Wednesday, 21 August 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that today's Notice Paper has been produced in an abbreviated form and includes only Government Business and General Business notices and orders of the day. This has been caused by difficulties encountered by the Government Printing Office overnight in the use of new typesetting equipment. It is expected that normal Notice Paper production will resume from tomorrow. Mr Sinclair-That is because the Printer is using a computer; that's the problem. Mr SPEAKER —I think the Leader of the National Party of Australia is sometimes almost as old-fashioned as I am in his attitude to modern technology. Mr Young-No, he's not. Mr SPEAKER —I thank the Leader of the House. I am sorry that it is now on record that I am old-fashioned, Minister. Mr Young-No, you declared yourself. Mr SPEAKER —Yesterday the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) raised as a matter of privilege the action of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in authorising distribution of information contained in an answer to a question on notice asked by him before the answer had been submitted to the Clerk of the House and transmitted to him. My duty in such a matter is to decide whether or not I should accord precedence to a motion in respect of it. To determine this I need to be satisfied that the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity and a prima facie case has been made out. In respect of the first criterion, I am satisfied that in the circumstances of yesterday's proceedings the matter was raised at the earliest opportunity. The question of substance is whether or not the facts as stated reveal a prima facie case of breach of privilege. There are two elements here. First there is a traditional head of contempt or disobedience of general rules or orders of the House. I refer to pages 145 to 147 of May's Parliamentary Practice and pages 653 and 654 of House of Representatives Practice. The precedents cited relate to matters such as disobedience by witnesses ordered to attend, refusal to withdraw from the House when ordered to do so and obstruction of orders of a House or committee. Breaches of the Standing Orders or practices of the House are not ordinarily dealt with as contempts. Presumably this is because such matters are better dealt with as matters of order, rather than as matters of privilege. The second aspect, and one alluded to by the honourable member for Dawson, is whether or not the actions taken have obstructed him in the discharge of his duties. I have given the matter careful consideration, and have concluded that, whilst he may consider the actions of the Minister a discourtesy and an annoyance, they do not constitute actions which would actually obstruct him in the course of his duties. In addition there is a general reluctance by the Parliament either to extend the limits of contempt or to resile from the principle that the House should exercise its penal jurisdiction as sparingly as possible and only when satisfied that to do so is essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its members and committees from substantial interference with their functions. In all the circumstances I am of the opinion that the matter raised does not constitute a prima facie case of breach of privilege, and I cannot accord precedence to a motion in respect of it. I have no wish to enter further into the merits of the particular case, but I remind the House that it has adopted Standing Orders, and it follows practices and conventions, in order to discharge its business in a proper manner. I believe it is incumbent upon all members to observe the letter and the spirit of these rules and conventions. Consideration resumed from 23 May. Consideration of Senate's amendment. Senate's amendment- Clause 11, page 10, line 16, omit ``3'', substitute ``4''. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(10.07) —I move: (1) Clause 10, page 4, after proposed new sub-section 33F (2) insert the following sub-section: ``(2A) In nominating a person for appointment as a member of the Board referred to in paragraph 34 (1) (d), the Committee shall have regard to the requirement that at least one of the members referred to in that paragraph is to be a wheat grower.''. (2) Clause 11, page 10, lines 16 and 17, omit proposed new paragraph 34 (1) (d), insert the following paragraph: ``(d) 4 other members, each of whom has had extensive experience at a high level in finance, marketing or grain movement logistics and at least one of whom is a wheat grower.';''. The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1985 is concerned primarily with the restructuring of the Australian Wheat Board and the establishment of the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee. The Government proposed that the Australian Wheat Board comprise 11 members-a grower chairperson and a government member selected by the Minister, five grower members, one from each mainland State, and four members with specialist skills, all nine of whom were to be selected by the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee. Under the Government's proposal growers, including the chairperson, were a majority on the Board, occupying six of the 11 positions. Growers also had a majority on the Selection Committee. The Bill was introduced in the Senate in the 1985 autumn sitting and passed with amendments, one of which was to reduce the number of specialist members of the Board from four to three. The Senate did not agree to a subsequent amendment passed by the House to restore to four the number of specialist positions on the Board on the grounds that the growers selected by the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee did not constitute a board majority. The Government is firmly of the view that, to protect the Government's underwriting and growers' interests, the Australian Wheat Board needs to comprise members with appropriate specialist skills to guide Australian Wheat Board operations. The Australian Wheat Board is involved in funding and marketing a wheat crop worth around $3 billion annually in an increasingly complex financial environment and a depressed world market. It was not considered sufficient to rely on three members to provide guidance to management. Consultations have been held with the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation to resolve the issue of the extent of the grower majority on the Australian Wheat Board. It is now proposed that the 11-member Board will include one grower who also satisfies the criteria for selection as one of the four specialist members, in addition to the other five grower members and the grower chairperson. This proposal is incorporated in the amendments before the Parliament. The amendments have the support of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation and they meet the Government's requirements. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.10) —The Government has seen the light and has agreed to amend the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1985 to give the wheat growers a more substantial voice on their own marketing board. In the autumn session, wheat growers were threatened with a grower selected grower minority on the new Wheat Board due to be operative from 1 October. The Opposition, with the support of the Australian Democrats in another place, sought to restore a grower majority by amending the Wheat Marketing Bill. Our amendments were unacceptable to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) but our action resulted in the Minister having to return to the conference table with the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. This action gave the Federation the breathing space that it needed to seek a more acceptable resolution to this problem. I want to stress that the existing Board, with its responsibility for grower production with more than $3 billion a year, as the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) indicated, is under the direct control of grower-selected grower members who comprise 10 of the total Board of fifteen. The Minister for Primary Industry faced a hostile reaction in trying to ram through his original Bill allowing only five growers to be selected for the new 11-member Board by the selection committee. Of course, the industry was not prepared to wear this loss of control over its own product, and nor should it. It is a $3 billion crop, grown by wheat growers, held in trust by a board, and it would be ridiculous for there not to be a grower majority on that board to ensure that the growers' interests were properly taken into account. It is encouraging that our actions in the other place have resulted in a far more rational result for wheat growers. It may not have been the most satisfactory result, but it is better than the original intention of the Minister. When returned to government, the Liberal and National parties will confer with the wheat industry on the form of board that is most suitable to the industry. However, this amended Bill provides for at least a majority of grower members placed on the Board through the selection committee because the amendments specify that at least one of the four specialist members will also be a wheat grower. There remains some loss of direct powers for the rank and file to elect their own members. What was a full voice now becomes a muffled voice in the selection process. The compromise solution, though, is far preferable to the Bill which came before this Parliament in May. This Bill is one of four sets of legislation brought forward by the Minister for Primary Industry in the 12 sitting days of May which provoked antagonism in the farm sector. The Opposition was particularly concerned to assist the wheat industry achieve at least a majority of growers appointed by the selection committee. Our parties do not dispute the need for specialist expertise in such areas as finance and marketing on the Wheat Board, particularly now that the industry is 90 per cent export oriented and faces a very difficult world market outlook. At the same time the best way to equip the Board to meet these present day challenges is to continue vesting clear power with those who produce the crop. The most constructive role which government can play is to support the industry in its battle against high costs of production largely due to selfish, sectional self-interest actions rather than enhancing the most efficient means of handling and transporting the wheat crop. No matter how one structures the Australian Wheat Board, unless the Commonwealth and State governments are able to achieve a more responsible attitude from the trade union movement at the grain handling authority levels and at the waterfront, the wheat growers and, indeed, all Australians will continue to suffer enormous losses of income and trade performance as a result of these activities. Undoubtedly, in New South Wales the level of industrial disruption is by far the worst in the Commonwealth. It is outrageous that the Australian wheat growers should be losing hundreds of millions of dollars in markets because of the irresponsible industrial actions being taken by certain trade unions in New South Wales whose members-- Mr Ian Cameron —And they acted up to Queensland. Mr HUNT —Absolutely. Those members are in some instances amongst the highest paid workers in the Commonwealth. Simply rearranging the structure of the Australian Wheat Board is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic unless the New South Wales Government comes to grips with the seriousness of the industrial disruption being caused to the wheat industry. My concern is borne out by Mr Sandow, of the Australian Wheat Board, who recently lamented the fact that the Board had to revise downward its export tonnage because of industrial disruption and the declining world market. Mr Sandow said that on the industrial front the wheat industry has so far this year lost the opportunity to load in excess of one million tonnes of wheat because of strikes, with more than half of the loss due to disputes in New South Wales. Unfortunately the wheat growers of Australia generally are bearing the cost of this industrial irresponsibility. It is an outrageous state of affairs, and the actions of the irresponsible trade union leaders cannot be excused in any way. Notwithstanding the industrial disputation, Australia is expected to export a record 14.25 million tonnes of wheat this year. Unfortunately, there is a contraction of the world market. A number of factors have contributed to that contraction in recent months, including the United States-European Economic Community trade war and the high levels of production amongst some of the major importers. The villian in the piece is, of course, the EEC which is continuing to subsidise export sales heavily and is selling its product at well below the traditional floor price established by United States wheat prices. The United States has responded with its export enhancement program. This instability is contributing to a continuing decline in prices. Argentina has also drastically undercut prices, and it is alleged that that country is offering wheat prices well below the $US110 per tonne price level. The world fall in wheat prices has not increased the level of wheat sales. The excellent seasons experienced by major importing countries, such as China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, are largely responsible for the lack of growth in world sales. Some years ago we used to talk of the likely green revolution in the Third World and developing countries. That situation is now upon us. Therefore, we need a Board that is capable of making the right decisions, not only to hold existing markets but also to penetrate those new markets. Fuel is also a very heavily taxed commodity and that contributes to the problems facing Australian wheat growers at present. The Opposition will not delay the passage of this Bill, and it is to be hoped that the Senate's approval can be gained this week to ensure that the new Board is operating upon the expiry of the present Board at the end of next month. Clearly the Bill has been poorly handled by the Government, and if delays occur the Minister for Primary Industry need look no further than his own Cabinet room to sheet home the blame. The Minister is on notice that the new Board structure will have to prove advantageous to the industry. As I said earlier, the Opposition will commit itself to entering into negotiations, when it takes over government, with the Australian Wheat Growers Federation to ensure that the industry has operating at the Board level the right structure, the right Board, the right type of system necessary to satisfy the interests of Australian wheat growers generally. The wheat industry does face difficult times and it must not be saddled with an unco-operative government or with a Board that does not satisfy the best interests of Australian wheat growers and the Australian wheat industry. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(10.19) —The amendment to the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill provides for a restructuring of the Australian Wheat Board, to take effect on 1 October this year, and for a level of grower representation acceptable to the industry while at the same time meeting the Government's requirement of four specialist members. I am pleased to see that the Opposition supports this amendment although one gains the distinct impression from the comments of the honourable member for Gwydir and Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) that he is not particularly enthusiastic about the Opposition's support for this amendment. He referred this morning to fuel costs but he seemed to forget that there was some interesting news last night on excise rebates for diesel fuel. Those rebates are very important in the wheat growing areas of Australia. Those of us who know something about the wheat growing industry would be aware that fuel costs are a very important component when it comes to grain production in Australia. I am sure that this move by the Government to make a positive step in coming to grips with the question of the diesel fuel rebate will be welcomed, particularly by people in the grain growing areas. One important point that the honourable member for Gwydir mentioned in his speech-something that I would like to dwell on for a few moments this morning-was the green revolution and the effect that it has had on trading nations such as Australia. Ten years ago it was very easy to talk about the green revolution and its effects on agricultural production in Third World countries. We can look at the effects of the green revolution from two points of view. From an humanitarian point of view what has happened in some of those underdeveloped countries is a marvellous achievement. For the first time many of those countries that previously faced great famine and had enormous difficulty in feeding themselves are able to grapple with that problem. But from our point of view, as a trading nation, it has been absolutely disasterous. As the honourable member for Gwydir mentioned, the green revolution, coupled with the effects of corrupted marketing policies, particularly of the European Economic Community with its common agricultural policy, and with the effects of the involvement of the United States of America in trying to influence world wheat prices and world wheat markets in the last few weeks, mean that Australia will face enormous difficulties, not only over the next few months but indeed over the next few years. That is why it is particularly important, when we look at the question of a restructured Wheat Board, to take into account the effect of the changing world scene when it comes to marketing agricultural commodities. Without meaning any disrespect to growers-we have to admit that our farmers are among the most efficient in the world; there is no question about that-if a person is an efficient primary producer, in this case an efficient wheat farmer, it does not necessarily mean that that person is an expert in the area of marketing. I think it is important that we realise this and that growers concentrate on what they are best able to do; that is, to grow agricultural products in an efficient way, so that our products are available on world markets at the most competitive prices. That is why the Government, through the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), looked seriously at restructuring the Australian Wheat Board to take into account the changing world scene and the difficulties facing the world market with the intervention of the EEC and the United States, given some of their agricultural marketing policies. That is why I said, without meaning any disrespect whatsoever to growers, that it is important to realise that if a person is an efficient, able grower of wheat it does not necessarily mean that that person has tremendous marketing expertise. Some growers obviously do. But we need to make sure that those people whom we appoint to commodity boards such as the Australian Wheat Board have the sort of expertise that enables a major trading nation such as Australia to come to grips with some of the enormous difficulties which it is facing in world trade. The honourable member for Gwydir mentioned that 90 per cent of Australian wheat is oriented towards world markets. Very small amounts are available for domestic consumption. I believe that that further adds to the case that the Government has been pursuing; that is, that on a restructured Board we need people with financial expertise. We need people who are able to recognise the changing situation with respect to marketing and to recognise that the effects of the green revolution that we talked about a few years ago are now coming home and, as I said before, have the potential of having disastrous effects on a major trading nation. I say that without taking anything away from the humanitarian side of that breakthrough. I am pleased that the Opposition is being co-operative in the passage of this amendment Bill. It is important that we get the restructured Wheat Board in operation by 1 October. By co-operating in the passage of the Bill this morning, the Opposition is ensuring that the Minister will be able to make the necessary appointments so that the restructured Board will be in operation by 1 October. We do face enormous challenges. The world scene is in a constant state of flux. The ball game in marketing seems to change from day to day. All major countries that traditionally have been very efficient with respect to the production of grains are under enormous pressures because of the intervention of the European Economic Community and the United States of America with some of their grain marketing policies. It is particularly important that the restructured Wheat Board does come into operation as soon as possible because we want to make sure that the efficient wheat producers in Australia are in a position to be governed by a board that is not only representative of their interests as producers but also understands the changing needs of world commodity markets. The problems we face in marketing this agricultural product over the next few years will be fully taken into account by the new Wheat Board. Once again, I thank members of the Opposition for their support of the amendments to the Wheat Marketing Bill. I take the opportunity of wishing members of the restructured Board which will operate from 1 October every success. They are going to need great support because the issues I have outlined mean that the changing world market place will place enormous difficulties on the growers in Australia. