commend the Bills to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Beazley, and read a first time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(9.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Beazley, and read a first time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(9.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Beazley, and read a first time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(9.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(9.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes a number of major amendments to the Customs Act 1901 and the Excise Act 1901, and a number of minor and consequential amendments to each of those Acts, and the Distillation Act 1901, the Spirits Act 1906, and the Coal Excise Act 1949. The major changes to the legislation concern proposals to: (a) Amend the Customs Act to change the legislative basis for the allocation of import quotas by tender; (b) Amend both the Customs Act and Excise Act to introduce more effective controls over ships and aircraft stores, impose lia- bility on bodies corporate in respect of breaches of Customs or excise law resulting from certain actions by their directors, servants or agents, and automatically index the rate of the rebate which is payable to those who have paid duty on diesel fuel used for certain off-road purposes, and; (c) Amend the Excise Act and the various other Excise Acts to increase the level of penalties and update the prosecutions provisions. I will now deal briefly with each of the proposed changes. Clauses 18 to 22 of this Bill amend Part 15 of the Customs Act to provide the required legis- lative bases for flexible quota periods, which will permit, amongst other things, the implementation of the policy objectives of the Government's plan for the motor vehicle industry. The clauses will also resolve some practical difficulties in the general administration of the tender quota scheme, facilitating tender quota arrangements for assistance to the motor vehicle industry as well as other areas where import quotas are used, notably in the textiles, clothing and footwear area. In brief, the proposed amendments: (1) Enable the Minister administering the Customs Act to determine the periods of validity for which tender quota schemes are to run; (2) change the requirements of the tender quota undertaking so that tenderers need only undertake to enter the relevant goods for home consumption and not also undertake to import the goods; and, consequently, (3) change the importation requirement of quota instruments to a requirement that the goods be entered for home consumption. In announcing the Government's policy on the motor vehicle industry in May last year, four central aims were highlighted. They were: To give the industry more time to restructure and modernise; to make it more efficient; to hold down the price of cars; and to reduce job losses in the short term and provide job stability. An important element of that policy concerned tariff quota arrangements for imports. The Government decided, amongst other things, to allocate an increasing proportion of tariff quota by tender in two pools, the first pool for a one-year allocation in respect of which 17,300 units of import quota have already been allocated for 1985 and the second pool for an allocation in each of four years commencing in 1986. Provisions of the existing Customs Act impose the constraint that tenders be called for and dealt with one year at a time. The proposed amendments are necessary so that multiple year tender arrangements can be implemented. In addition, avenues have been considered by which the tender scheme may be made more flexible in line with the Government's general attitude to the allocation of quota by tender and normal commercial practices. For example, supply and shipping arrangements for quota goods often cannot be organised to correspond exactly with the existing 12-month quota period. Such a rigid quota period also reduces importers' flexibility to react to market changes. The Government considers it appropriate, therefore, to provide importers with some degree of flexibility at each end of each quota year. In the context of the motor vehicle industry, it is anticipated that quota allocations be given 14 months validity, to allow some degree of anticipation and carry-over. The other parts of this particular amendment package provide for the removal of certain technical requirements from the tender quota undertaking and ministerial determinations. Such changes are consistent with other areas of the Customs Act and established customs procedures, and will have no adverse effect on assistance levels provided through tender quota arrangements. The amendments proposed in respect of controls over the loading and safe-keeping of, and accounting for, ships and aircraft stores-particularly spiritous liquor and tobacco products-in clauses 7, 9 to 12, 34 to 36 and 44 of the Bill are intended to correct deficiencies in the present system, which is not sufficiently effective in preventing illicit diversions, with a consequent erosion of Commonwealth revenue. The proposed measures accord with those permitted for adoption under the International Convention on the Harmonisation of Customs Procedures. The Bill also proposes in clauses 17 and 43 to insert provisions to correct present deficiencies with prosecutions attempted against bodies corporate. Bodies corporate against which proceedings are brought are presently able to escape liability in some cases by proffering the defence that the director, servant or agent whose conduct constituted the offence, was acting without the knowledge or consent of the body corporate and without its authority. Under the proposed provisions, the state of mind and conduct of a director, servant or agent of a body corporate, or the servant or agent of an unincorporated principal, may be imputed to that body corporate or other principal where the conduct engaged in was within the person's actual or apparent authority. In clauses 13 and 37 of the Bill, an important amendment to the diesel fuel rebate scheme is proposed. The amendments will permit the automatic indexation of the rate of the rebate which is payable to those who have paid duty on diesel fuel purchased for off-road use in agriculture, mining, fishing, forestry, households, hospitals and nursing and aged persons homes. The decision to index the rate of rebate to movements in the Consumer Price Index was announced in the 1984-85 Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). The indexation will occur at six-monthly intervals and will coincide with the automatic indexation presently applied generally to all rates of excise duties and corresponding Customs duties. A further important feature of this Bill is the updating of penalties prescribed for offences against the Excise Act 1901, the Coal Excise Act 1949, the Distillation Act 1901 and the Spirits Act 1906. Many of the penalties for offences which strike at the very heart of proper revenue flow have been unchanged for over 80 years. The increases which the Bill proposes have been arrived at in consultation between the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Attorney-General's Department. Particular regard was given to the increases in penalties for offences against the Customs Act 1901, which Parliament approved in 1982, and to comparisons with penalties prescribed for offences against other Commonwealth Acts. Increases proposed in relation to some particularly revenue sensitive offences are substantial, but are seen as necessary to provide effective deterrents against the increasing sophistication of white collar crime generally, and the high rewards which can be obtained by large scale revenue evasions. Financial Impact Statement The only measure contained in this Bill which will require any direct additional financial outlays by the Government is the proposal to index diesel fuel rebates. The estimated costs of indexation for the 1985-86 and 1986-87 financial years is $4.3m per annum. I commend the Bill to he House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(10.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to incorporate into that Act the excise alterations to crude oil as announced on 23 October 1984 by the then Minister for Resources and Energy. As part of a package of incentives for the oil industry the Minister announced the introduction of special excise arrangements for crude oil fields discovered on or before 17 September 1975, but which had not been developed before 23 October 1984. These fields are now eligible for concessional excise treatment under what is to be called an intermediate excise scale. By way of background I should mention that the taxation arrangements on crude oil produced from areas discovered on or before 17 September 1975, called 'old oil', were modified from 1 July 1983 to correct a number of anomalies. The excise scale was restructured so that increased production from each prescribed production area, as defined in the excise by-laws, attracted progressively higher rates of excise. Oil discovered after 17 September 1975, termed 'new oil', attracts excise at a rate very much lower than the excise on old oil. In formulating the intermediate excise scale the Government was aware that up to 140 million barrels of oil was contained in old oil fields that had not been developed at least partly because of inadequate returns to producers under the old oil excise scale. As a result of the introduction of the intermediate excise scale and a related decision to modify the existing substantial new development policy the Bass Strait producers, Esso Australia Ltd and the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, have decided to proceed with the development of Bream and Tuna B, and, subject to delineation drilling, Barracouta and Turrum in Bass Strait, with a total investment involved of the order of $1.8 billion. This program will provide a welcome boost to employment opportunities in the region over the next few years, provide a further boost to oil self-sufficiency and postpone the impending decline. At the same time it is expected to contribute significantly to government revenue. The intermediate scale will apply to production from areas discovered on or before 17 September 1975 but undeveloped as at 23 October 1984, which lie in areas specifically excluded from the greenfields resource rent tax-that is, in Bass Strait, the North West Shelf and on-shore. The excise liability for crude oil produced from these areas will be determined by applying the intermediate excise scale to the ruling government-determined import parity price for Bass Strait crude oil. The modest excise rates and concessional excise-free allowance for this oil, which are set out in clause 8 of the Bill, reflect the Government's desire to provide development incentives to the oil industry. The Bill also proposes certain adjustments to the excise rate