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.27) —In rising this morning to support the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), I am happy to join the Opposition and the Government in giving the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill passage. However, it struck me while the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) was delivering his speech that he was even more hesitant in his endorsement of this legislation than was the honourable member for Gwydir, whom he accused of being too reluctant in his embrace of this legislation. In fact, the honourable member for Calare was, if anything, rather reticent in endorsing the very legislation that is currently before the House. This legislation is in fact a victory for reasonableness. Had the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) been prepared to be less the twisted ideologue and a little more reasonable in dealing with this legislation when it was before the House earlier, the Bill would have been in place already. I note that the honourable member for Calare has made a plea, a plea for marketing representation on the Australian Wheat Board. I think we ought to bear in mind the simple fact that if the Wheat Board were freed from the present restrictions placed on it by the Public Service Board it could employ in the wheat growing executive the best brains in the industry or in the marketing world. But it is not free to do that. So currently we have this exercise in balance. How do we go about appointing a board that can, in fact, effectively market the Australian wheat crop without denying the wheat growers a voice on that board? That compromise has brought this legislation into the chamber this morning. I contend that the shuffling about-face that we have seen from the Government on this legislation is the least the Government can do for the wheat growers of Australia. Like last night's Budget, in many ways the legislation before the chamber is a case of too little too late, but it is better than nothing. As everyone in this chamber knows, rural Australia is in revolt. According to the leader of the revolt, the President of the National Farmers Federation, Ian McLachlan, that revolt is likely to continue in spite of and, in some ways, because of last night's Budget. Most of Australia's wheat growers are in revolt. They are up in arms not because of some sort of political motive, but rather because of the economic climate in which they are forced to operate. The wheat farmers of Australia are acutely aware. They have the uncomfortable personal knowledge that things are slowly getting worse, in spite of the fact that during the term of this government there has been no nation-wide drought. In spite of the good seasons, still their plight becomes intractably worse. No one has ever suggested that the Hawke Government invented rural poverty. The sad, inescapable fact is that under the Hawke Government it has been exacerbated, in spite of good seasons. Last night the wheat farmers of Australia, who are waiting for this legislation to pass, saw the Government bring in a Budget that made some effort to reduce marginally our deficit. However, the national debt under which this nation labours is still in place. There is still the increase in the public sector which has been characteristic of this Government. It is those two factors that add principally to the exporters' burden. The wheat farmers of Australia, who are the key exporters of Australia, face an interest bill on borrowed money-which has risen from 5 per cent of the value of the goods they exported-to 12 per cent. It is that sort of burden from which the wheat farmers seek some relief. In five years the farm costs under which these growers labour have gone up by 44 per cent, while the prices received for their produce-farm gate prices-have gone up by only 12 per cent. Worse than that, the taxes and charges foisted by this Government upon the men towards whom this Bill is projected have risen six times faster than have their returns. All the wheat growers of Australia want is a fair go, not subsidies. All they seek in this legislation is reasonable representation on the Board that markets their produce. The point that ought to be addressed by the Government is that, were it prepared to free the Australian Wheat Board from the restrictions of the Public Service Board, it could employ the very expertise it needs in its executive. All the farmers seek from this legislation is a fair go, fair representation. However, from this Government it has been a long time coming. All the farmers seek is a fair go and a government that will take action when farmers are being illegally denied access to facilities that they should rightly have access to. The honourable member for Gwydir has referred to the dilemma that faces farmers as a result of the disaster in regard to the Grain Handling Authority of New South Wales. Madam Chair, I will not wander very far from the Bill-certainly no further than did the honourable member for Calare-when for five seconds I draw attention to the Mudginberri abattoir dispute. Wheat farmers who are facing the dilemma of trying to export primary production without support from this Government face the same dilemma as producers in the Mudginberri area who do not have the support they are entitled to from the Government. Mr Hand —You are taking a liberty there. Mr ANDREW —As the honourable member for Melbourne wishes me to return directly to the wheat growing issue, I point out that it has been the very fact that the farmers of Australia have not had the support that they have sought from honourable members opposite which has meant that a million tonnes of grain has not been exported from Australia that should have been exported in the last year. Everyone on both sides of the House knows that selling grain is tough and likely to become increasingly tough in the world marketing climate. However, the present advantages we have are being eroded by the inaction of the Government to protect farmers from illegal disputes. Furthermore, the Government has claimed some credit saying that, as the dollar has fallen, the opportunity to export has increased. Of course we accept that. However, this very improvement in the state of the dollar as a result of its being floated has rapidly been eroded by action the Government has taken recently in introducing a dumping duty on diammonium phosphate which increases farmers' costs by $70 a tonne. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I trust that the honourable member will now return to the clause before the Committee. Mr ANDREW —Absolutely, Madam Chair. As you would appreciate, the application of this phosphate is essential to the growing of grain in Australia, which is what the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill is all about. On precisely the same line, the fuel that is used by grain growers affects their costs-these costs are an important factor-as is representation on the Wheat Board. Honourable members may recall that the honourable member for Calare was anxious to point out to the House that the Government had taken action by reintroducing a fuel rebate. I ask the honourable member for Calare: If last night's proposal relating to the fuel rebate was such a positive step, why do we have to wait until 1 November for its introduction? What will the Government do about the $55m that it has picked up from the farmers as a result of its having denied them that rebate over the last 18 months? Australian grain growers have enjoyed a long term growth of 2.8 per cent per annum. The number of people employed in growing Australia's grain has fallen by 7 per cent. The number of farms involved in growing Australian grain has fallen by 4 per cent per annum. Australian wheat farmers are producing more wheat, although fewer people are involved. It is, in fact, these people who now seek adequate representation on their wheat marketing board. I am prepared and happy to rise in support of this legislation, because it will give this dwindling number of Australian farmers better representation on the board that markets their produce. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(10.37) —The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill before the Committee provides for a restructuring of the Australian Wheat Board. It represents a hard but fair debate between the industry and the Government over the composition of the Board. The Government has long held the view that a high degree of specialisation is required on a body like the Australian Wheat Board. We are talking about an industry which markets a crop worth around $3 billion annually. To perform this task successfully, the Wheat Board must have access to a high degree of expertise. The world for primary producers is becoming increasingly complex and difficult to predict. The wheat crop this year, according to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, is predicted to be the second highest on record. Eighty per cent of that crop will have to be sold for export. This will happen at a time when grain is becoming increasingly over-supplied on world markets. The United States of America and the European Economic Community will place enormous competition on our grain growers in the coming years. This will come at a time when the EEC has already distorted price movements on world markets. The devaluation of our dollar has helped lessen the burden on our primary producers but it has also led primary producers into a highly complex financial world. Expertise in money markets and overseas transactions is required if our farmers are to market their crop successfully. More than at any other time our wheat products need and require sound commercial judgments and intimate knowledge of overseas fluctuations. It is therefore desirable to have members on the Wheat Board who specialise in understanding these problems. Under the terms of the 1984 Wheat Marketing Act, the Wheat Board is required to make advance payments to growers at a guaranteed minimum price. Grower payments for handling, storage and freight are all met by borrowings which are repaid by sales receipts over time. For instance, in 1983-84, the Wheat Board borrowed and turned over on short term domestic and international commercial money markets in excess of $6.5 billion. Moreover, borowings of the Wheat Board involved the establishment of domestic and overseas funding facilities totalling over $4 billion to cover the current season's payments and to service outstanding debt on wheat of previous seasons. These large sums of money must be accounted for by the Wheat Board. This can be successfully achieved only by the presence on the Board of people with a good knowledge of international currency arrangements. The best illustration of just how simply an organisation can get into trouble on international money markets is the Queensland Grain Growers Association. This Association's problem began on 15 August 1983, when it was forced into voluntary receivership because of huge debts as a result of undisclosed foreign currency transactions. At a time when it believed that it was the soundest of all Australian farmer organisations, it suddenly found that it had liabilities exceeding its assets by millions of dollars. The depth of the problem is revealed by the following figures. Secured creditors were owed $13.6m of which the National Bank was owed about $11m. Of the unsecured creditors, six merchant banks were owed $8,042,000, the State Wheat Board was owed $1.75m, and the remaining $25.377m was owed to 3,200 members of the organisation. I am pleased to inform the House that in May of this year, the grain growers were able to come out of the receivership. They were eventually able to send their creditors 73.25 cents in the dollar. However, the Queensland grain growers organisation did not emerge unscathed. A company was formed called Elders-Queensland Graingrowers Pty Ltd. Its new board membership will be of interest to the House. It comprises three representatives from Elders and three from the Queensland Grain Growers Association State Council. The Chairman comes from the Grain Growers Association but has no additional voting rights. I mention this example because many of its features are in this Bill. Even with every best intention, the growers own organisation was unable to avoid getting into serious financial difficulties because of the international monetary situation. Obviously, a specialist knowledge of international currency was needed and the growers association has achieved this. The new growers organisation, like the Australian Wheat Board, needed to be reshaped to ensure that this occurred. The current Bill has been revamped and I believe is acceptable to the Australian Wheat Growers Federation. Previously, the Federation objected to its lack of a grower-selected majority because the chairperson was selected by the Minister for Primary Industry. The Government originally proposed an 11-member board comprising a grower chairperson, a Government member, five growers-one from each mainland State-and four specialist members. The Government's proposal provided for a grower majority, counting the chairperson, of six out of 11. In discussions with the Minister, I have been informed that the Australian Wheat Growers Federation has accepted the Government's proposal that one of the four specialist members also be a wheat grower. Therefore, the Wheat Board has increased grower representation while meeting the Government's requirements that the Board consist of members with the necessary skills to carry out its duties effectively. As I indicated, the Bill enables the establishment of a selection committee for selecting members of the new Wheat Board. The committee will be chaired by Mr F. W. Millar, Chairman of Thomas Nationwide Transport Limited and L. J. Hooker Limited and a member of other major Australian public companies. Mr Millar is Chairman of the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Selection Committee. Sir Leslie Price, Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, is also on the committee, together with five nominees of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation and two nominees of the National Farmers Federation. This legislation needs to be passed without further undue frustration from the Senate. The new composition of the Wheat Board is to apply from 1 October. The Committee, therefore, will have to have the names of any new members available to the Government before then. The Bill demonstrates the continuing willingness of the Hawke Government to introduce policies which are good for the rural sector. I notice that the Minister recently announced $11m for rural research in 1985-86, of which $5.777m has been allocated to the wheat industry for 58 new and 113 continuing projects. These amounts form part of $68m which will be contributed by the Hawke pro-farmer Government and industry on a dollar for dollar basis. Following discussions I have had with grain growers during the recess, I believe there are a number of points which need to be raised. I would like to see all governments continuing to address the very sensitive issue of soil conservation. I visited a property near Killarney in my electorate and I must tell the Committee how impressed I was with the variety of methods the farmer there was prepared to use. Soil conservation is one of the great issues facing all primary producers. I know the Minister is concerned about it and I would ask all members to familiarise themselves with the problem and look to solutions to it. The grain growers also want Government imposts kept down during these difficult times. This was addressed in the Budget last night. In this context, on behalf of all primary producers, I condemn the Queensland National Party Government for imposing an 8 per cent increase in freight charges and up to 100 per cent increases in third party insurance. These have been an unnecessary burden on wheat growers and farmers in general. I am pleased to be able to support this amendment. This is a classic example of how the Government is prepared to listen to farmer organisations and to do what is in the best interests of the rural sector. It indicates that the Government has shown that it is prepared to listen. I am sure that the amendment will be supported by this House. I thank the Opposition for its support of the amendment and I am sure that it will have a speedy passage through the other place. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.45) —In speaking to this amendment, I first remind the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) of a couple of facts. He was rather keen to point out the losses of the Queensland Grain Growers Association due to the change in the exchange rate. He said that that Association got itself into financial difficulty. I can assure him that in Victoria there are quite a few government statutory bodies that have made very substantial losses, on paper at least, as a result of the devaluation of the Australian dollar. One of the bodies which springs to mind is the State Electricity Commission. At one stage that loss was well over $100m. I think there are quite a few others as well, which shows that statutory authorities can lose money on the exchange rate just as easily as anyone else. The other point that the honourable member seemed keen to make was that the Queensland Government had been raising freight charges. As I understand it, the Victorian Government will be raising freight charges in the next couple of weeks. The Government delayed the announcement until after the by-election-or re-election-that I am sure that we all heard about last week. Despite an undertaking that no government charges would increase faster than inflation, I gather the Victorian Government will be increasing freight rates by more than the rate of inflation, so it does happen in other States as well as Queensland. To return to the amendment, it is interesting to look at its history. When the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) first proposed the changes to the structure of the Australian Wheat Board in October 1984, he made a rather curious threat to the Opposition. He said: But I remind the Opposition that this is a package of legislation and, if it is held up, growers will not be paid. Mr Andrew —That is scandalous. Mr HAWKER —That is right, it is scandalous. I thank the honourable member for Wakefield for that observation. The point is that the Minister came to this House and told us that either we support his package in total or he would hold the wheat growers of Australia to ransom. We called his bluff and he had to back off on that. But that shows the attitude that the Minister has towards primary industry, and we could cite many other examples. I think that the debate yesterday showed what he thought about the efforts of people up in the Northern Territory at Mudginberri. The Minister has vacillated. It is now 10 months since that threat was made to the Opposition and now we have finally seen the Minister come to his senses and realise that we have an industry that is completely funded by itself, an industry that quite rightly can say that the growers should have the overall say in what is happening in their industry. No one is suggesting that they are the complete experts; there is still provision to have people with special expertise on the Wheat Board, and this compromise that the Minister has finally come to is very welcome, even though it has taken 10 months. It is worth reminding honourable members of the size of the industry and its level of efficiency. It has already been said that it is an industry which has exports in excess of $2.7 billion in the coming year, which is 20 per cent of Australia's export earnings. It is a big industry. It is also an efficient industry. I remind honourable members of what the Bureau of Agricultural Economics said about the Australian wheat industry in the February 1984 Quarterly Review of the Rural Economy. It said: Wheat production is one of the most efficient of all Australian industries. The level of assistance to the industry in recent years has been low (or even negative) and, except in occasional years of drought, the industry has continued to grow. It is an industry that can hold its head up with pride and one which has succeeded. When that industry comes to the Government and says that it wants a grower majority on the Board, I think it can rightly claim that it has some justification for that. The problems facing the industry have already been mentioned by the honourable member for Wakefield and the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). In real terms the price of wheat has increased by only about 2 per cent over the past five years. Over that same period the terms of trade of farmers have fallen by 20 per cent. Mr Andrew —How does the accord tolerate that? Mr HAWKER —Unfortunately, the prices and incomes accord does not take that into account. That is why farmers are getting so restless. That is why we have seen marches all over Australia with over 100,000 farmers coming out in peaceful, orderly demonstrations to make the point that they are getting a little sick and tired of the increases in charges and costs and of the mindless pursuit of centralised wage fixing with no regard being paid to the capacity of an industry to pay wage increases. These are the sorts of things that I feel the Government ought to take into account when looking at primary industry. I come back to the wheat industry. It is not just a question of farm costs. I think the members of the Wheat Board have been extremely frustrated over the last year by the sheer waste and inefficiency that have been going on in some of the State Government operated grain handling authorities. In my State of Victoria the Grain Elevators Board is being used as a tax collector. That is costing all Victorian grain growers another $5m a year. But that is nothing compared with what has been happening in New South Wales. The headline in the Australian of 12 January 1985 was `The $100m scandal'. That referred to the Grain Handling Authority of New South Wales. If we look at some of the other newspaper reports we will see in a bit more detail what has been going on. The Sydney Morning Herald of 7 August- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The Chair has allowed a certain degree of latitude to all speakers. I realise that most people like to bring events in their own States into debates in the chamber, but I suggest that the honourable member has had enough latitude and should return to the matter before the chamber. Mr HAWKER —Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought I could go on to grain handling as the honourable member for Rankin was talking about soil conservation. The CHAIRMAN —Each of you has had a bit of latitude in different directions. Mr HAWKER —I will finish this point. As I have already said, the grain handling problems which are directly affecting the wheat growers and the Wheat Board have cost growers an awful lot of money in New South Wales. The New South Wales Minister, Mr Hallam, said: The direct cost of the strike action represents hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional interest and demurrage charges . . . The loss of Australian reputation in the international marketplace is, however, incalculable. I think those words sum up some of the real problems that the Wheat Board is facing. These are the sorts of problems which it will have to deal with now that the structure of the Board has been decided by this Government, and I hope it will be successful. The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir, said in his address that when we are returned to government, which I guess will not be too long now, the Liberal Party and the National Party will confer with the wheat industry on the form of a board that is most suitable for the industry. I think it is important to remind any wheat growers who happen to be listening that the Opposition parties are very mindful of the importance of the industry and that the Opposition is prepared to discuss the structure of the Wheat Board when it is returned to office and review its performance. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment and I certainly hope the new Wheat Board will prove to be a great success. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.54) —In rising to support the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1985 I am struck with the fact that it is a compromise. Instead of having simply four members with expertise on the Australian Wheat Board we are going to have four members with expertise, at least one of whom is also a wheat grower. Obviously a limitation has been put on the membership. It has been put on, I think, by people of limited intellect. That should be apparent to everyone. We simply have a compromise which is not going to get the best possible result. That is not really surprising when we consider where this Opposition has come from. The truth is that amongst the ranks of the Liberal and National parties these days there are very few real farmers. It is a coalition of hereditary wealth. The National Party in particular is a party of lawyers, accountants and assorted drongos. Very few of us- Mr Ian Cameron —Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. I ask that that statement be withdrawn. It is offensive to members of the National Party in particular. The CHAIRMAN —It is up to the Chair to decide whether the remark is unparliamentary or not. The remark was unfortunate but not unparliamentary. Mr CAMPBELL —On the contrary, I thought the honourable member for Maranoa fitted admirably into the last category. It is true that very few of the people who sit opposite know what it is like to be a farmer. Very few of them have actually experienced the trauma of drought. Very few of the present honourable members opposite have had the sand and dust in their eyes as well the flies. That is something that should be remembered. My mind goes back to the rural outlook conference in January when the Chairman of the much-vaunted Board got up and said, I thought in a most doddery fashion: `We have always sold the wheat crop in the past and, if the farmers go on producing wheat, I suppose we will sell it in the future'. That was an outlook which failed completely to come to grasp with the complexities that farmers face today and it contrasted very markedly with the expertise of the Australian Wool Corporation. This is something that should be brought home to all wheat farmers. By getting the expertise on the Board we are going to be able to do for wheat farmers things which they desperately need to have done. There is no doubt that, as the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrews) pointed out, the cost pressure on farmers is rising and the terms of trade have been moving against farmers in the wheat industry since 1974. That is not due to the specific action of any government; it is simply an effect of the world situation. But there are things that can be done to counter that. I suggest that if members of the Board have expertise in marketing, finance, transport, storage, research and industrial relations, which is an element which honourable members opposite never give any consideration to- Mr Ian Cameron —Stick to the Bill. Mr CAMPBELL —I am dealing pertinently with the Bill because I am telling those opposite, as they obviously do not know, the advantages that will come from having a Board which has more expertise. There are very big dollars to be saved by farmers by enhancing this expertise. This is one area where the cost pressure can be contained and where farmers can benefit by many hundreds of millions of dollars. I am sure that in the long run farmers will appreciate that more than they appreciate the barren, sterile ideology which honourable members opposite go on with. Other factors affecting farmers are not being addressed. We hear so much about cost pressure but we hear very little about market prices. Market prices are going to be down next year, despite the fact that we devalued the Australian dollar. That is an action which the Opposition now gives us credit for, but which it never had the nerve to take. We also benefited the farmers by providing for the introduction of foreign banks, a thing which the Opposition said for years it would do but never had the nerve to do. This will introduce more expertise into the rural areas. There will be more imaginative financial packages. Many farmers are facing a desperate situation. I say for the benefit of the honourable member for Wakefield that the fact is that it is immediately after a drought that the cost pressure is on farmers as that is when drought loans have to be repaid. No matter what the rate of interest, if the capital is being repaid in very large lump sums the cost to farmers is very hard to bear. The farmers of this country are facing mortgage sales. Those sales are never proposed by the banks, which are the friends of the Opposition; they are always proposed by the vendors or by the hire purchase companies. It should be recognised that behind every hire purchase company in this country stands a bank. We hear-and we have heard it from this side of the chamber, too-that the farmers in this country are efficient. It was true but it is not true today. While farmers may be efficient, if they are operating in very marginal country the effect of their efficiency is lost. It is interesting that last year for the first time in Australia a 10 tonne per hectare crop was grown. It was grown in Tasmania on land which was classified by our agricultural experts as marginal grazing land. The farmer said that he grew it entirely with British expertise; he used nothing else but expertise which he had gleaned from the British. He drained his land and grew that 10 tonne per hectare crop. That farmer is an efficient farmer who will survive in these years of high cost pressure. I think we will see wheat growing in the future moving into the wetter areas with the introduction of wheat varieties more suitable to high rainfall areas. This is an area that has been neglected in Australia, for very little work has been done in this country on productivity increases. That is a fact. That does not indicate efficiency in the industry. It may very well mean that we collectively, as a nation, have to look again at plant variety rights, because I believe the present system has failed us. We talk about the green revolution in Third World countries. That is not where the pressure has come from. The green revolution that has affected us has come from the dynamic increase in productivity in developed countries. Let us look at marketing. I have said in the House many times that it always amazes me that those opposite who support the free enterprise system, the great champions of free enterprise, simply have no idea how the market works. Their counterparts in the United States sought to gain a greater share of the world market by offering a 20 per cent discount on wheat. If 100,000 tonnes were bought, 20,000 tonnes would be given. They thought that this was sure to enhance their market share. It did not, of course, and predictably it would not, because people simply took. The purchasers simply said `This is a 20 per cent discount', and went into the market and extracted it from everyone else. This action in the United States, as much as anything, is going to force down the price of wheat next year; it stands as another monument to the sterility of those who so avidly support the free enterprise system. Another thing we need to look at here is the fact that farmers, despite the fact that they are very big producers of an export commodity, are a minority in the community. One of the great problems facing Australia today is that so much of its population lives in the cities. This problem is not recognised by many people. I have heard repeatedly in this place, and particularly in the toy parliaments that abound in the States, about the inefficiency of the transport system. One of the reasons that the transport system in this country is inefficient is that nobody lives in the country any longer. Freight tends to go one way. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Andrew) —Order! It behoves me to point out to the honourable member that, while considerable tolerance has been allowed by occupants of the chair in the debate, I would appreciate his returning to the amendments before the Committee. Mr CAMPBELL —Mr Deputy Chairman, I would be delighted to do that. I thought I ought to take the same liberties as everyone else so that you would not feel embarrassed. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —That tolerance has already been allowed. Mr CAMPBELL —Right. In conclusion, I would say that this is a compromise amendment. I am quite happy with it. I believe that it will enhance the operation of the Board, but I think that farmers have to look to themselves to make sure that this Board works efficiently. They have to cast off many of the shibboleths attached to the industry and approach these areas of marketing, transport, storage, research and industrial relations with a much more hard-nosed and pragmatic outlook. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.04) —In opening my speech I remind the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall), who unfortunately has left the chamber, that today the Government does not put any money into the wheat industry. The wheat growers of Australia finance their own industry totally, and the only taxpayers' funds that go into the industry are approximately 8 per cent of the research moneys spent. No other money is expended by the Government. In actual fact, all the Government is interested in is ripping funds out of wheat growers by way of fuel levies and so on. I remind the Committee that only six weeks ago 50,000 farmers stood outside this building in the biggest rally we have ever seen in Australia to breathe down the necks of this Government and to breathe down Bob Hawke's neck. He went out to address those people and not one of them gave him a clap or a cheer. Fifty thousand people booed him. It was not until those people were prepared to leave their farms and spend some money to get down here that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) was prepared to make any adjustment. When he sat in that chair on the last night of sitting last session he said that he was not going to back down on his arrangements with the Australian Wheat Board or his arrangements with the dairy industry. But after 50,000 farmers turned up on 1 July it is amazing what the blokes opposite would do to buy a few votes. The Minister has been prepared to compromise-thank goodness he has had some sense-and he has made some changes for the better. That is what the farmers of this country need. I remind the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) that I am a farmer, that I go home and plough my paddocks and that I know a little of what I am talking about. That will be more than you know about. Mr Campbell —You are also a drongo. Mr IAN CAMERON —I will debate that with you too, inside and outside this place. Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Andrew) —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will address his remarks through the Chair. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Chairman, as we know, growers had asked for a selection committee nominated by growers, and at long last the Minister for Primary Industry has given us that. We have a selection committee made up of an independent chairman appointed by the Minister, five wheat growers nominated by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation and two people from the National Farmers Federation. Those people comprise a selection committee which will select people to go on to the Australian Wheat Board. Most honourable members who have spoken have run through the composition of that Board. Six out of the 11 members will be growers. We have the majority on the Board. Why should we not have the majority when the Government does not put a cent towards it? Surely to goodness we ought to be responsible enough to be allowed to run our own industry. That is all we have ever asked for and that is what we are getting here today, thank goodness. Both the selection committee and the Australian Wheat Board will be grower controlled, and that is what the growers wanted. That is what the rural committee of the National Party has supported ever since this Bill was mooted. One of the major problems for the wheat industry in respect of the export of grain is the dissatisfaction of the Japanese Government which will not take one grain of wheat out of the corrupted New South Wales Labor-controlled outfit. Because of the inspectors wheat is going out of New South Wales so contaminated that the Japanese Government has told the New South Wales Government that it will not receive a grain of wheat from that State. There have been 11 cases of contamination. Snails and all sorts of things have been found in the grain from a Labor-controlled State. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will return to the amendments. Mr IAN CAMERON —Madam Chair, this is a most important point because this grain is being shipped through Queensland. Of course, the National Party in Queensland is prepared to stand up and tell the unions who is running the country and the wheat will be shipped out. I must say that the Wheat Board is concerned that the Federal Government might step in to control the inspection of the product, but I inform the Committee that the bulk grain handlers in Queensland are quite capable of doing their own inspecting. We heard a lot from the honourable member for Kalgoorlie about farm costs and so on. Of course, last night we saw a reduction in the excise on fuel. That should have happened long ago. Fuel excise is a tremendous indirect tax for the farmers of this country. In the last 12 months this red rabble Labor Government has taken $85m from the farmers of Australia. Last night it gave them back $21m. That leaves a net take of $64m in the last 12 months. If that is not increasing taxation, I do not know what is. Mr Campbell —It is also not true. Mr IAN CAMERON —It is true. Farmers use 1,300 megalitres of diesel, 16 per cent of total use in Australia, and they use 5 per cent of the petrol used in Australia. If the honourable member for Kalgoorlie does his figuring, and we might be drongos but I regard him as a buffoon-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will resume his seat. I point out to honourable members speaking to these amendments that they are not making speeches at the second reading stage. They made those when the Bill came before the House. These are fairly rigid amendments. That does not leave honourable members much room to manoeuvre. The Chair has been fairly tolerant in letting various honourable members wander around the subject. The tolerance is now becoming a bit strained. I suggest that we get back to the amendments. Mr IAN CAMERON —Madam Chair, we had a Budget last night which had a lot to do with farmers. We have yet to get the worst because in September we are going to get a capital gains tax. Every farmer in Australia is totally opposed to that. Outside this place 50,000 farmers screamed their heads off against a capital tax. We are totally opposed to it. We need more money for research. Of its total outlays the Government is spending only 8 per cent on research for the industry. Australia also needs exports, because our balance of payments position is a disaster, and those exports include buffalo meat as well as wheat. As to Mudginberri, the Commission has ruled that the unions must not be allowed to get away with what is going on there. Farmers are suffering. The real increase in taxation last night was 8 per cent for farmers, and that increase is over and above other costs such as insurance, fuel, and so on. The real interest rate is as high as it has ever been. Farmers are now being asked to pay interest of 18 per cent and 20 per cent. The real interest rate in this country is 10 per cent to 12 per cent. It has never ever been as high as this. I support the Bill, and my Party supports the Bill. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(11.11) —It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1985. This amending legislation, as you have pointed out, Madam Chair, concentrates on the wheat industry, so I propose to keep my remarks broadly in line with the legislation, as you have suggested. Before I touch on the legislation, however, I should like to make a few points about the importance of the wheat industry to the Australian economy. It has been pointed out by previous speakers that the wheat industry is one of Australia's largest export industries. My recollection is that exports of about $2.7 billion are gained by our sales of wheat in the international market. It is an industry which accounts for 20 per cent of our exports and it makes a major contribution to our export earnings. As has been pointed out in many reports on the wheat industry, it is one of our most efficient and most productive industries. All Australians can be proud of the productivity gains made by the industry. The wheat industry is very important in my local area. I have large grain-growing and wheat-growing areas surrounding my electorate of Bendigo, and within my electorate St Arnaud, Donald and Charlton are major wheat-growing areas within the Victorian economy. Mr Peter Fisher —Good areas, too. Mr BRUMBY —As the honourable member for Mallee points out, they are good areas. I was delighted to pick up two of those areas in the redistribution of electoral boundaries that occurred last year. I have been working very closely with the citizens and farmers of those areas since my re-election last December. I have mentioned that the wheat industry is one of Australia's most efficient industries, and that brings me to the specific point of this legislation. Its aim is to ensure that the industry becomes even more efficient, in the sense that the returns for the industry as a whole are maximised, from the point at which grain is sown to the point at which it is sold overseas. This particular aspect of the legislation deals with the establishment of the Australian Wheat Board and the representatives who will sit on it. As honourable members are aware, this amending legislation has come back from the Senate because amendments were made to it by the Senate. Since the Bill was considered by the Senate, the Government has had further discussions with the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation in an attempt to resolve the main issue, that is, the extent of the grower majority on the Board. Extensive consultations have taken place, and I think we have resolved that issue satisfactorily. The 11-member Board will now include one grower who also satisfies the criteria for selection as one of four specialist members, in addition to the other five grower members and the grower chairperson. Except for the chairperson, all growers will be selected by the Australian Wheat Industry Selection Committee, which also has on it a majority of growers. The agreement which has culminated in the amendments before the House has the support of the Wheatgrowers Federation, and, importantly, it also meets the Government's requirements that the Wheat Board structure allows for the appointment of members with specialist skills which are necessary to respond most effectively to the present-day challenges facing the Wheat Board. There are many challenges indeed. the financial world has become exceedingly complex. It is for that reason that the Government has moved to provide more expertise in this area, so that the Board itself is best suited and best arranged to maximise the possible returns for Australian wheat growers. As previous speakers have said, an element of compromise is entailed in this amendment. On the one hand, the Government is satisfying its objective of providing a greater degree of expertise in the new structure of the Wheat Board; on the other hand, the Government is satisfying the interests of wheat growers who have been concerned about the extent of the grower majority on the Board. From my discussions with local pastoral councils and grain councils of the Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association, and through recent visits by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to my electorate, when we had discussions with many farmers, I know that this issue has been one of concern. I am now sure that wheat growers can be satisfied that a satisfactory resolution has been found by the Government in the spirit of proper co-operation and consensus for which this Government has become renowned in most of its activities. I have emphasised that through this legislation and through all of our policies affecting primary industry, it is the Government's intention to provide a greater degree of specialist skill so that we can maximise the returns available throughout an industry and, particularly, the returns available to our farmers. As I think all honourable members would know, Australia's primary industries, particularly the wheat industry, have been experiencing and will continue for some time to experience difficult circumstances in terms of their rate of profitability. World stocks of wheat are again increasing. This year the European Economic Community will be subsidising wheat production by some $5 billion a year. The United States of America is subsidising wheat production by some $2 billion per annum. In an international setting it will be extremely difficult for Australian farmers, no matter how efficient they are, to compete. We simply cannot match the degree of subsidy which large industrialised countries with much larger industrial and population bases, such as the countries of the EEC and the United States of America, can provide for their farmers. So it is crucial that our farmers remain efficient and that the boards we establish to market their products have the best members available and are specialist and skilled enough to capitalise on and to maximise the benefits that exist overseas in marketing and financial opportunities. It has been mentioned that over recent years the terms of trade have moved against Australian wheat growers to the tune of 20 per cent. That simple statistic simply reinforces the need for the establishment of a new Board such as is proposed in this legislation, so that we can improve our efficiency. That is one side of it; the other side, touched on by a number of speakers, is that whilst we can maximise our marketing skills and financial skills through the Wheat Board for the sale of wheat overseas, we must also ensure that every possible incentive is given to our wheat growers to reduce the rate of increase of their farm costs and to ensure that they are given every opportunity to become even more efficient. In the context of those remarks and in the context of the remarks of some Opposition speakers, I want to mention briefly two matters which have been raised by many speakers in this debate. They relate to the cost aspect of producing wheat in Australia. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) concluded by saying that perhaps two things were paramount to our wheat farmers. The first was that there was a greater need to reduce cost pressures on wheat farmers; the second was that the Government should be doing away with the system of centralised wage fixing. These matters relate indirectly to the establishment of the Australian Wheat Board. It does stick in my craw a little to hear Opposition members in this House attack this Government for its alleged failure to take action on farm costs, because no government in the last 15 years has a better record of reducing farm costs than this Government. Mr Peter Fisher —Oh, John! Mr BRUMBY —The simple fact is that under the previous Government-of which the honourable member for Mallee, who now interjects, was a member-the average rate of increase in farm costs exceeded 12 per cent per annum. For each of the eight years of the Fraser Government the average increase exceeded 12 per cent. There is not one member of the National Party of Australia-the Party that purports to have the interests of primary producers at heart, though of course it does not; that is a fraud-or one member of the Liberal Party of Australia who can deny that figure. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(11.21) —I take up this debate where the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) left off, by saying that his Government has abolished income equalisation deposits and tax averaging provisions for farmers, and that has resulted in a direct add-on cost to wheat growers in particular. It has taken a range of lowest common denominator political measures as part of its so-called consensus approach and that has done nothing but add to the costs of wheat growers, especially in isolated areas where the fuel component has a much greater effect than it does for people who use fuel in Sydney and Melbourne. The honourable member for Bendigo must come to see these things in proper and true perspective by examining more fairly the record not only of this Government of lowest common denominator politics but also of the previous coalition Government. I support the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill with the proposed amendment. I draw attention particularly to the commencement of the Senate's message, which says: Having regard to the fact that the Australian Wheat Board is an entirely self-funded body that is wholly and solely responsible for the disposal of its product . . . That highlights the fact that the Australian Wheat Board is about its own business. The Wheat Board is self-funding and, following the most recent amendments to the Board of just a few years ago, it has even lost certain Reserve Bank of Australia facilities associated with financing the crop. I contrast that with the situation in Western Australia. That State's Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd organisation under the chairmanship of Mick Gayfer has a tremendous record in shifting the Western Australian crop. I highlight CBH because it is also an efficient, self-funding organisation. How many government representatives are on the Board of Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd? Nil; none whatsoever. That should be considered by people such as the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), who weighed into this debate with an insulting attack on the efficiency of Australian farmers, and it ought to be considered by the other Labor members who have reflected on the Australian Wheat Board and its marketing assessments. I know that the likes of Hendy Cowan, Monty House, Crawford Nalder and others will be sheeting home in Western Australia the comments of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie as they approach the next election in that State. The Bill before the House is central to the structure of the Australian Wheat Board in these crisis times for the wheat industry. All honourable members have made reference in this debate to the role of the European Economic Community. It is right that members on both sides should mention the EEC, because the world is awash with grain. I want to highlight three key factors in relation to the EEC. First, in July-at last-the EEC produced a Green Paper on the common agricultural policy, and for the first time it used dialogue which injected market reality into the operation of the CAP. It is to be hoped that it moves further down that path. Secondly, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Economics is to launch a seminar in Europe later this year to highlight the cost of the common agricultural policy to European consumers and governments. That is also a step in the right direction. Thirdly, seven of the EEC's commissioners at the moment-including Andriesson, the agricultural commissioner who I understand will be visiting Canberra in the week commencing 9 September-are former Finance Ministers. We know how tough and cranky former Finance Ministers are in respect of subsidies and it is to be hoped that having seven former Finance Ministers in the EEC might lead to some restructuring of the common agricultural policy along fundamental lines. That will help the Australian wheat industry and, in turn, it will help the vital work carried out by the Australian Wheat Board. It will now be able to continue to carry out that work following the passage of this Bill through the House of Representatives and the Senate. This legislation finally provides for the Board's restructuring along proper lines. It is only because of National Party of Australia senators and other senators constituting a majority in the Australian Senate that this victory has been achieved and the Federal Government has changed its mind on the important matter of the composition of the Australian Wheat Board. I support the Bill. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(11.26) —I also support the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill with the proposed amendment, but I must say I am not too happy with this outcome. It is not a satisfactory result. We sought in this House to implement in the legislation Australian Wheatgrowers Federation policy, which of course demanded that two growers from each State, elected by the growers, be on the Australian Wheat Board. It is a formula that over the years has proved to be highly satisfactory. The Board is one of the most successful wheat marketing authorities in the world. When I was in America some months ago the American wheat growers looked at the Australian wheat marketing situation with envy, particularly at the way it produced equity between growers no matter what their geographical position may be. Such a situation will not be retained under this Bill. We tried to amend the original legislation by suggesting that the 11 members proposed for the Wheat Board be reduced to 10 and that growers be given a majority. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), to his credit, has achieved that aim in a different manner, by ensuring that one of the four specialist members on the 10-member Board will be a grower. One of the serious problems still facing the Australian Wheat Board is the appointment of executive staff. There is no reason why such a board should not be able to appoint experienced people, from any walk of life, with the talents it requires. The Board is restricted in that it still has to appoint under Public Service restraints. Therefore, the Government's response to the request of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation is still only a muffled one. I am disturbed that in almost every piece of rural legislation introduced into this House over past months three major things seem to be happening. The first is that the Government is attempting to take control of rural marketing structures. In some cases it has been successful; in others it has not. The second problem is that the Government is trying to remove from government itself and from the taxpayer in general any risk in relation to marketing products. The impact upon the industry of underwriting schemes is being reduced, as is the safety net they provide for our agricultural industry. The third thing that all agricultural legislation under this Minister is trying to do is bring about a cheap food policy. This has occurred in almost every area: In dairying, where the dairy farmers cannot get a satisfactory price for their product; in dried fruit, where the Government is trying to reduce the price of dried fruit on the domestic market; and in wheat, where the Minister in his earlier speech said he hoped to reduce the price of bread on the domestic market, despite the fact that our domestic costs are increasing at an enormous rate. These are the three policies that the Government is attempting to impose on rural industry in this country. I am very disturbed about that. Why should an industry that is self-funded lose control of its own affairs when it has performed so admirably in the past? I believe also that the Government is trying to suggest to the Australian wheat industry that the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation should be able to perform the same role as the expanded Australian Wheat Board did in the past. I think this is entirely wrong. The Australian Wheatgrowers Federation is the agropolitical arm of the wheat industry, whereas the Australian Wheat Board, which is quite separate, should be the marketing arm. This valuable industry is bringing in something like $3 billion annually to the Australian economy. I am very concerned that the Government is attempting to make changes that will have a dramatic effect on the marketing of our products. As my electorate of Mallee has produced all the Wheat Board members from Victoria over many years, I would like to pay tribute to four people in particular in relation to the Wheat Board. I mention firstly Mr Jim Nuske of Katyil who, for many years, has been the outstanding member of the Australian Wheat Board. He has been responsible for so many of the dramatic changes and initiatives that have taken place. I mention secondly the late Miles Bourke of Donald, who was also a very valuable member of the Wheat Board for a number of years. Mr Vin Delahunty of Murtoa and Mr Barry Bishop of Waitchie are the present Victorian members of the Australian Wheat Board, although this will change as a result of the change in the structure of the Board. All those people were from the Mallee electorate-the electorate that produces up to 60 per cent of Victoria's grain harvest. I wish to refer briefly to some of the comments made by my colleague the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby). He referred to past years. I remind him that farm costs have increased by 44 per cent in the last two years, whereas the average prices that have been received by primary producers right across Australia have risen by only 12 per cent. I remind him that during the 1970s average annual farm incomes were in the vicinity of $25,000, whereas the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has calculated that this year average annual farm incomes in Australia will be as low as $6,000. When we have the impact of these figures and have the enormous domestic regulations and costs they have to bear we can notice the vast difference in the rural situation. This is the reason why 40,000 rural people marched in the streets of Melbourne and 40,000 rural people protested outside Parliament House some weeks ago. The major problem that the wheat industry faces is fuel prices. It is pathetic for the Government to say that it did anything last night in the Budget for fuel prices. All it did last night in the Budget in relation to fuel was to restore the exemption for the use of diesel fuel off-road-something that it imposed. We had in place an exemption for the use of diesel fuel off-road for years prior to Labor coming to office. All this Government has done is restore that exemption. In fact, this Government has not even restored it because indexation on fuel still applies every six months and this impacts on rural and country people, who are major users of petroleum and diesel fuel on-road. This Government has made much of the fact that it has removed the tariff on headers. It should remember that it imposed that $14m tariff. The CHAIRMAN —I ask the honourable member to return to the amendment before the chamber. The Bill is not before the chamber; just the amendment. Mr PETER FISHER —Madam Chair, these things were mentioned by the honourable member for Bendigo. The CHAIRMAN —I realise that. I have given the honourable member a fair go in replying to quite a few of the extraneous matters that were brought up. I suggest that he use the rest of his time on speaking to the Bill. Mr PETER FISHER —Madam Chair, in deference to you, I refer finally to the enormous burdens that are being created in the wheat industry as a result of the problems that exist in the Grain Handling Authority of New South Wales. Two hundred and seventy million dollars has been lost because of strikes. Today the Japanese are refusing to buy wheat from New South Wales because of the unreliability of shipping. They have demanded that the high quality wheat, the hard wheat, be shipped only from Queensland as there is some reliability in the industrial situation in that State. I conclude simply by congratulating the new Chairman of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, Ron McLeod, for the strength he has shown in his negotiations with the Government. It is a far cry from the position last year when we were faced with the situation where the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) resorted to blackmail and said that he would not pay the growers if the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation did not agree with him and where he tried to cajole and seduce the leadership at that time into accepting what was not the best outcome for the wheat industry. It is an acceptable outcome but it is not the best. If problems develop in the wheat industry, as they probably will over the next few months because of the world market situation, I am very concerned that we will not be placed as well as we should be to meet those problems and to ensure that the Australian wheat industry remains one of our major primary industries. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(11.36) —in reply-I thank those members of the Government and the Opposition who participated in the debate. Whilst it was a wide-ranging discussion, in many ways it was an inconsistent type of discussion, particularly from members of the Opposition. Last evening the Treasurer (Mr Keating) made it very clear that the Government is concerned about the difficulties being faced by the rural sector and is determined to assist the rural sector in meeting the problems that it is facing in competing in a market that is heavily subsidised by governments abroad. That being said, we do rural Australia no service by looking for the quick fixes and the easy ways out of the National Party of Australia of old, of buying people off and of leading people to believe that they can stay on the land and that they can always do the things they used to do in the way they used to do them. We are not in that business. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is not in that business. The Minister for Primary Industry has been concerned about the development of a sound economic and marketing base for rural Australia so that not only are our products produced efficiently but also we are taking maximum advantage of the opportunities that are available in the markets abroad. We all recognise that the European Economic Community is making inroads into traditional markets for our rural products. The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia and the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), referred to problems with the movement of grain. A number of speakers from the other side of the chamber also made some mention of these problems, including the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher). The problems with the movement of grain are not new. In fact, they hark back to the inclusion in the Constitution of the Inter-State Commission. Obviously at that time the founders of the Constitution had in mind the problems of grain movement between States, freight rates and services. So it goes back that far. If one looks at the amendment before the chamber one will see a reference to these problems. The amendment states: . . . 4 other members,-- referring to members of the Board- each of whom has had extensive experience at a high level in finance, marketing or grain movement logistics and at least one of whom is a wheat grower . . . The concern expressed by the Deputy Leader of the National Party and by others about those problems is meant to be addressed-- Mr Peter Fisher —But the Wheat Board does not do it; it is the Grain Handling Authority. Mr PETER MORRIS —I thought the honourable member would assume that I was aware of that. Mr Peter Fisher —I am reminding you. Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member. The problems in that area are problems that need to be addressed by governments. We certainly need on the Board people with that kind of expertise. What the Minister wants from the Board is the best possible performance in the interests of rural Australia. In the area of finance, the obtaining of finance and the use of finance, we need people with competence and experience. This situation applies similarly to marketing and, as I said, grain movement. Some of the discussion from members of the Opposition has centred upon fuel prices. I find those comments the most hypocritical of all. Never let the farmers of this country ever forget that the founder of the import parity pricing policy was the former right honourable member for Richmond, the then Leader of the National Party. Members of the National Party should never come into this chamber and belabour us with the results of their doings. The National Party Leader trumpeted around Australia for years that the price of fuel was too low. He fathered that policy. Honourable members opposite have to carry it. This country is stuck with it. In seven disastrous years the previous Government managed to treble the price of fuel. Yet honourable members opposite have the temerity to raise these matters in this debate, having been allowed great latitude by Madam Chair. They are of their own doing. It is their own child. They should look after it. This Government recognises the problems that we have there. Last night's decision to extend the full rebate on diesel excise to primary producers recognises that problem. But it goes much deeper than that; it goes to the strength and planning of the economy, the development of growth and the maximisation of marketing effort if we are going to give rural Australia the kind of growth, certainty and security that it is entitled to and that Minister Kerin wants to see developed. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) referred to the national debt. This is another one of the lines now being hawked around by the National Party. Sixty-five per cent of the national debt is in the private sector. The growth in national debt has not been in the public sector, it has been in the private sector, much of it to do with company takeovers and corporate expansion, not to do with the expansion of productive capacity. Opposition members should get that one right. If they are going to peddle that line they should make sure their facts are right. Mr Connolly —What about the Whitlam debts that have to be rescheduled now? Mr PETER MORRIS —Look at the explosion, my friend, in Government debt when the Opposition came into office in 1976-77. Look at the explosion in these years straight after 1975. But suffice to say the growth in national debt has been in the private sector, not in the public sector. As Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation I find it rather galling to sit and listen to debates-there would be hardly a member of the National Party who has not written to me at some time asking for major projects and major works that involved expansions in public expenditure-in which honourable members say: `But public expenditure is too high'. I describe the National Party members as political schizoids. In the morning they want less expenditure, but after 12 noon they want more expenditure. Honourable members opposite should make up their minds on this matter. They cannot have it both ways. If they are going to criticise public expenditure they ought to be setting an example by not making representations for more airports, roads and bridges; they should do one thing or the other. So there is no substance to that comment. The real issues are in the quality of representation on the Board itself and the expertise and competence of the people who are represented. That was originally embraced in the Bill put forward by Minister Kerin. The Board would comprise members with appropriate specialist skills and expertise in finance, marketing and movement logistics. Whilst I have listened to criticism of Minister Kerin, some of it not very complimentary, I just want to say that he is recognised across this country as the most competent primary industry Minister. If that hurts Opposition members, they should remember that he is certainly recognised as the most popular. It is his determination to develop a sounder economic and market base for rural Australia. This legislation is part of his plan. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(11.45) —The coalition will be supporting the Building Industry Bill 1985 and will be assisting the Government in its expedition through this House and the other place. We do so despite the extremely limited time given to us by the Government to scrutinise this Bill. We were led to understand that the office of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) would deliver a copy to us on Monday morning but we did not get a copy until just over 24 hours ago. In the interim we had to rely on a copy of the explanatory memorandum which is hardly a substitute for the Bill itself. The Minister is not here, but I must say that this is not his style and I do not lay the blame at his feet. We all know why. Despite the months-in fact, the years-of outrageous Builders Labourers Federation behaviour on building sites around Australia, the left wing of the Australian Labor Party staged a desperate last ditch stand to stop this Bill coming through even their own party forums. Caucus went to a vote and Australia should know that this Bill appears in this House with the barest of Caucus margins. The situation is even worse in Victoria. In that State the stronghold of the BLF is also the stronghold of the Socialist Left. We see moves within the Labor Party in Victoria to, of all things, establish an inquiry into the conviction of Mr Norm Gallagher and to have the State Government repeal its own legislation providing for the deregistration of the BLF. Make no mistake about it; large sections of the Labor Party are being dragged to the barrier on this question of BLF deregistration by Labor governments no longer able to withstand the weight of public and industry pressure to do something about this union. Let this Federal Government know that we, in the Opposition, will be watching its action every step of the way. In the time allotted to me I would like, firstly, to consider the history of deregistration proceedings against the BLF during the 1980s. On 17 February 1981 Andrew Peacock, in his capacity then as Minister for Industrial Relations in the Fraser Government, sought and gained Federal Cabinet approval to commence deregistration proceedings against the BLF. On 26 September of that year the deregistration proceedings initiated by Andrew Peacock were commenced. On 8 November 1982 a Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia started hearing the joint application of the Federal Government and the National Construction Industry Council for the deregistration of the BLF. Shortly afterwards the Hawke Government was elected to office. Its first and current Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations applied to the Federal Court for an adjournment of proceedings, which was granted on 21 March 1983. Mr Deputy Speaker, you, honourable members and in fact the Australian community should note how high a priority de-activating the deregistration proceedings was for the Hawke Government, with the adjournment being obtained, when the Government had only been in office for just over a fortnight. Two and a half years later with the appearance of this Bill in this place we can hardly resist the opportunity to say: `We told you so'. A futile series of efforts to bring Hawke-style consensus to bear in the building industry followed and it was a crashing failure. In April 1983 the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations established the national building and construction industry conference. He did this ostensibly to pursue `solutions' to the industrial relations problems of the building industry-solutions which did not include the deregistration of the BLF. On 12 December 1983 the Minister announced the Government's withdrawal from the deregistration proceedings having supposedly obtained undertakings of good behaviour from the BLF which were underwritten by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. However, the employers did not withdraw from the case at this time, which undermines the Minister's assertion that they, the employers, were reluctant parties to the deregistration proceedings dragged in at the behest of the Fraser Government. From the time that the Federal Government withdrew from the deregistration proceedings there was virtually ceaseless BLF disruption in the building industry. The Minister has accurately and capably outlined the BLF's specific crimes of industrial delinquency in his second reading speech on this Bill which we heard in this House yesterday. It was tough going for the employers left in the deregistration proceedings on their own. They finally withdrew from the case in the middle of 1984. They did so in exchange for undertakings from the Federal Government that it would take effective action against the BLF if that union failed to comply with the building industry peace agreement, finally signed by the BLF a few months after the cessation of the deregistration proceedings. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations both gave their personal guarantees that the building industry peace agreement would be observed by the BLF. Subsequent events proved how worthless the imprimatur of those gentlemen was in regard to this industrial relations agreement. I hope that when next employers hear of a special relationship this Government has with the trade union movement and when they hear this Government say `Trust us' in respect of industrial relations agreements, they will remember this exercise with the BLF. The Minister alludes to the BLF's long list of sins: The limitations, the bans, the spoiled concrete pours, the walk-offs, the homers, the thuggery, the violence and the intimidation. There can be no doubt that all of this was and is true. The Minister makes the point in passing that often it has been other workers, as much as employers, who have suffered at the hands of the BLF. I can confirm how true this has been. In my wanderings around construction sites across Australia there has been no end of BLF members who plead with someone to take action against this union. As individual men with wives and family responsibilities they have found it beyond their wit and capacity to stand out against the thuggery of the BLF elite and leadership. It is difficult to find words to express the downright outrageous breaches of common human decency and fairness the BLF has prepetrated and will continue to prepetrate while it survives. Right here in the city of Canberra there has been a terrible instance of just such an injustice. A skilled and experienced tradesman has had his career effectively terminated because of a BLF black ban which made him too hot to handle for the construction companies around town. His sin was to call for a secret ballot about strike action on site. However, despite being guilty of nothing more than honesty and application to his job, the BLF ban has led virtually to complete economic and emotional ruin for this man. An industrial relations system which tolerates such an injustice is truly deficient and must, as a matter of urgency, be changed. The Minister says, in his second reading speech: The time has passed for yet another `last chance'. We agree that the time has passed for yet another last chance. More accuractely, we believe that point had been reached by early 1981, when the previous coalition Government decided to begin deregistration proceedings. As I stated in opening my remarks, we will support the passage of the Bill. However, the question still remains: Why did the present Federal Government terminate the deregistration proceedings in the first place? Was it terminal industrial relations naivety? Perhaps. Was it the belief that the mighty word of the messiah would turn the BLF bad boys into good guys? There is probably something in that suggestion. I do not wish to explore further possible explanations for the Government's stupidity in terminating the deregistration proceedings in the first place. I simply wish to point out that the Government was wrong, that the BLF did over the Government, and that the BLF made the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relation look foolish in relation to the building industry peace agreement. This Bill is a much belated attempt by the Government to restore its credibility on the BLF question. As an attempt to do so, it is not without flaws. It is not our intention to move amendments to the Bill. However, I wish to make some comments on its clauses. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is not in the chamber, and I understand and accept without hearing a reason that there are probably good reasons for that being so. I would be grateful if his adviser could note the eight points we make and, at the conclusion of the debate, they may be addressed. I turn first to clause 4 of the Bill, which deals with an application to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for a declaration in relation to the BLF, or `the Federation' as it is termed in the Bill. The application is to be made by the Minister. I note this statement at the conclusion of the Minister's second reading speech: As soon as the legislation is passed, I will be applying to the Commission for the declaration which is required under the Bill before any action can be taken against the BLF. I refer to section 143 (1) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, which states: Any organisation or person interested, the Minister, the Bureau or the Registrar, may apply to the Court for an order directing the cancellation of the registration of an organisation . . . Various grounds for doing so are then set out. Section 106 (2) of the Act states: The last preceding sub-section shall not be construed as limiting the power of the Court to grant leave to a person or organisation . . . I cite those sections of the Act only to contrast the Act with the situation under this Bill whereby only the Minister is able to make application to the Commission to make a declaration in respect of the Federation. We support this Bill. We accept what the Minister has to say about his intentions in regard to its passing. However, we would be much happier if the power to apply to the Commission to make a declaration were given to others, in the way that a similar power is given in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. However, while making that point we look forward to the Minister acting speedily and promptly next week. Clause 4 also details the criteria by which the Commission will determine whether grounds exist for its making a declaration in respect of the Federation. Clause 4 (4) defines prescribed persons. I ask: Why is it limited to executive members of the Federation or members performing executive or representative-type work? The coalition would be much happier if this clause were widened to mirror the grounds one finds in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and I refer specifically to section 143 (1) (h). Running through the grounds for an order directing the cancellation of the registration of an organisation, it states: the conduct of the organisation (either in respect of its continued breach or non-observance of an award or its continued failure to ensure that its members comply withy and observe an award or in any other respect), or the conduct of a substantial number of the members of the organisation . . . We would have been happier to have in this Bill a clause which said something like: `A substantial number of the members of the Federation have, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, engaged in industrial action that prevented or hindered the achievement of an object of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.' I would be grateful to hear the Minister's comments on that suggestion. Clause 4 (3) deals with the need to prove that the Federation is engaged in certain conduct. I would be grateful if, in the Minister's summing up of this debate, he would state how this proof is to be obtained. Clause 4 (5) deals with the evidence that can be considered. I ask: Is the Minister satisfied that the Bill, as written, covers all the evidence that may be available? Clause 5 ofthe Bill deals with the orders by the Minister in relation to the Federation should a declaration be made by the Commission. It uses the word `may'-the Minister may do something and he may do something else. the word `may' is used throughout the Bill. We ask the Minister why he will not replace that word with the word `shall'. Given the record of the BLF, given the litany of strife and industrial disruption that the union has engaged in, given its record and given the Minister's recognition that the time has passed for one more chance, why will he not replace that word with the word `shall' and require that action be taken should the Commission make a declaration? We are also concerned about the partial geographic, as I term it, deregistration of the BLF. We share the publicly stated view of the Master Builders Federation of Australia Inc. that the BLF should be federally deregistered nationwide. That would leave open the possibility for State branches of the union, if they are so deserving, to obtain State registration if they do not already have it. In regard to clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill, which basically deal with the carving up of the BLF body, we make the point that the Minister would be well advised to consult and deal not just with employee representatives and organisations but also with the wider building industry, which would undoubtedly have some constructive suggestions to make on the carving up of the BLF body, as it were. In dealing with the specifics, I would like the Minister to answer this question. If all proceeds as he wishes it to proceed, how long will it take before the BLF is effectively deregistered? The Opposition has raised these questions in lieu of moving amendments because we have given our commitment to facilitating the speedy passage of this legislation through the House. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the specific points that I have raised. Having said that, I add that the fundamental point that the coalition wishes to make about this Bill, euphemistically titled the `Building Industry Bill', is that it deals only with the immediate problem of the BLF; it does not address issues within the industrial relations system which give rise to such problems, as are manifested in the actions of the BLF, and which allow unions such as the BLF to rampage through the system unchecked and without correction. Even if this Bill is passed quickly through both Houses and even if it quickly brings about the deregistration of the BLF, it will not make up for the millions of dollars that have been lost and for the hundreds of man-hours that have been lost on building sites around the country. It will not make up for nearly four years of time wasted since deregistration proceedings were first started against the BLF, and it will not guarantee that this sort of union activity will not happen again within the building industry. It is not enough for the Minister and the Government simply to proceed to deregister the BLF. Even if this Bill effectively deregisters that union, nothing will have been done to prevent another union from pursuing the same very successful tactics of industrial brinksmanship. We could have another union, possibly headed by the same sorts of individuals as those who head the BLF today. We may be able to legislate the BLF out of existence, but what is to stop a BLF clone again in the building industry or in any other industry from acting in a similar way in the future? The short answer is: Nothing. This is the fatal flaw underpinning the thinking behind this Bill and in the report of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. Deregistration as a sanction against unlawful and unreasonable union action can achieve only so much. What the coalition is concentrating on, and we urge the Government to do likewise, is the contemplation of how to prevent the development ever again of such an industrial relations monster. We believe firmly and resolutely that the establishment of accountability between parties to industrial agreements-the minimum requirement of responsible behaviour before and under the law-is necessary for this aim to be achieved. While, for obvious reasons, the Government may not be interested in the accountability question, given its union power base, we in the coalition are working on it, and in the coming months we look forward to announcing details relating to our plans for achieving that aim when we are next in government. Thank God that we are doing so, for right now the Hawke Government is possibly in the process of helping to create a new BLF. I refer to the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. As my colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) and I pointed out yesterday in a debate on a matter of public importance, the Government is providing tacit support for the AMIEU's vicious campaign against the owner of and employees at the Mudginberri abattoir. In principle there is no difference between the tactics being employed by the AMIEU at Mudginberri and the central tactic consistently used by the BLF. What is that tactic? It involves upping the ante for as long as it takes until employers are pushed to the brink in order to break their resolve. In the absence of accountability and of any legal agreement requiring minimum, mutual and responsible behaviour, what choice do employers have under the present system but to give in to union demands in order to stave off bankruptcy? Sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act are relevant sections that this Government wishes to remove from the statute books. The BLF, with clinical skill and ruthlessness throughout its history, targeted the balance books of construction and building companies around Australia, relying on the fact that, for economic reasons, under the present industrial relations system those companies could not afford to stand and fight. That is exactly the strategy of the AMIEU at Mudginberri. Jay Pendarvis is on the verge of bankruptcy-- Mr Hand —Good. Mr SHACK —We have had that confirmed now by a member of the Government. Jay Pendarvis is on the verge of bankruptcy and only the awarding of full damages in compensation for the havoc that the AMIEU has wreaked on his business will save him from financial ruin. If the Hawke Government is so shortsighted that it cannnot see the parallel, there is no hope for us. Can it not see that the actions of the BLF are a symptom of a much deeper underlying malaise in Australia's industrial relations system? The process of reform and of achieving truly fundamental improvements in the industrial relations system is being slowed down immeasur- ably by this Government's refusal to recognise and act upon this fact. It has taken a small private employer in the back-blocks of the Northern Territory to say: `Enough is enough. On behalf of my company and my employees, I am going to stand and fight'. His struggle for justice, not just for him but also for his employees, who have most to lose if the union wins, is made that much harder by this Government's refusal to give even moral support to those who have right on their side in this dispute and who are acting lawfully and in compliance with Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission rulings. Whether we are dealing with the BLF or the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, deregistration is not the answer, and the Hancock Committee got it wrong. The restor- ation of accountability under the law is the answer, and we intend, when next in government, to restore that accountability. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(12.10) —Before addressing myself specifically to the Building Industry Bill before the House, let me say that this Government does not need any advice on the conduct of industrial relations from those honourable members on the other side of this House, who by their ineptitude brought about a situation of anarchy in industrial relations at the beginning of the 1980s and, if they were to have the opportunity, which they will not have, would reproduce exactly the same situation by the nonsense that they are talking about in industrial relations. They would scrap entirely the system of centralised wage fixation. They talk about Mudginberri-they would have a situation where the strength of trade unions and employers would be pitted consistently against one another around this country. That is the policy which brought chaos in 1981 and 1982. They have learnt nothing. They would inflict it upon Australia again. Neither this country nor this Government wants any advice from this collection of incompetents in the area of industrial relations. The Bill now before the House is a unique and, I believe, especially important piece of legislation. It stems directly from the Government's conviction that no government can tolerate or in any way acquiesce in the forms of unionism perpetrated by unions such as the Builders Labourers Federation. As I said when foreshadowing this legislation last week, the BLF's complete disdain for the law, and frequent resort to practices of thuggery and physical coercion have no place in our society. The BLF has forfeited any claim it otherwise might have had, either on the community at large or on the trade union movement. The Government believes that over many years the BLF has demonstrated nothing but contempt for the system and values of Australian society. There should now be no basis upon which it can hope to elicit any measure of protection or support from our society. I know of no sense in which the trade union movement can regard the industrial thuggery practised by the BLF with anything but profound disquiet. The BLF consistently now has put itself out of line with the mainstream of what legitimate trade unionism is about. It is for this reason that the Government expects that the legislation now proposed to this House will get, and indeed already has, the necessary level of support from the trade union movement. The Government, for its part, is determined to create a new industrial environment in the building industry; an environment of greater peace and substantially improved industrial relations, with benefits for both workers and employers, and for the economy as a whole. The Government has not begun lightly this legislative initiative against the BLF. To propose, as we now do, measures which could result in the cancellation of the registration of the Builders Labourers Federation under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, or the effective equivalent of such deregistration in parts of Australia, is a major step, not least for a Labor Government. But there comes a point at which