on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas following the setting of new wholesale prices for naturally occurring LPG. As in past determinations, the excise rate has been calculated using a weighted average of the LPG export prices over the preceding six months and the current domestic price. This Bill reduces the excise rate by $2.26 per kilolitre to $34.70 per kilolitre for the period 1 October 1984 to 31 March 1985, and increases the excise rate by $2.24 per kilolitre to $36.96 per kilolitre on and from 1 April 1985. A technical adjustment has also been made to the excise rate for the period 1 July 1984 to 30 September 1984 to reduce it from $35.96 per kilolitre to $35.55 per kilolitre. Financial Impact Statement The introduction of the intermediate excise scale will generate additional revenue to the Commonwealth above that which it would otherwise have received under the old oil excise scale. Under that scale several projects were considered uneconomic and would not have been developed. Excise from projects to which the intermediate excise is to apply is expected to yield in excess of $300m to Government revenue in net present value terms from the Bream, Turrum, Perch and Dolphin projects over the next 20 years. The reduction in the excise rate applying to naturally occurring LPG from 1 October 1984 is expected to reduce Commonwealth revenue by approximately $2m in 1984-85. The increase in the excise rate with effect from 1 April 1985 will increase revenues by almost $1m in 1984-85, while the adjustment to the LPG excise rate from 1 July 1984 will involve a refund of excise of approximately $0.5m. The net impact of the alterations is expected to result in a reduction in revenue of about $1m in 1984-85 compared with the Budget estimates. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —by leave-Before commencing my formal statement I indicate that unfortunately this statement has not been able to be made in the Senate owing to the fact that the Senate adjourned earlier this evening before it was possible for the statement to be issued. In 1979, following extensive consideration of the need for a new Parliament House, Parliament passed legislation to establish the Parliament House Construction Authority. The Authority was established to undertake and carry out the design and construction of the new and permanent Parliament House. The government of the day appointed five distinguished Australian professional and business men to undertake the task. They were: Sir Bernard Callinan, CBE, DSO, MC, Chairman; Mr R. D. Ling, AO; Mr N. M. Macphillamy; Sir Laurence Muir; and Sir John Overall, CBE, MC and Bar. Mr A. J. W. Powell, Commissioner of the National Capital Development Commission, was, ex officio, the sixth member of the Authority. The dedication and expertise of all these people has enabled the Authority to take the project through the various stages of design selection and into the construction phase. There are few instances in Australian history where a project has had such complex political, technical and management aspects. In spite of this, the Parliament House project has, since its commencement, proceeded in a smooth and timely fashion. The Authority has laid a firm foundation for the successful completion of the project within the financial and time limits set by the Government and the Parliament. The terms of appointment of all members of the Authority, except Mr Powell, expired on 10 April 1985, the Chairman having had his term extended for one year in 1984. In considering the membership of the Authority the Government was conscious that the Authority would need to continue its operations for some time after the expected date of project completion in order to wind up its affairs and administer the warranty provisions of the construction contracts. Accordingly, it is important that the members of the Authority are of such an age as to be available for the conduct of the Authority's business until the project is finalised. The Government was also anxious to ensure that the skills and experience of members of the Authority are relevant to a successful completion of the project. The emphasis of the project from here on will be on the finishing trades, the fit-out and furnishing of the building and the development of a large scale landscaping program. A final relevant factor in considering membership of the Authority was the desirability of appointing a woman with appropriate professional and management expertise. Both Sir Bernard Callinan and Sir John Overall have made an outstanding contribution to the project. However, both are in their early seventies and the Government feels that their re-appointment to the Authority would be a significant departure from accepted practice concerning the age at which people should be appointed to public positions for a substantial term. Mr Ling's role as convenor of the Authority's finance sub-committee was extremely valuable given the sensitive nature of the project. Having regard to the factors mentioned above, however, the Government has decided that Sir Bernard Callinan, Sir John Overall and Mr R. D. Ling be replaced. I wish to place on record the Government's appreciation of the most valuable contribution these three people have made to the work of the Authority. I am pleased to inform the House that the Governor-General has today appointed the following people to the Authority: Mr A. L. Morokoff, Chairman, Mr D. Jackson, Ms M. J. McKenzie, Mr N. M. Macphillamy, and Sir Laurence Muir. The Chairman has been appointed for five years and the other members for three years, the maximum terms of appointment permitted under the Act. Mr A. J. W. Powell, Commissioner of the National Capital Development Commission, continues as an ex officio member of the Authority. Mr Alex Morokoff is a qualified and experienced engineer who has held numerous management and executive positions in the construction industry. He has had considerable experience in the management of large-scale construction projects. In 1979 he resigned as Managing Director and Chief Executive of the Thiess Engineering Group and now holds a number of public company directorships. The Government believes that Mr Morokoff's professional and management skills and experience provide an excellent background for his appointment as Chairman of the Authority. Mr Daryl Jackson is a prominent Australian architect with an excellent professional reputation. He has designed a number of major Canberra buildings. His knowledge and expertise will be particularly valuable in maintaining the good relations that have always existed between the Authority and the project architects, Messrs Mitchell, Giurgola and Thorp. Ms Margaret McKenzie has extensive professional expertise as an interior designer and has been responsible for many major interior design projects both in Australia and overseas. She will bring a valuable new range of professional skills to the Authority particularly in the design, furnishings and graphics aspects of the project. The reappointment of Mr Neil Macphillamy and Sir Laurence Muir, who have already made significant contributions to the work of the Authority to date, will maintain the necessary degree of continuity with the previous Authority. The Government believes that the reconstituted Authority will provide an appropriate balance of management, professional and artistic skills to bring this most important national project to a successful conclusion. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —by leave-I believe the House has just heard a most unfortunate statement from the Minister concerning the future of the Parliament House Construction Authority. The Minister has told us that mid-stream and before the project is completed three men, members of the Authority which has brought this project into being and which has largely been responsible for its successful completion to this point, are to be left without any continuing responsibility for this important project. That is a matter which brings great discredit on the Government and on the Parliament. I do not believe the Minister has given us any reasonable justification whatsoever for bringing to an end the tenure of Sir Bernard Callinan, Mr R. D. Ling and Sir John Overall on the Parliament House Construction Authority. In fact the only factor of relevance that the Minister has addressed in relation to two of those gentlemen was their age. It was suggested that because Sir Bernard Callinan and Sir John Overall were over the age of 70 years they were not able to accept reappointment to the Authority. It was said in the Minister's statement that it: . . . would be a significant departure from accepted practice concerning the age at which people should be appointed to public positions for a substantial term. I challenge that statement in relation to this project. It needs to be understood that although the Minister has suggested that the project might continue for some time before being brought to a successful conclusion after the completion date of the building, namely January or, perhaps, mid-year in 1988, that is not an excessively long period. The project is in the middle of its currency and it has been very successfully carried out to this point. It has placed a great load on the people involved on the Authority to ensure that the requirements of the Parliament were met, particularly in relation to accommodating extra senators and members. Also they have had a great difficulty in terms of an industrial dispute which closed the site for something like 14 weeks. We know from statements in a report which the Parliament House Construction Authority recently tabled in this Parliament that the Authority still believes it will be able to complete this project successfully by mid-1988. However, the term of office of two of the Authority's most outstanding representatives is to be brought to an end. I said that age was regarded by the Government as an important factor in reaching this decision. Let me put that argument in context. I had only a short period to consider the number of people near 70 years or over 70 years of age involved in activities of government. I found that there are any number of them. The number I have come up with is quite considerable. I can think of Mr Justice Else-Mitchell, who was born on 20 September 1914. He still leads the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Mr Young —Until Christmas. Mr RUDDOCK —He has given very considerable advice and, I dare say, the Government will rely on that advice. I can think of the former Prime Minister, Edward Gough Whitlam, who was appointed Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. He was born on 11 July 1916. No term was put on his appointment in the announcement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) which I have before me. Mr Young —Yes- Mr RUDDOCK —If the Minister wants to tell me that Mr Whitlam will be finishing up at Christmas I will be interested in that too. Mr Young —August 1986. Mr RUDDOCK —It may be August 1986 but he was appointed to a very significant position-one I am not complaining about-when he was approaching the age of 70 years. Sir Robert Cotton was born in 1915, but his appointment as Ambassador to Washington was extended. I am not complaining about that either but the fact is that it was extended. We think of Justice Roma Mitchell of the Human Rights Commission. Her reappointment was due on 30 November 1984. Of course, that was in the middle of an election. She was born on 2 October 1913. Her appointment was extended for a further six months. It might be said that that was because of extraordinary circumstances, but she is of the same age as Sir Bernard Callinan. She is asked to carry out responsibilities for the Government in the area of human rights. I refer to an appointment which was made only this week. It is not one about which I am complaining. It is a very important appointment to the position of Chairman of the Law Reform Commission. The fact is that the Hon. Francis Xavier Connor, QC, a man 67 years of age, a very distinguished Australian, has been appointed to lead the Law Reform Commission of Australia. Of course, he has been appointed until 11 December 1987. The only point I am making is that age is not a factor that always ought to be taken into account. It has never been my view that because people are old they have nothing to contribute. I think there are some younger people who are old before their time. Before the Minister makes any observations about me, I put that to one side. But the fact is that there are people who are able to make very significant contributions at an older age. There were special factors in relation to Sir Bernard Callinan and Sir John Overall. We should have regard to their very significant contributions to the development of Canberra and to their very significant contributions as Australians. In a sense this is a case similar to the construction of the Sydney Opera House. The Authority is in the middle of a major project and the involvement of these men is being discontinued. I do not believe it is in any way appropriate. I turn to the farcical manner in which this matter was dealt with. The report of the Parliament House Construction Authority tabled in the Parliament this week reveals that the appointment of each of the people I have mentioned who are involved in this important project was concluded at the beginning of April. For a period of some weeks there was very considerable uncertainty. There was a hiatus when we did not know who was responsible for the Parliament House Construction Authority. Only one of the members of the Authority was left in office to supervise this important project. I do not believe it is an appropriate way for such an important Authority to be dealt with. I think the Government has dealt with the persons involved in a most unfortunate way. While their record as individuals has been ac- knowledged in the statement made by the Ministers, I think that in this case the acts speak louder than words. I believe it is most unfortunate that the Government has brought to an end the term of office of the Chairman-Sir Bernard Callinan-Sir John Overall and Mr Ling. On behalf of the Opposition I pay tribute to those people who have been involved since 1979 in this very important project and who have brought the project to the point where we have before us an outstanding project, one that is largely on time, and one which has been held largely within the cost constraints that were set. I believe that this very outstanding record is a result of the work of a large number of very outstanding Australians. On behalf of the Opposition I pay tribute to Sir Bernard Callinan, a man who has distinguished himself in many fields of endeavour and who has recently, notwithstanding his age, been appointed to head the Catholic Education Commission. I hope that that matter was not before the Government in any adverse way when it reached this decision in relation to his continuing involvement in this project. My colleagues from South Australia tell me of Mr R. D. Ling's outstanding service to that State and to the nation. He is a former managing director, as I understand it, of Hills Industries and of course, brought very considerable engineering and financial skills to the project. Mr Neil Macphillamy has been extraordinarily well known to many of us as a member of one of the leading firms of solicitors in Canberra. He is a man who has given of his time to assist in many fields of endeavour and has given a great amount of his personal time to involve himself in this project. I am glad that he at least will have a continuing involvement with the project under its reconstructed Authority. Sir Laurence Muir is a gentleman who has played a very considerable part in assisting in Canberra. He has headed the Canberra Development Board and has given a large part of his retirement to assist governments of both political persuasions in many fields of endeavour. I am glad that he will have a continuing involvement. Sir John Overall is largely credited with having assisted Canberra through its most important development stage and has contributed enormously to this important project. On behalf of the Opposition I would like to thank each of them for their involvement in this project and to commend them for their public spirit, dedication and commitment to the project. I very much regret that we have seen the termination of the appointments of three of those people at this very important time in the life of the project which we all regard most highly. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.26) —I present the second report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.27) —Last week, through my enforced absence from Queensland due to the industrial blockade, I had the opportunity of visiting the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. While I congratulate those who are responsible for the high standard that the Memorial maintains, the most moving experience is to see on the walls the names of those who died, not only at Gallipoli but in all the wars in which Australians have fought to protect and preserve the freedoms which give Australia international recognition. Those 100,000 Australians who are named on the wall were denied the normal life expectancy, to work, to be parents, to be citizens or to enjoy the democracy for which they fought and died. Anzac Day reminds us not only of the great sacrifices, but also of the aspirations they would have had for a greater Australia. Will Anzac Day 1985 be a day on which we commemorate their attempts to end aggression and seek world-wide peace? I speak tonight about whether those aspirations have been realised. Just recently we saw thousands of Australians attending peace rallies around Australia on Palm Sunday. What we saw was an attempt by the international peace movement, a Communist-backed organisation, to misuse a solemn Christian ceremony of Easter. Peace, as I said, is exactly what we seek, as did those who died for it. What should be central to all our endeavours is how to obtain this ideal of peace. Australians are still struggling to assess the impact of New Zealand's decision to ban all United States warships and aircraft from its shores, and the subsequent dismantling of the ANZUS alliance. This has been accompanied by the cancellation by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of Australia's minimal involvement with the United States of America over the MX missile test, despite the fact that the missile carries the best chance for an end to the threat of nuclear war and the buildup of nuclear weapons. At the same time the Soviet Union has been strengthening its ties with independent countries in the South Pacific as well as the Indian Ocean. With the end of the ANZUS agreement, the real victors will be the Soviet Union and all those whose goal is the defeat of Western democracies and alliances. Peace cannot be obtained by New Zealand withdrawing from co-operation with the United States, or by Australia turning a blind eye to world events, or by our leaders creating uncertainties in the minds of leaders of those nations who share the Pacific rim in common with us. Peace, and the removal of the threat of nuclear war, can only be obtained by all countries, and particularly the two most powerful, the United States and the Soviet Union, meeting together and developing a strategy for disarmament right around the world. If Star Wars, or the strategic defence initiative incorporating the MX, has achieved nothing else, it has brought the Soviet Union back to the negotiating table. That is a valuable start towards our goal of world peace. Lest We Forget, but too many Australians today, with convenient memories, do forget the part that the American forces played in protecting our country and in initiating moves to defend North Queensland and Australia-and not just at the Brisbane line. It was General MacArthur, of all the United States generals, who recognised the uneasy peace of the thirties and encouraged Americans to have a fuller appreciation of the fact that only through preparedness can a peace be maintained. It took a war eventually to win a peace that political appeasement could not attain. For Thursday next, there is a poem that is worth quoting and remembering: In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place And in the sky above The lark still bravely singing flies Scarce heard beneath the guns below We are the dead, short days ago, We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow Loved and were loved And now we lie in Flanders fields Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields. That was written in 1918 in Flanders by a soldier who died just a few days after he had composed the poem. The torch of peace has provided us with this great democracy, Australia. There are those who survived the holocausts of war and who are the bearers of that torch for their fallen comrades. We should not forget the lessons and the sacrifices of the past if peace is to be preserved, this Anzac Day and beyond. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.33) —At 3.30 a.m. on Sunday, 25 April 1915 the Anzac landing force comprising half the strength of the 9th, 10th and 11th battalions climbed into rowing boats and were towed by small steam boats to the beach at Gallipoli. In silence the first boat touched land. Australians sprang out and advanced on the enemy. They were Queenslanders of the 9th battalion. It was 4.29 a.m. Lance Corporal W. Francis recalled those first Australian moments when he was about 40 yards from the beach. He wrote: One single shot rang out followed by a dead silence . . . . by now we were hoping, for all hell to be loose every second, machine guns, shrapnel, anything but this nerve racking silence. He did not have long to wait. Soon after those first Queenslanders set foot on shore the bullets came. Some of the men in the boats were hit as the hail of fire intensified, striking down the helpless men as they rowed desperately to land. The men threw their packs on to the beach, turned to the enemy and climbed up the steep slopes before them, chasing back the Turks. Within ten minutes they had scaled the vertical cliffs and stood triumphantly 300 feet and more above the coast. During the day individuals and small parties advanced more than 1 1/2 miles from the sea, but then they were halted and pushed back. It was not until 1918 that Allied soldiers were to pass the points they reached that day. At the end of the first day of fighting more than 2,000 of the 16,000 Anzacs had been killed; thousands of them were wounded. The Anzacs were eventually withdrawn from Gallipoli after suffering casualties of 26,094, including 7,594 dead. Although they failed to win their objective of victory in the Dardanelles, the Australians had established themselves as grim, determined fighters. They had won an imperishable renown for their glorious deeds. The heavy casualties demanded that the campaign be commemorated. Shrines of remembrance were dedicated across the length and breadth of Australia. The April issue of the Pacific Defence Reporter records that, soon after the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne had been dedicated, Brian Fitzpatrick wrote: In a generation, there will be no more old soldiers to march up the hill and stand with bowed heads behind the barriers; no more widows and orphans to lay wreaths when the ceremonial is done and the people are given access to the shrine . . . More than half a century later there are still widows and orphans to lay wreaths to those who have fallen in campaigns since. This Anzac Day in every city and town in Australia there will be Anzac services. Old soldiers will talk of the courage of Australian soldiers who, facing disaster, by individual initiatives saved the day on 25 April. Others will take time to honour those who fought and died for Australia in every campaign that followed the war to end all wars. Every thoughtful citizen should take time to think of the effects of war and resolve to pursue the quest for peace as the necessary rational end of rational men. We must never accept the view that it is useless to speak of world peace or nuclear disarmament. Our problems are man-made, and therefore they can be solved by man. President John F. Kennedy once said: No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable-and we believe they can do it again . . . For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal. Let us therefore this Anzac Day resolve that the legacy of those Anzacs who died 70 years ago be shown in the dedication of our own lives to the accomplishment of a secure and safe Australia where peace and freedom can walk together. Finally, the Pacific Defence Reporter eloquently reminded us all, and I quote: We pray there will be no more old soldiers to march up the hill to the shrine and stand with bowed heads, and no more widows and orphans to lay wreaths. Of this we are less certain than Brian Fitzpatrick was in 1932 when he looked too optimistically to the next generation. Of two things, however, we may be sure: if we lose the ANZAC spirit, the will to fight and, if need be, to die for the country, we will have betrayed our heritage; if we fail to grasp the opportunities that offer in our Pacific neighbourhood and to adjust to the changes that circumstances dictate, however difficult this may seem to be, we will neither achieve the greatness that is within our reach nor help to create the environment in which security may flourish. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.38) —I congratulate the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) on his remarks and I wish to associate myself with them by making a few short comments about the spirit of Anzac. Before doing so, I draw the attention of the House to some comments in a Press report last weekend in Sydney which said: Sadly it seems that many of Sydney's teenagers haven't got a clue what April 25 represents. This week, only 10 out of 50 young men and women asked about the significance of the date, nominated ANZAC Day. Other answers included 'Sally's party', 'Bicentennial Day', 'the Queen's Birthday' and even 'Australia Day'. Every nation must have its heroes, whether they be soldiers or sportsmen. Every nation must have its epics, and Australia's greatest epic is the achievement and the destiny of Anzac. In fact, the fabric of this nation is woven from threads drawn from the actions of past Australians. If we allow our history to be lost, if we insist on denigrating that history because it may not meet current doctrinal views held by some who have the power to determine what others will learn, we run the very real risk, the terrible danger, of not only allowing our history to be rewritten by those who apply the bogus values of today, but what is even worse, of not teaching it to our children at all. I cannot think of a fate worse than for young Australians to grow up thinking that this nation has no roots, that by some extraordinary osmosis we just appeared to the world as a new people in about 1950 with the third or fourth largest immigration flood to this nation. Australia runs a very real risk of believing in nothing except having a good time-a lotus land existence-for without a history we came from nowhere, and without a history we are going nowhere. The ingredients so prized by the Australian character were, in fact, forged in the harsh climate of this land and they were displayed for the world to see on the rugged, shell-swept cliffs of the Gallipoli peninsula. Those men then knew that their duty was to stand up for their mates, to fight and, if necessary, to die for what they believed in. The letters that one finds in books such as those by Patsy Adam-Smith make the point that they were young idealists, they did believe in their families and their country. They believed that their country had a future. Today the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) reminded the Australian people that we are living beyond our means. Unfortunately, this is true but it is going to take enormous courage, not only from governments but from all Australians, to help work this country out of its economic mess-a mess, incidentally, which has been self-generated by people who have expected too much from a nation which could give no more than it has. The spirit of Anzac demonstrated for all to see the spirit of indomitability, of indomitable courage, of perserverance, of tenacity, of all those values which we hold so dear, the spirit which we expect to see on the sports fields of Australia; the spirit which I hope we can pass on to our children. It is no good just talking in shibboleths about these things because the Australian children of today and of tomorrow, as I said earlier, need to be able to look back to heroes and to look back to epics such as Anzac. I wonder whether in fact we should not put more emphasis on Anzac Day than we do on even Australia Day because, unfortunately in a sense, Australia Day belongs essentially to New South Wales and many other States have difficulty in identifying with it. Anzac Day was more than that; it was the great occasion which united all the Australian States because the youth of this country, from whichever State they came from, from the smallest villages or the larger cities, met on the beaches of Gallipoli where they stood with their mates and died. These are the important things; that such sacrifice must not be forgotten. It cannot be taken for granted, because by the year 2000 there will be few, if any, World War II veterans left. The point can be made-who will be there to carry the crosses and to carry the flags on that day? Anzac is not meant to be a panegyric for war: Quite the contrary, it is meant to be a glorification of the need for peace. It is meant to be a symbol of honouring peace because those men gave their lives so that all of us and future generations could live in peace. The spirit of Anzac is definitely needed in Australia today. It is possibly the most important thing we can pass on to our children. Not only should we say and mean 'Let us not forget', but let us not forget those who made the sacrifice and let us not forget the principles for which they died. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(10.42) —On Thursday we will witness the seventieth anniversary of Anzac Day, 25 April, the day when the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps under British General Birdwood stormed the beach of Gallipoli. Marches will take place all over Australia and New Zealand to commemorate that day. It is interesting to note that it was Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, who conceived that the Russians could be relieved in their fight against the Turks by attacking the Dardanelles. At the time, Prime Minister Joseph Cook put the position quite simply: If the old country is at war, so are we. Twenty-six years later the same Winston Churchill, this time as Prime Minister of Britain, wanted Australian troops sent to where he wanted them, but after a long, diplomatic and testy tussle the great Prime Minister of Australia, John Curtin, stood firm and deployed Australian troops in Australia's interests. Australia and Britain remained allies, sharing the war effort in different ways in different times. Australian casualties at Gallipoli were catastrophic; 26,094, including 7,597 dead. New Zealand casualties were 7,571, including 2,431 dead. Australia and its neighbours paid dearly for our involvement. World War I killed more than eight and a half million military people on both sides of the conflict. World War II killed 16 million people in the armed service. We will never know how many civilians were killed, raped, pillaged or destroyed in those wars. It is in our hands to see that such carnage is not repeated. A full scale nuclear war-is there any other type now that we have reached a balance of terror situation?-would destroy life on earth. I am not tonight debating whether we should share the views of the Anglican Synod, which in 1916 said: This Synod is convinced that the forces of the allies are being used of God to vindicate the rights of the weak to maintain the moral order of the world. I am not debating tonight whether we should dismiss Anzac Day as the glorification of war, a national day, a day which commemorates a tragic error and a day which is a sign of man's folly-none of that, but to recall some of the Anzac spirit in action. The Anzacs may have failed to win their objective at the Dardanelles but they won themselves and their countries a reputation for bravery and integrity second to none. The implication of that spirit has broadened over the years through two world wars and on many sporting arenas as the New Zealand and Australian people have developed side by side as nations. Ultimately, Anzac Day commemorates a paradox in our development. Are we as a nation still an offshoot of another country or a totally captive ally or are we moving towards greater independence, culturally diverse and aware of our regional realities and responsibilities? Anzac Day is a time to reflect and resolve our attitudes to conflict. I am not a pacifist; I believe strongly in defence of this country and I believe strongly in the kindred spirit with our neighbour New Zealand, the modern Anzac spirit. It is because of this Anzac spirit that I condemn those who have decried New Zealand's stand against being made captive in a nuclear game that has no winners-those who would wish New Zealand not to make a stand, not to be counted and not to make its own area, the South Pacific, a place free of nuclear activity and involvement, a place of peace. The very least Australia can do, whatever its own defence and foreign policies, as an ally of New Zealand and a comrade over the years-a neighbour with a common history, culture and heritage and which has shared so much in war and peace this century-is to respect fully that country's stand and acknowledge that it still has the same objective as we do, that is, peace and disarmament. If the Synod of the Church of England was correct in 1916, if Australia was right in 1941 to exert its independence, New Zealand is right in 1985 to exert its independence and so vindicate the rights of the weak to maintain the moral order of today's world-a moral order it has the right to interpret. We cannot turn our backs on New Zealand. We owe that to those who fought together at Anzac Cove 70 years ago. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(10.47) —I wish to speak very briefly in the adjournment tonight on a subject quite different from that spoken of by all the other speakers. I wish to say that yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did it again and today the newspapers carried evidence of it. That is, he has attempted to dupe the public by means of the Press as witnessed by the headlines that shouted at us today to the effect that the Prime Minister had cut $1 billion from the Budget deficit. Of course, in the debate today there was some consideration of that. I do not intend to recanvass any of those arguments or statements that were made today or on many occasions in the last three years on the subject of the forward estimates and what cutting them means. I wish simply to put this $1 billion cut from the Budget deficit-that is, the forward estimates-into perspective and to remind the House of statements made by a former Labor Treasurer on this subject. I refer to statements made by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), referring to when he was Treasurer in the Whitlam Government and his actions in relation to the 1975 Budget. This is what Mr Hayden has said in this place in the past: It is not terribly meaningful to talk in a dramatic sense about cuts from forward estimates. All honourable members who have been in government know that many of the forward estimates are unreal.. . . . The Government in its last Budget- that is, its 1975 Budget, for which the honourable member for Oxley had responsibility as Treasurer- preparation cut more than $2,000m from the forward estimates. Quite frankly, I did not see any reason for joy and jubilation in the streets because of that. . . . It does not mean much at all in terms of economic management-- We might refer at other times in the future to what reductions in the forward Estimates mean in terms of economic debate. I wish simply to point out that, when the honourable member for Oxley was Treasurer, he was able to cut $2 billion from the forward estimates-that is $2 billion in 1975 dollar terms which is approximately $5 billion in 1985 dollars-which shows just what a puny effort the Prime Minister has put up so far with his $1 billion. I think maybe the drover's dog could take a lead from blind Freddie on this subject. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.50) —The problem of soil conservation is well known in Australia but has not received popular attention or an adequate response from the Government. The extent of the problem was documented by the Commonwealth-State soil conservation study published in 1978. In fact, if my memory is correct, this study was initiated by the Whitlam Government. However, despite this well documented study, the problem was neglected by Commonwealth governments until the present Government established a soil conservation unit within the Department of Primary Industry and set up the national soil conservation program. In 1983-84 the program started with payments of $600,000 to the States for soil conservation programs. In addition, the Commonwealth spent $400,000 on research and public education programs. The 1984-85 Budget provided $3.3m for payments to the States under this program. The 1978 study found that over half the area of agricultural and pastoral land in Australia required treatment for land degradation if the productivity of the land was to be maintained. It was estimated that capital works required for soil conservation would cost $675m in 1975 values-in today's values this figure would be approximately $2,000m. There are indirect costs involved in soil conservation, including the restoration of damaged public facilities such as roads, bridges and water resources. There are also costs associated with the loss of soil productivity. For example, yield losses of 30 per cent have been reported in northern New South Wales wheat lands following a season of bad erosion. Although there have been great increases in productivity leading to high efficiency in Australia's rural industry, regretfully land users have failed to develop or administer land management systems consistent with long term protection and utilisation of the soil resource. Some people tend to look on soil as a renewable resource. In Australia this is a fallacy. Australian soils are shallow, deficient in certain nutrients, and there is a very low rate of soil formation. No rate of soil loss, however small, can be considered acceptable or insignificant. It is vital for the prosperity of the agricultural community in this country that the rate of soil loss is stopped because once the soil has been lost it cannot be replaced. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, under my chairmanship in the Thirty-third Parliament, recently tabled a report on bushfires and the Australian environment. Mr Lamb —A great report. Mr MILTON —Thank you. During its inquiries the Committee heard a good deal of evidence about the serious impact that high intensity bushfires can have on the rate of soil loss. The Committee concluded that 'one of the most severe impacts of intense bushfires is exposure of soils to erosion'. It was reported to the Committee that on some soils there were erosion rates of 100 tonnes per hectare of soil lost in thunder storms after Ash Wednesday. It is obviously necessary for the State soil conservation authorities to implement programs to stabilise and rehabilitate soil following bushfires. The primary objective of such rehabilitation programs would be to prevent erosion in those areas where it would present the greatest hazard to public utilities such as roads and water supply installations, but it would also be necessary to maintain the long term productivity of the land. The Committee called on the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to request the Standing Committee on Soil Conservation of the Australian Agricultural Council to consider formulating a proposal for Commonwealth assistance with post-fire soil protection works. One of the reasons put forward for the development of the national conservation strategy was that soil erosion, largely the result of inappropriate use or management of land, was degrading dams and waterways and affecting terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The strategy identified a number of priority national requirements including the need to conserve Australia's soil, with the aim of ensuring that soil is not lost or degraded as a consequence of any land management practice. In particular, the strategy stressed that there was a need to give high priority through a national soil conservation program to intensify soil conservation and restoration efforts to the level necessary to ensure sustainable agricultural and pastoral production. The Commonwealth Government has only limited powers and responsibilities in the area of soil conservation. However, it has initiated the national soil conservation program in an attempt to overcome the problem. One of the difficulties is that soil conservation is a difficult problem for government and individual land holders because benefits from investment in conservation are realised over a long period. Land holders are usually more concerned with short term economic gain and immediate cost pressures and find it difficult to direct funds to soil conservation. Governments are also concerned with immediate problems and may not see any electoral advantage from soil conservation programs. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(10.55) —The Hawke Government is about to make a grave mistake and destroy the only real assistance scheme it provides to Australian exporters. In one clean sweep it plans to make major cutbacks to the export market development grants scheme. The proposed changes can be described only as destructive. They are being made much to the detriment of the exporting industry-the industry the scheme is supposedly meant to be helping. What is worse is the shroud of secrecy over this matter. It can be described only as an act of bastardry on this Government's behalf to announce major cutbacks to the EMDG scheme without prior warning to affected exporters and without allowing any phasing-in period. If the changes are to be effective from the date of announcement, the 1984-85 grant year will be terminated and expenditure incurred after that date will fall into the 1985-86 year claim. By terminating the grant year early, not only will the plans of exporters be severely disrupted but also serious financial difficulties will be created for small and medium sized businesses. Once again the hypocrisy of this Government's actions are revealed. This Government commissioned the National Export Marketing Strategy Panel, otherwise known as the Ferris Committee, to prepare a report advising the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) on the most effective strategies through which the Government can assist in increasing Australia's exports. Among the recommendations of the Ferris Committee was that major changes should be implemented only from 1 July 1986. The reasoning behind that recommendation was that exporters needed and deserved plenty of notice of changes to the scheme so that they could plan ahead. However, this Government has blatantly disregarded one of the Ferris Committee's most constructive recommendations. I suppose we should no longer be surprised by this Government's blatant disregard for sensible advice from the business community. Mr Speaker, this is where we can expect the major cuts: Firstly, a cut in the grant rate from 70 per cent to 50 per cent of eligible expenditure; secondly, the implementation of an export earnings test in line with the Ferris Committee recommendations, which means that claimants would be limited to a grant not exceeding 7.5 per cent of export earnings after six claims; thirdly, a two-year period of grace for new exporters; fourthly, it is likely an initial sum of eligible expenditure will be disregarded-probably around $5,000-which further reduces the effective grant rate; fifthly, the dropping of what is known as the promotional visit allowance of $50 per day for the first 10 days of any eligible overseas promotional trip. These cuts will not only harm Australia's potential as an exporter but will considerably increase the cost of overseas promotion. In effect, the Government's action will double the cost of overseas promotion because of the combined effect of lowering the grant rate and the devaluation of the dollar, which makes overseas promotion up to 30 per cent more expensive than, say, six months ago. I have said it before and I will say it again. Our country's exporters are struggling to arrest Australia's declining share of world trade. They need the Government to provide, at a minimum, consistency and common sense in their policy formations. This Government is providing neither. On the contrary, it is hampering the trading community. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.58 p.m. until Tuesday, 7 May at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following notices were given: Mr Simmons to move- That this House- (1) is of the opinion that the use of emotional ''trigger'' words consistently used by one Member must ultimately draw a comparable response from Government Members; (2) notes the constant use of the ''trigger'' word ''socialist'' by the honourable Member for Denison in his references to the Hawke Government, without Government Members resorting to the the use of the diametrically-opposed ''trigger'' word ''fascist'' in their references to the Peacock-Sinclair Opposition; and (3) calls upon the Member for Denison to desist from the use of such emotional references to the Government in order to similarly restrain Government Members in their use of language. Mr Young to move- That so much of standing order 48A, as amended by sessional order, be suspended as would prevent (a) Mr Speaker proposing the question-That the House do now adjourn-at 10.15 p.m.; (b) Mr Speaker interrupting the debate at 11 p.m., and (c) a Minister requiring that the debate be extended until 11.10 p.m, on each Wednesday, for the remainder of this period of sittings. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 23 April 1985: Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal to disclose information- 1985-No. 3-Provision of classification codes to the Queensland Industry and Commerce Training Commission. Defence Act-Determinations-1985- No. 21-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 22-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 71) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) What was the cost of the advertising campaign for Medicare by the Health Insurance Commission referred to in the Minister's news release of 9 October 1984. (2) How much was spent with each television station and newspaper used during the campaign. (3) Was an advertising agency used to devise the campaign; if so, which one and what amount was it paid. (4) Who formulated the idea of having a campaign and who deemed the campaign necessary. (5) Who was responsible for advising him on the advertising campaign. (6) Did the Information Co-ordination Branch play a role in advising on the conduct of this campaign. (7) Will he make public all formal briefing papers prepared by any agency or other body in connection with the advertising campaign. (8) Will he make public all formal briefing papers, prepared by any Department or instrumentality, on the advertising campaign for the guidance and use by any advertising agency, research firm, or its employees or sub-contractors. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) The total cost of the advertising campaign for Medicare in October 1984 was $1,025,000. (2) A list of the television stations, newspapers and women's magazines used in the campaign is listed below, together with the invoiced charges for their services. In the event, television costs were some $50,000 lower than the $690,000 stated in my press release of 9 October 1984 and newspaper and magazine costs some $22,000 in excess of the estimate of $250,000. (3) (a) Yes; (b) Forbes Macfie Hansen; (c) Television, press and magazine production costs and agency fees paid to Forbes Macfie Hansen amounted to $112,000. (4) Market research into public perceptions of Medicare identified areas of confusion and concern which could best be addressed through the media. The campaign was recommended by the Health Insurance Commission and approved on the strength of this recommendation. (5) The campaign development relied on substantial input from the ANOP researchers, the Marketing Division of the Health Insurance Commission and, naturally, from the creative and media people at Forbes Macfie Hansen. (6) No. (7) and (8) No. The campaign was fully justified following properly conducted market research and there is nothing to be achieved in public disclosure of the purely administrative detail of its development. TELEVISION ACTUAL EXPENDITURE $ 1. ATN7 111,025 2. TCN9 56,940 3. TEN10 7,216 4. RVN/AMV4 6,574 5. CTC7 14,015 6. HSV7 48,400 7. GTV9 50,400 8. ATV10 46,315 9. BTQ7 28,698 10. QTQ9 10,511 11. TVQ0 11,794 12. ADS7 23,175 13. NSW9 8,731 14. SAS10 19,052 15. TVW7 17,270 16. STW9 18,419 17. NBN3 24,247 18. WIN4 14,921 19. CBN8/CWN6/MTN9 9,198 20. BCV/GLU-STV 18,108 21. BTV6/GMU6/SES8 14,758 22. NEW/NRN/DDQ 23,103 23. TNQ/FMQ 8,736 24. CSEQ 9,389 25. ITQ8 1,455 26. MVQ6 2,520 27. GTS4 VKN7 3,598 28. RTS 5A 5,012 29. BTW3/GSW9 5,070 30. GTW11 1,598 31. MINING T/V 1,106 32. VEN MIDWEST 2,226 33. TVT6/TNT9 13,020 34. NTD8 3,726 640,326 METROPOLITAN PRESS $ New South Wales Sun Herald 17,612.00 Sunday Telegraph 16,228.00 Sydney Morning Herald 10,453.80 Daily Telegraph 14,693.07 Daily Mirror 9,873.08 The Sun 13,597.50 82,457.45 Victoria Sun News Pictorial 27,464.50 Melbourne Herald 11,371.50 Melbourne Age 8,538.60 3,138,80 50,513.40 Queensland Sunday Mail 6,314.84 Sunday Sun 6,441.12 Courier Mail 7,581.00 Telegraph 6,342.00 Daily Sun 4,823.28 31,502.24 South Australia Sunday Mail 6,000.96 Advertiser 6,487.74 News 6,114.60 18,603.30 Western Australia Perth Sunday Times 6,572.30 West Australian 8,343.72 Daily News 4,127.76 Sunday Independent 650.00 19,693.78 Tasmania Tasmanian Mail 1,928.50 Hobart Mercury 3,431.40 Launceston Examiner 3,774.54 Burnie Advocate 2,952.60 12,087.04 Northern Territory Northern Territory News 3,066.00 Centralian Advocate 1,792.00 4,858.00 Total Metropolitan 219,715.21 PROVINCIAL PRESS Newcastle Newcastle Herald 4,564.56 Newcastle Star 1,568.00 Wollongong Illawarra Mercury 4,032.00 Cairns Cairns Post 2,194.50 Rockhampton Rockhampton Bulletin 2,884.35 Townsville Townsville Bulletin 2,864.40 18,107.81 Total Metropolitan and Provincial Press 237,823.02 WOMENS' MAGAZINES Australian Womans Weekly 23,846.00 Womans Day 10,575.00 34,421.00 MEDIA TOTALS Television 640,326 Press 237,823 Womens Magazines 34,421 912,570 Agency Production/Service Fees 112,015 TV and Press 1,024,585 (Question No. 111) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 26 February 1985: (1) Has his Department taken over the sale of Army land at Rottnest Island, Western Australia. (2) What price is to be paid by the Western Australian Government and under what terms. (3) ls his Department negotiating on behalf of the Army or will the purchase price be paid to consolidated revenue. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) $2.2 million. $1.1 million was paid to the Commonwealth during January 1985. The balance is payable during July 1985. (3) The purchase price will be paid into consolidated revenue. (Question No. 112) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 26 February 1985: (1) Has his Department completed an agreement with a developer for a lease purchase of a major office construction in the City of Parramatta; if so, who is the developer. (2) If not, have negotiations reached the stage of a short list and who is short-listed. (3) Is it a fact that, under local government laws, the new office complex would require provision for approximately 1900 car parking bays either physically or by payment in lieu of approximately $4000 per bay to the Parramatta City Council. (4) Does the Government propose to require a developer to meet this requirement as imposed on all private development. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Following evaluation of a short list of proposals and with the approval of the Government, my Department has invited Leightons Major Projects to conclude an agreement to erect a building on the Commonwealth's site at Parramatta, the costs to be met by the Commonwealth under deferred payment arrangements. (3) and (4) The terms of the Constitution prevent a State from imposing any tax on Commonwealth property, and provide that State law does not apply to Commonwealth places. As a matter of policy, however, the Commonwealth does comply with local council requirements wherever practicable, in a spirit of co-operation. Negotiations on carparking arrangements for the Parramatta offices are currently proceeding in the light of the Constitutional positions and the recognition given by the Commonwealth in its tax sharing grants to the States for costs incurred by local government in respect of Commonwealth property. (Question No. 139) Mr Beddall asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: Is it a fact that there were delays in Medicare payments to Queensland doctors in January 1985; if so, what steps are being taken to overcome this problem. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There were minor delays in Medicare payments to doctors in Queensland early in January mainly due to the impact of the Christmas and New Year holidays. However, additional staff were allocated to processing claims and by the end of January most cheques were again being issued within five working days of receipt. (Question No. 229) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: Has he made any changes to the procedure for nominating or appointing representatives to, or to the composition of, the Australian Coaching Council; if so, what changes have been made and why. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Sport and Recreation Ministers' Council (SRMC) resolved on 29 June 1984 that the membership of the Australian Coaching Council should continue to be made up of six sport and six government representatives. Further, it decided that the six government representatives were to be two Commonwealth and four State/Territory nominees. The Council also decided on the rotational basis for representation by the States and Territories. The SRMC also resolved that the Commonwealth investigate the possibility of the Australian Sports Commission, when formed, being the appropriate body to nominate the six sport representatives. Those appointments were previously made by the Confederation of Australian Sport. Upon the creation of the Commission, and having regard to its role in co-ordination of the Government's efforts in sport development, I agreed that the Australian Sports Commission should nominate the sports representatives. I understand that the Commission has taken steps to seek nominations from the appropriate major national sporting umbrella organisations, including the Confederation of Australian Sport. I expect the new Council to be announced shortly. (Question No. 252) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: What action has the Government taken or does it intend to take on the recommendations contained in the report of the interim council for Institute of Freshwater Studies. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Government's response to the report of the Interim Council for an Institute of Freshwater Studies has not been finalised, and I hope to make a statement on this matter in the near future. (Question No. 256) Mr Connolly asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, 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 Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Major productions with a budget over $10,000 are produced for us by Film Australia. Minor productions costing less than $10,000 are made 'in-house' by the Audio Visual Unit of the Training Section. (2) Yes. (3) Four video, and three slide/tape (transferred to video) productions were made for the Department in 1983-84. One of the four video programs. Title Cost $ Australian Customs Service was made by Film Australia 50,000 A Second program 'National Small Business Awards' Commercial was made by one of the sponsors of the Awards BTV-6 Ballarat, the Department only paying duplication costs 1,795 The other 2 video, and 3 slide/tape programs were produced by the Department's Audio Visual Unit 'Areas for Concealing Goods on Ships' *4,000 '1983 Small Business Awards Presentation' *5,000 'James Hardie-E. S. C. A. P.' *2,554 'Gauging of Spirits' *5,500 'Section 196' *7,500 * Approximately. 'Section 196' was never released. The A/V Unit had only one member for 5 months, and two members for 8 months during 1983/4. 4. Film/Video and Slide/Tape Production Equipment. Equipment Primary use Video camera Videotaping on location Video editing suite Editing tape Lighting Illumination on location Portable video tape recorder Recording on location Video tape recorders Dubbing/Viewing Audio mixing equipment Mixing Audio sources Audio recording equipment Provide Audio sources to Mixing Console Microphone's Audio Recording Slide projectors Slide/Tape Sequences Projector programing Syncronizing Slide Device Changes Artiscope Reproductions for Graphics Still cameras Still Photography Copy stand Slide Preparation 5.- Gross Officers employed salary $ 1. Clerk, Class 7 27,068 2. Clerk, Class 4 20,293 3. Clerical Assistant, Grade 4 15,461 4. Clerical Assistant, Grade 1 (CSYETP) 4,098 (Question No. 375) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What (a) statutory authorities and (b) advisory panels or councils come within the Minister's jurisdiction and what is the (i) name, (ii) date and period of appointment of each member. (2) What (a) remuneration and (b) travelling allowance, is payable for each position. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The information sought by the honourable member is contained in the table below: DSS-STATUTORY AUTHORITIES APPOINTMENTS Date Authority Position Name appointed Term Expiry Office of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation Commissioner -$53,917 p.a. Mr D. Corrigan 2.12.82 7 years 1.12.89 APPOINTMENTS OTHER THAN STATUTORY AUTHORITIES APPOINTMENTS Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Ms Grace Basaglia 29.11.84 1 year 28.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Ms Teofila Cohen 12.3.85 1 year 11.3.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Ms Jennifer D'Arcy 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Ms Jane Deamer 20.9.84 1 year 19.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Mr Michael Flynn 17.9.84 1 year 16.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Mr Jeffrey Goldstein 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Mr Robert Hayes 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Mr John Kirkwood 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Ms Regina Graycar 4.7.84 1 year 3.7.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Ms June Moore 19.12.84 1 year 18.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Mr Edward Neumann 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Ms Lillian Horler 8.10.84 1 year 7.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Mr Kenneth Smithers 17.9.84 1 year 16.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Ms Monica McRae 29.8.84 1 year 28.8.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Chairman -$211 per day Mr Robert Sorby 1.8.84 1 year 31.7.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Carole Baker 19.12.84 1 year 18.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Elizabeth Cliffe 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Margaret Dilosa 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Mr Kenneth Duncan 15.9.84 1 year 14.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Mr Michael Horsburgh 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Kathleen Kline 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Faith McAskill 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Marcia Nolan 10.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Margery Wilson 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Convenor -$211 per day Ms Toni Stephens 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr James Carman 17.9.84 1 year 16.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Medical Member -$48.50 per hour D John Daniels 20.9.84 1 year 19.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Jean Edwards 25.9.84 1 year 24.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Tom Macken 1.10.84 1 year 30.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Andrea Mant 4.10.84 1 year 3.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Permanent tribunal member* Ms Heather Cole 3.5.83 Permanent n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Full-time member* Ms Elaine Hoole 3.5.83 Permanent n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Full-time member* Mr Victor Paterson 31.10.83 Permanent n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Full-time member* Mr Kevin Springett 3.5.83 Permanent n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-New South Wales Full-time member* Vacant-temporarily occupied by Mr R. Newett 22.8.83 Temporary n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Legal member -$211 per day Mr G. Rinaudo 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Legal member -$211 per day Ms Diane Clark 23.12.84 1 year 22.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Legal member -$211 per day Mr Graeme Page 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Legal member -$211 per day Mr Mathew Foley 19.11.84 1 year 18.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Welfare member -$180 per day Mr Mark Conway 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Welfare member -$180 per day Mr Geoff Smiley 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Willma Bowman 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Welfare member -$180 per day Rev. Colin Arkell 17.10.84 1 year 16.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Anthony Arden 19.1.85 1 year 18.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Brian Courtice 3.1.85 1 year 2.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr John Lynch 27.10.84 1 year 26.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Des Milliner 1.12.84 1 year 30.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Full-time member* Mr R. W. Hughes 6.10.81 Permanent n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Queensland Full-time member* Mr B. W. Viertel 31.1.84 Permanent n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-South Australia Legal member and chairman -$211 per day Ms M. J. Nyland 19.12.84 1 year 18.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-South Australia Legal member and chairman -$211 per day Mr R. J. Whitington 29.11.84 1 year 28.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-South Australia Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr J. J. Court 23.12.84 1 year 22.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-South Australia Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr D. P. Finnegan 20.1.85 1 year 19.1.1986 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-South Australia Social work member -$180 per day Ms D. E. Gordon 19.12.84 1 year 18.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-South Australia Departmental member and secretariat manager* Mr J. Beruldsen n.a. Pending permanent staffing action n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Chairman legal member -$211 per day Ms Moira Rayner 25.9.84 1 year 24.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Chairman legal member -$211 per day Ms Valerie French 17.12.84 1 year 16.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Chairman legal member -$ 211 per day Mr John May 1.12.84 1 year 30.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Chairman -$ 211 per day Ms Jacqueline Musk 25.10.84 1 year 24.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Welfare member -$ 180 per day Ms Teresa Coughlin 5.10.84 1 year 4.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Welfare member -$ 180 per day Rev Michael Rowden 4.1.84 1 year 3.1.1986 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Welfare member -$ 180 per day Ms Libby Lloyd 8.10.84 1 year 7.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Welfare member -$ 180 per day Ms Jan Carter 12.10.84 1 year 11.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Lindsay Barr 5.10.84 1 year 4.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Norman Marinovich 23.12.84 1 year 24.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Terry Pitsikas 31.5.84 1 year 30.5.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Western Australia Full-time member* Mr W. G. McKennay Jan. 84 Permanent n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Tasmania Chairman -$211 per day Mr Chris Webster 19.1.85 1 year 18.