government has to say `Enough', and we have done that. We and others involved with the industry have shown indeed considerable patience in the face of repeated failure by the BLF to adhere to industrial agreements. The actions of the BLF have posed a continuous threat to the stability of the building industry, the employment of other building workers and the prices and incomes accord. Many aspects of the BLF approach are thoroughly reprehensible by the standards of contemporary society. It uses the strike weapon and other industrial tactics, such as selective bans and limitations, with the objective of `the most harm to the boss, the least harm to themselves'. That was a quote from Steve Black, New South Wales Secretary of the BLF, in 1979. Such action frequently is accompanied by the use of violence, damage to property, interruption of concrete pours and intimidation of fellow workers as well as employers to achieve BLF objectives. Stand-over methods and guerrilla tactics are common weapons of the BLF. It has used its central position in the industry with devastating effect through measures such as bans on strategic parts of jobs and equipment, one day and one week bans on concrete pours, breakage of concrete pours, bans on truck deliveries and unloading, and safety and overtime bans. Its action is not confined to direct industrial forays. Members of the BLF also have occupied buildings of insurance companies and private organisations and, at least on one occasion, the premises of another union. The sight of BLF members engaging in violent demonstrations and physical assault against fellow unionists has become commonplace. The BLF's behaviour and tactics were addressed in detail in the 1982 Winnecke report of the Royal Commission into the Activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation. I quote from that report in these terms: These tactics find no support or condonation in any industrial legislation in this country. The conduct not only exceeds the bounds of industrial propriety but, in many instances, plainly transgresses the Criminal Law. In many, if not most, instances, demands are made accompanied by threats. Those threats are frequently implemented and the implementation has gone far beyond financial loss and has involved damage to property and person . . . The result has been to place the BLF in a unique position-a position of being above the law. The Federation also has shown contempt for the processes of conciliation and arbitration. It has refused continually to abide by orders of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and consistently, despite many undertakings, has pursued claims outside the guidelines of the Commission. The disdain in informing the BLF approach to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission comes through clearly in remarks by BLF office-holders. I give just a few examples: `We are not prepared to accept any decision from the Commission on a demarcation between builders labourers and the AWU'-Mr Dalton in 1979; `Undertakings cannot be for ever and ever. We are not going to be held to an agreement for ever and ever'-Mr Gallagher in 1979; `The Federation will not abide by any decision or order that would follow. The Federation would pursue its claims outside the Commission in the field'-Mr Capogreco in 1980. Such expressions of attitudes by BLF officials unfortunately have not been idle threats. They have informed those very actions of the BLF which now make necessary the action proposed by the Government. Activities of the BLF that the Government regards as far beyond the bounds of what is acceptable include the following: Breaking the fundamental undertaking to the Industrial Registrar regarding future conduct, which was a condition for reregistration in 1976. Between 1976 and 1982, the BLF repeatedly pursued claims outside the system, used violence and intimidation in pursuit of its claims, took industrial action over non-industrial issues, disregarded the moratorium on industrial action agreed in 1983 in return for negotiation towards a formal agreement which would replace deregistration proceedings commenced under the former Government. Despite the moratorium, the BLF mounted what the Chairman of the National Building and Construction Conference, Mr Vosti, described as `the intolerable action over the Fletcher Watts dispute'. The BLF breached its no further claims undertaking to the Commission in October 1983 as required to achieve the national wage increase. These breaches were flagrant. Two months after giving the undertaking the BLF engaged in a campaign for an extra $9 per week in 1984. It made demands for a 36-hour week at shopping centre sites, made claims for the 1984 2.6 per cent national wage increase prior to its ratification by the Commission and took industrial action in support of site allowance claims. So the list goes on. In December 1983 the BLF gave undertakings to the Government, which were accepted by the Government as grounds for its withdrawal from the deregistration case, but by February 1984 the BLF had launched a national campaign for an extra $9 per week, rather than partaking in negotiations directed towards a superannuation scheme. In April 1984 the BLF engaged in a disruptive dispute over a demarcation issue at the Alcan Australia Ltd smelter site at Kurri Kurri. During this dispute the BLF picketed the site and damaged the cars of employees. The offices of the company's solicitors also were invaded. This period also witnessed the Melbourne Cricket Ground light towers demarcation dispute, during which the site was fenced off and police were required to counter the BLF picket outside the site. BLF members were arrested on a number of charges, including trespass and resisting arrest. Supporting bans were also placed on other Victorian Government projects. On two occasions the BLF attempted to invade the offices of the rival union, the Australian Workers Union. No government can ignore anarchy of this kind. While we have been preparing for the eventuality of such legislation, the New South Wales Government has now deregistered the BLF and the Cain Government in Victoria has taken legislative action which would amount to effective deregistration of the BLF from the Victorian industrial relations system. To be fully effective, these measures by Victoria and New South Wales need to be able to be complemented by Federal Government action, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria, where the federally registered BLF has been a source of major disruption. In its determination to bring the BLF to account, the Government has remained mindful of community concern that the deregistration powers that it now proposes should not be used indiscriminately or capriciously. We see no basis, by way of either precedent or practice, for the present legislation being applied in a wider, totally crude exercise in union bashing. The circumstances posed by the behaviour of the BLF are genuinely unique. These concerns have been carefully weighed in the Bill that was introduced into the Parliament yesterday, having regard to the overwhelming need to take action against key elements of the BLF and the need to minimise the potential for abuse. Accordingly, a fundamental element of the Bill is the role of a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in determining whether the BLF has engaged in conduct which has prevented or seriously hindered arbitral processes. Such a determination by the Arbitration Commission would be a prerequisite of any Government decision to deregister the BLF. We are conscious of the overwhelming need to ensure that justice is done in this matter and also that justice is seen to be done. The basis for the Government's introducing this special legislation is that it believes the BLF's conduct amounts to a repudiation of the Federal system for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes and of its responsibilities as a federally registered organisation of employees, as well as being utterly disruptive of industrial peace. As the Minister said yesterday: In the Government's view, the action which is contemplated in this legislation is so serious that it is essential that there be impartial consideration by an independent tribunal of the Federation's conduct. This will occur against specific criteria which are appropriate tests of whether the Federation has behaved responsibly as an organisation registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and in a way which is consistent with the objectives of our industrial relations system. The Bill before the House also provides for the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to be able to decide upon apporpriate action following a finding of misconduct by the union. Honourable members will also appreciate that this Bill provides for a range of Government actions which could be taken against the BLF, extending from national deregistration of the BLF under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to selective action against the BLF in relation to the terminating or suspending of rights, privileges or capacities of the BLF under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Honourable members will appreciate that deregistration, particularly in current circumstances, would be a potent action against the BLF. Any award applying to the BLF would cease to have any effect in relation to the Federation and its members. The BLF would not be capable of being a party to a proceeding before the Commission or to an award made by the Commission and the Commission would not have any powers under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in relation to an industrial dispute insofar as that dispute involved members of the Federation. It would also be open to the Minister to make orders which would have the effect of granting to other registered organisations coverage of work in an industry or in a location in respect of which the BLF is or has been registered. The Government will require the assistance of employers, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other building unions to ensure the success of its proposals. There will be a particularly heavy onus on employers in the industry to take a firm stand. Too often in the past employers have been prepared to do separate deals with the BLF against the best interests of the industry as a whole. Further, employers have adopted industrial relations practices which have facilitated the success of the BLF tactics. Employers can help not only by refusing to abide the behaviour of the BLF but, even more importantly, by doing nothing to give solace or succour to its position. The Government would also expect employers to honour their obligations in relation to an appropriate standard of industrial behaviour, including adherence to procedures of the building industry agreement, refusing to pay for lost time during strikes and other industrial action, ensuring that safe working conditions are applied and seeing that employees are enrolled in building industry superannuation. What builders need to understand is that in the longer term their interests and the interests of the community depend upon having a rational system of industrial relations within which there is, as there appropriately should be within a democracy, the opportunity for legitimate trade unions to put points of view and for there to be rational interchanges between employers and organised workers. This relationship obviously hinges on the parties to that relationship being able to rely on there being civilised behaviour within the industrial environment. Certainly, the community has had enough of the behaviour of the BLF and of industrial relations in the building industry as a whole. The community expects employers and all unions involved to respond to the clear community position on this. It is in this spirit that the Government is giving consideration to non-legislative measures designed to ensure that contractors on government projects adhere to government industrial relations practices. This Government believes firmly in leadership by example in this matter and will be approaching State and local governments to adopt similar measures. It is well known that I would not always embrace what is in the editorials of the Australian newspaper-- Mr Goodluck —Why not? Mr HAWKE —Because they are sometimes wrong. However, on this occasion they are pre-eminently right. On 19 July this year an editorial in the Australian said: The BLF has shown absolute disregard for both the industrial and civil laws of Australia for years. It has ignored the orders of industrial courts, invaded private offices and destroyed property, employed what can only be described as standover tactics in negotiations with building companies and cost the country untold millions of dollars through questionable industrial action. We intend putting an end to this situation. I suppose it does not need to be emphasised, but I make the point that with the background that I have in the trade union movement it gives me no pleasure to have arrived at this situation. But it is a necessary position that we have reached now and we intend to take the action which is necessary in the interests of this society. We do so in the name of the country as a whole and we look to this House for full and unqualified support for the action now proposed. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(12.28) —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) concluded by asking for full support in this House for the Building Industry Bill and I indicate to him that the Opposition supports this measure introduced by the Government. I go to some of the words used by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in introducing the Bill. He said: . . . the Government believes that the BLF has, on numerous occasions, breached undertakings to the Federal Court of Australia, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Industrial Registrar, the Commonwealth Government, building industry employers and even the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It is now patently clear that the BLF leadership is utterly untrust-worthy and that it regards undertakings and agreements as mere strategems to achieve a momentary advantage which can then be disregarded at will. Furthermore, its unprincipled, indeed outrageous, mode of operation has created havoc in the building industry, thereby causing extraordinary delays in building programs and crippling increases in costs. Its use of tactics such as breaking concrete pours, reckless application of work bans, resort to walk-offs or `homers' and claims for payment for time on strike have made industrial relations in the industry a nightmare. Its resort to industrial blackmail, thuggery, violence and intimidation has added a further ugly dimension to its activities. Such behaviour cannot be tolerated and has resulted in the virtual alienation of the union from the rest of the trade union movement in some parts of the nation. He also went on to say that the Federation has shown disdain for the processes of conciliation and arbitration and, interestingly enough, in other remarks he went on-I stress this-to say: Mr Speaker, these activities of the BLF are not a recent phenomenon-Indeed, the Federation has been a major disruptive force in the industry throughout the past decade-and-a-half. He traced its activities from 1974. He then referred to the deregistration of the BLF in 1976 and quoted Gallagher and the undertakings that Mr Gallagher made before the Commission in 1976 when the union was deregistered. After quoting Mr Gallagher and this long record which the Minister referred to, with words such as: `These activities of the BLF are not a recent phenomenon', he went on to say: The record shows that from this time-- that is 1976-- the union has had scant regard to these undertakings. that is the undertakings of Mr Gallagher-- It has, on a multitude of occasions,-- his words, not mine-- engaged in the kind of conduct it repudiated before the Court, and its industrial record contains numerous examples of harmful demarcation disputes, broken concrete pours, violent conflicts with police and fellow unionists and disruptive campaigns over non-industrial issues. Mr Donald Cameron —Who said that? Mr PEACOCK —The Minister said that and the thrust of those remarks is that this activity, this anarchy and this thuggery has gone on and on from the time that Gallagher gave undertakings to the Commission in 1976. That is the record as the Minister described it-industrial anarchy, industrial thuggery for years and years. What did this Government do when it came into power in 1983 after these years or turmoil that were described by the Minister? It shrank from deregistration, it walked away from the proceedings before the Court, moving the Court to pass remarks that were recalled in the Canberra Times editorial of 25 July 1985 in the following words: . . . it was a Full Bench of the Federal Court that chortled in judgmental disbelief at the flimsiness of the BLF undertakings that were the basis of Mr Willis's withdrawal from the deregistration proceedings. It chortled in disbelief at the flimsiness of the undertakings by Gallagher, the man that the Minister says has been head of a union that for year after year has engaged in thuggery and abuse of the type I described. Let me recall the statement that was issued by this Minister in 1983 in the parsimonious weakness of this Government in dealing with industrial affairs. The statement issued in his name in 1983 said: In the Government's view-- this is the man who has talked of the years of industrial anarchy-- a sound basis had been established for the industrial stability in the building industry; that the BLF had submitted a comprehensive undertaking to the court in relation to its future industrial activity; that it recognised its obligations as a registered organisation to operate within the Conciliation and Arbitration system; that it reaffirmed its undertaking to make no extra claims outside the national wage procedures; that it confirmed its commitment to abide by the terms of the Building Industry Agreement; that the Australian Council of Trade Unions had supported that commitment and had resolved to take all reasonable steps to ensure its observance by the union; and that-- the Minister went on to say in his own form of tranquility-- the recent industrial record of the industry has been greatly improved and the way is now open for a sustained period of industrial peace. Shades of Chamberlain with his letter-peace in the union, withdrawal from the proceedings, leave the employers before the court but walk away. He was a sucker and it is symptomatic of the weakness and connivance of this Government in industrial affairs. Not only could this union have been deregistered in 1983, had it gone on with its action, but let me give honourable members a