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Tasmania Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Hilary Dooson 4.3.85 1 year 3.3.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Tasmania Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Ron Carruthers 4.3.85 1 year 3.3.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Tasmania Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Pauline Carruthers 4.3.85 1 year 3.3.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Tasmania Community member -$180 per day Ms Marguerite Scott 25.11.84 1 year 24.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Northern Territory Chairperson -$211 per day Ms Sue Curnow 17.11.84 1 year 16.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Northern Territory Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Martin Muls 28.9.84 1 year 27.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Northern Territory Welfare member -$180 per day Mr Charles Milne 25.12.84 1 year 24.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Australian Capital Territory Chairperson -$211 per day Ms Pamela Burton 19.12.84 1 year 18.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Australian Capital Territory Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Helen Evans 4.2.85 1 year 3.2.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Australian Capital Territory Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Alan Merrifield 28.1.86 1 year 27.1.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Australian Capital Territory Permanent member* Ms Kay Wagland 11.10.84 Permanent n.a. Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Legal member -$211 per hour Dr Terry Carney 6.11.84 1 year 5.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Legal member -$211 per hour Ms Lillian Cooney 8.11.84 1 year 7.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Legal member -$211 per hour Dr Jocelynne Scutt 25.10.84 1 year 24.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Legal member -$211 per hour Mr Vaughan Klessling 19.12.84 1 year 18.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Legal member -$211 per day Mr Damien Maguire 23.12.84 1 year 22.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Legal member -$211 per day Mr Christopher Loorham 29.9.84 1 year 28.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Legal member -$211 per day Mr Kevin Travers 22.1.85 1 year 21.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Peter Arndt 27.10.84 1 year 26.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Nick Crofts 31.10.84 1 year 30.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Robert Kamener 31.10.84 1 year 30.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Medical member -$48.50 per hour Dr Syd Preston 21.1.85 1 year 20.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Carmel Benjamin 31.10.84 1 year 30.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Suzy Birch 15.9.84 1 year 14.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Helen Goodman 15.9.84 1 year 14.9.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Shirley Horne 27.10.84 1 year 26.10.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Elizabeth Marshall 19.12.84 1 year 18.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Edith Morgan 19.12.84 1 year 18.12.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Helen Morris 7.11.84 1 year 6.11.85 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Jane Nichols 29.1.85 1 year 28.1.86 Social Security Appeals Tribunal-Victoria Welfare member -$180 per day Ms Janet Paterson 23.12.84 1 year 22.12.85 *Denotes that the person is a full-time Commonwealth/State Public Servant and therefore does not receive any additional remuneration over and above normal salary. (2) (a) The remuneration payable for each position is included with the table provided in answer to part (1) of the honourable member's question. (b) The travelling allowance payable to the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation for each overnight stay is $100 (capital city rate) or $70 (other than capital city rate). An allowance of $24 is also payable for travel involving an absence of at least 10 hours, without an overnight stay. The occupants of the other positions listed in the above table are entitled to a travelling allowance for each overnight stay of $100 (capital city rate) or $80 (other than capital city rate). In addition, an allowance of $30 is payable for travel involving an absence of at least 10 hours, without an overnight stay. (Question No. 388) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What are the reasons for Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's budget being set at $30,791,000 in 1984-85 from an expenditure of $40,760,900 in 1983-84. (2) What adjustments have been required by CSIRO to stay within this appropriation. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is: (1) The figures used by the honourable member refer only to that component of CSIRO's budget that is appropriated under Appropriation Bill No. 2 for Capital Works. The reduction in this appropriation between the two years is due mainly to the lower costs in 1984-85 of two major construction projects, namely the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory and the Oceanographic Research Vessel. (2) Full details of the variations in the costs of all items of CSIRO's capital expenditure between the two years are displayed on Page 8 of the Explanatory Notes for CSIRO's Estimates of Expenditure 1984/85 tabled as part of the budget documents in 1984. (Question No. 390) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: What steps has he taken since the announcement in the Governor-General's Speech on 21 February 1985, that the Government wishes to build closer links between industry and research, so that Australian industry could gain the greatest benefits possible from the work being done by the CSIRO and tertiary institutions. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government has been pursuing policies to build closer links between industry and research since 1983. Within the Science portfolio these policies have led to a number of initiatives including the award of postdoctoral fellowships for industry based research; the development within CSIRO of commercial policies and practices (in areas such as licensing and contracting research) and policies and activities for encouraging closer CSIRO/industry links; and an examination by the OECD of Australia's science and technology policies. Since 21 February 1985 some specific initiatives have been taken within the Science portfolio to build closer links between industry and research. SIROTECH Ltd, CSIRO's commercial assessment and technology development company, was publicly launched on 6 March. SIROTECH has now recruited all its senior staff and most of its other staff and is essentially fully operational. The company's most important responsibility is to build closer links between CSIRO and industry. The CSIRO/Manufacturing Industry Collaborative Research Program, was announced on 6 March. Under this program, industry will nominate research projects addressing their major immediate science and technology problems; selected projects will be supported from existing CSIRO resources being redeployed to the Program. The Program will be managed by SIROTECH. It makes history as for the first time part of CSIRO's resources for its manufacturing industry research are to be allocated in effect by industry. The OECD examiners' draft report on Review of Australia's National Science Policies was discussed on 3 April at a symposium in Canberra. The draft report contained substantial discussion of the links between industry and research. These points were discussed at the symposium by participants from industry, government and the research sectors. (Question No. 391) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 25 March 1985: Has his intention been drawn to the OECD draft report on Australian science and technology which criticises the decline in the amount of research and development funded and carried out by industry; if so, what steps is he taking to reverse this trend. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Since coming to office, the Government has attached a great deal of importance to applying its industry and technology policies to the development and revitalisation of Australia's manufacturing sector. In his 1984 election policy speech, the Prime Minister foreshadowed the introduction of a 150% tax deduction for expenditure on genuine R& activities undertaken in Australia which will reduce the effective cost of R& to companies to 31 cents in the dollar. The Government believes that the deduction will play a significant role in boosting private sector R& in Australia and in reducing the serious imbalance between public and private sector performance of R& which has persisted throughout the previous decade. (Question No. 412) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) Why was the import duty on agricultural lasers, which was removed in October 1984 after a long campaign by importers, farmers and contractors, reimposed in December 1984? (2) Does this duty currently apply? (3) Has there been a request or application for a further review regarding the removal of the duty, if so, what action has been taken? Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) On 4 December 1984 duty was reimposed on agricultural laser systems to restore protection to Laser Systems Pty Ltd, Moorabin, Vic. who manufacture the receiver, hydraulic control and console components of laser systems. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. An application for the laser component has been received. The applicant is attempting to establish with a local manufacturer of lasers whether or not the Australian article serves a similar function. If it does not and the local manufacturer would not be adversely affected a tariff concession will be granted. (Question No. 420) Mr Hodges asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 March 1985: (1) Is the economic trilogy announced during the 1984 election campaign Government policy. (2) Was the trilogy endorsed by the Cabinet before the announcement, if not, was it subsequently endorsed by Cabinet. (3) In view of conflicting statements by him and the Treasurer as to the nature of the trilogy, will he set out in clear and unequivocal terms, the precise nature of the trilogy. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Cabinet specifically endorsed the so called trilogy commitment on 13 December 1984. (3) The precise nature of the trilogy is: (i) Further reductions in the Commonwealth deficit in money terms in 1985-86 and as a proportion of GDP over the life of the current Parliament; (ii) No increase in tax revenue as a proportion of GDP in 1985-86 and over the life of the Parliament; and (iii) A reduction in expenditure as a proportion of GDP in 1985-86 and over the life of the Parliament.