little more background information. They will remember that the Minister said in his statement that from the time Gallagher made his undertakings in 1976, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 or 1983-you name it-the union had created industrial turmoil. My political opponent came in here a short time ago and ranted and raved about the performance of the BLF. He said it had to be deregistered, that this action was outrageous and that we could not tolerate what was happening. I remind honourable members that in 1981 I determined that the BLF ought to be deregistered. Do honourable members know who was spokesman for the Labor movement as well as the Australian Labor Party? It was the man who was in here sounding off today. Do they know what he said? Opposition members-No! Mr PEACOCK —He said I was wrong. He said we ought to sit down and have a chat with the BLF, that deregistration did not mean a thing. In fact, he even went so far as to say, as was reported in the Sun-Pictorial newspaper on 18 February 1981, that it was straight out confrontationist tactics. Shades of today I think. He must be a seer. He went on to say: . . . it was `designed to divert attention from the Government's own inadequacies.' Then he went on numerous television programs with me and said that we have to talk with Norm. He said: `That is the way to settle industrial disputes. We will have a chat.' He said: `Deregistration is useless'. I heard him say today: `We are taking a firm stance and deregistration indicates that'. Let me tell honourable members what he said about deregistration on the Nationwide program when he was in debate with me on 18 February 1981. He said: Well, if Andrew is saying that success is to be measured whether he gets the application granted then he may well succeed in getting the union deregistered but I don't think that that's the measure of success. Then he went on to say: `Look, let's sit down and talk about this'. He suggested we put everything on the table and have a chat. On this question of deregistration he said: I'm sure that he's got a very good chance of winning his case for securing the deregistration of the building union and he seems to think that that is success. What I'm saying is that that's not success. He later on said: The measure of your success is not whether you succeed in getting them deregistered. The importance of those remarks today is that we have had a history of industrial anarchy and the man who has fought against the deregistration of this union is none other than the Prime Minister himself. He has wheeled, dealed and connived year in and year out. The so-called tomato left in Victoria are the ones who got him up as president of the ACTU in the first place. He comes in here today with his Government in disarray and says: `This is a measure of success. We are going to deregister the BLF.' In his own words deregistration is not a success. So the real test has to be: What is going to happen in the post-deregistration days? What is the Government going to do? Have a look at what the Government is going to do in the terms of the Bill. Honourable members will not find that. All they will find is that the Minister may do this or the Minister may do that. Is there a commitment in the Minister's speech to allow the poaching-let us put it bluntly-of members of the Federated Ironworkers Association, the Australian Workers Union or the members of the BLF? If one is fair dinkum about destroying a union one does not just knock out a couple of office bearers; one obliterates that union and allows the Federated Ironworkers Association or the Australian Workers Union to take over its members. Do not fiddle about on this. Those opposite have already told me, year in and year out, that deregistration does not mean a thing and that it is what is done after the deregistration that counts. Despite all these words today about the BLF, is the Minister going to ensure that employers on sites are protected? Is he going to assist the unions who seek to take over the membership of those areas that may, give or take a little, be destroyed? May I inject a broader political view, because I have to look at what this Party as a whole says. The honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) correctly said that this legislation came into the Parliament after being passed by the barest of Caucus margins. The tomato Left is at it again down in Victoria; they have called a special conference this coming weekend. We heard the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in here. It is interesting that there is no broadcast today. He gave an undertaking that this legislation would be brought in, it will be recalled, on the first day of Parliament. Hang on a flash; the first day of Parliament, they told him afterwards, is on air. They said: `The fellows in Victoria will hear what you say. Do it the day after the Budget when it is not on air. With all the news of the Budget they may not know'. Will the Prime Minister give a commitment to this House to fight resolutely this case at the special conference of his own Party in his own State next weekend? Will he be down there defending Cain, defending the cause of the Federal Government, in the deregistration? Will he tell them what he has told us in quiet tones today about what he thinks of Norm Gallagher? I tell the House now that he will not be there and he will not be saying what he said in the Parliment today. I come back at the reality of this measure. In the words of this fulminating Prime Minister himself, deregulation is not the test and deregistration is not a success. So we must ask: What lies down the post-deregistration scene? Is the Government fair dinkum or not? I say to the House now: The Government is going to fiddle with a few people in the labour movement and nothing more, but the BLF will continue to exist. It will not support the poaching of its members. The Government will not back up the employers. It has been revealed for nothing but a sham and a facade, not in my words but in the words of its Leader. Sitting suspended from 12.43 to 2 p.m. Mr SPEAKER —I have been advised by the Principal Parliamentary Reporter that delivery of yesterday's daily Hansard by the Government Printer has been delayed by difficulties experienced in the Government Printing Office overnight in adapting to the new typesetting equipment installed during the winter recess. The Government Printer expects the House of Representatives Hansard to be available late this afternoon. Mr HOWARD —I address my question to the Treasurer. I refer the honourable gentleman to the opening sentence of his mini-Budget Speech in May, where he said that the expenditure reduction measures were `a progress report' and `a first and major instalment'. Is it not correct that, instead, the Budget Papers delivered last night show that the Government's net cut to the Forward Estimates this year was 40 per cent less than the May figure-that is, $764m-and that the 1986-87 effect of the so-called cuts is actually a net increase in spending of $169m against a claimed saving of $1,250m in the mini-Budget? Mr KEATING —I do not understand the point of the question. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has missed it again. The fact is that outlays growth is 1.3 per cent. That would not be the case had the $1,250m of cuts not been made. I just remind the honourable member that abstracting for public debt interest, which accounts for one percentage point of the 1.3 per cent, and abstracting for ongoing defence commitments, which account for 0.3 per cent-that is, public debt interest and defence accounting for all of the growth in outlays-the fact is that there has been restraint across the board amounting to a zero real increase in all other outlays. The fact is that there was spending before the May exercise and there was spending after it. Some of it is technically new policy, such as the temporary assistance by which the Commonwealth accommodated the States of South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland at the Australian Loan Council, which otherwise would not be counted as new policy. But the point is just immaterial. The fact is that the outlays growth figure is there. It is no good selecting a set of numbers and saying: `You have made a certain deduction against that set of numbers'. Such sets of numbers are irrelevant now. What is relevant is the outlays. The Forward Estimates are irrelevant. They become irrelevant as the economy changes. But we indicated that we would save $1,259m off the Forward Estimates, and we did; and without that we would not have a 1.3 per cent real growth in outlays. Mr MOUNTFORD —My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. What are the reactions of the major industry groups to the housing and construction measures contained in last night's Budget? Mr WEST —I thank the honourable member for Banks for his question. I am very pleased to say that there has been an extraordinarily good reaction from the housing industry groups. For instance, the Housing Industry Association had this to say: The significant reduction in the Budget deficit is good news for home seekers. The greatly reduced deficit in the lower level of public sector borrowings will help to moderate pressures on interest rates. The Association went on to praise the first home owners scheme and said that it had been an outstanding success and that it could play a key part in underpinning new housing activities. Those remarks are, of course, correct, because the very low deficit as announced by the Treasurer last night, particularly the low domestic deficit of $1.4 billion, will have the consequential effect of lowering presssure on the public sector borrowing requirement, and that, of course, is good news with regard to general interest rates, and that means it is good news for housing interest rates also. I will mention some more good news. Just before I came into the House I was informed that the rate of growth for savings bank deposits had risen somewhat during June, so that we are running now at an 8.5 per cent growth factor for savings bank deposits. It is in this responsible budgetary atmosphere that I am very pleased to be able to say that the mood of the housing and construction industry is buoyant indeed. That is due to the high funding of $654m under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and another possible $492m available under the nominated loan funds arrangements. One can add to that the sum of $290-odd million which is available for the first home owners scheme in this Budget. By the end of June 1986, we would expect to have over 226,000 families and single people who have benefited from the first home owners scheme. Also I am able to report that we did achieve, as a result of past policies, the 151,000 housing starts for 1984-85 that I predicted in the last session. Last week I was able to say that we achieved that figure. I conclude on the other side of the portfolio, in regard to construction. In such a responsible budgetary atmosphere, it was very pleasing to see that we were able to lift by 18 per cent the amount to be spent during this financial year on civil and defence works. If we count the funds which will go to projects which will be administered under the National Capital Development Commission and the money that will be spent on the New Parliament House, we see that we will be spending $1,150m on Commonwealth construction projects this financial year. It is with no doubt that I am able to say that employment in the housing industry is now running at 485,000. This means that it has gone up by 100,000 since August 1983. Comparing this figure with the abysmal figure of about 380,000 who were employed in housing and construction when we took office in March 1983, the effect that the hike in housing and construction activity has had upon the employment situation is very apparent indeed. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the honourable gentleman to the bullish comments just made by his colleague, the Minister for Housing and Construction, about the impact of the Budget on interest rates. In the light of those comments and the Treasurer's own comments about the reduced public sector borrowing requirement, does he stand by his and the Prime Minister's promises, made during the election campaign last year and repeated subsequently, that interest rates would fall in 1985? If so, when will they fall, by how much and from what level? Mr KEATING —I know that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition sometimes finds it difficult to understand what the Government says. I have said here on a couple of occasions that the depreciation of the dollar completely changed the outlook for the real economy and the financial markets this year. I make the point again that rates in this country are fixed in the market; they are not fixed by the Government. The Deputy wants to have his cake and eat it as well. He says that monetary policy is too loose, and he made this statement the other day: The money supply figures show an alarming collapse of monetary discipline by the Hawke Government. This loose monetary policy further adds to inflationary pressures within the Australian economy. So he is urging the Government to tighten monetary policy and lift interest rates further. He is really asking the Government to have a credit squeeze so that the economy totally seizes up as a result of high interest rates. When everybody has had enough pain he might then have satisfied some of those basically raw ideological and mindless philosophical instincts held by those on the other side of the House. The fact is that we have run the appropriate monetary policy. Conditions have been kept firm. The indicator of balance in the market is interest rates but market perceptions, conditions and the real economy changed following the depreciation. I make no prediction whatsoever about the outlook, but the dramatic decline in the bond-selling program, from $7,600m last year to $5,000m this year, will be a bull point on markets, as will the outcome in respect of wages and inflation. All those important elements, including the Budget deficit, will be taken in the mix by those people in the financial markets who tender for bonds and essentially fix rates of interest. Mr STAPLES —Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House of the prospects for continuing reductions in unemployment, especially among young people? Mr WILLIS —I am pleased to inform the honourable member that the prospects for reducing unemployment across the work force as a whole, and particularly for young people, are better now than they have been for a long time. This Government has already achieved a lot in reducing the level of unemployment. As honourable members will be aware, since we have been in office we have created 410,000 additional jobs, which is one of the highest rates of job growth in the Western industrial world. That growth has encompassed a reduction in unemployment of 130,000, or 2 percentage points, since September of 1983. Unemployment is now below 600,000 and, at 8.2 per cent, it is at its lowest level for almost three years. The prospects are very encouraging. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has forecast for Australia continuing strong growth and a rate of unemployment down to between 7 1/2 and 8 per cent in 1986. Of course, the Budget forecasts support that. The Budget forecasts strong employment growth in the course of 1985-86, with employment increasing by 2 3/4 per cent. That will mean 180,000 additional jobs, and will give us over 560,000 additional jobs by the end of this financial year since April of 1983. We will certainly have achieved well over our target of creating 500,000 jobs three years after April of 1983. The Budget prediction is that, depending on what happens to the work force participation rate, the unemployment level could be down to 7 1/2 per cent by the end of this financial year. Young people, to whom the honourable member particularly asked me to address my remarks, have already shared in the job growth which has occurred in this country. There was a long term decline in the employment of young people but we have reversed that trend. In the last two years the employment of teenagers has increased by 32,000, or 5 1/2 per cent. The unemployment rate amongst teenagers looking for full time jobs, although still 22.8 per cent, is 5 percentage points less than it was at its peak in July 1983. I am pleased to inform the House that in the last year there has been a considerable increase in the apprenticeship opportunities for young people. Preliminary statistics show that over 48,700 new apprentices were taken on last financial year, which is an increase of 21 per cent over the previous year and 43 per cent over the low of 1982-83. Young people will continue to share in job growth which will occur because of the overall growth in the economy and they will also benefit from the initiatives announced in the Budget, particularly in relation to traineeships. We will spend $15.7m on traineeships this year and much more in future years. We will have 10,000 traineeships this year with 75,000 traineeships by 1989. My Department estimates that the traineeship initiative alone, without taking into account the increases in employment otherwise occurring, will reduce the unemployment rate for 16 and 17-year-olds by about 50 per cent when it comes fully on stream by 1988-89. The prospects for youth employment are better now than they have been for a long time. The combination of strong economic growth and particular vocational programs for young people is giving them the greatest prospects for employment that they have had for many years. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Treasurer to the statement of the Prime Minister on 17 February, in which he said: Look the position is very simple and straightforward. We've got in this country a position where our marginal tax rates are too high and they are biting in too early, they are disincentives and people rightly feel that they've got too high a burden of direct personal tax. So for obvious reasons of personal hardships, incentives, economic efficiency we've got to bring those rates down and bring them down substantially . . . Will the Treasurer confirm that another 500,000 Australians will move from the 30 per cent tax bracket into the 46 per cent marginal rate as a result of this Budget? Will he also confirm, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's statement, that approximately 250,000 taxpayers will move into the 60 per cent marginal rate as a result of his Budget? Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition should understand that this Budget carries a lot of weight of the 1984-85 tax cut. The 1984-85 tax cut totalled $2.1 billion in a full year and $1.3 billion in 1984-85. So $800m of the tax cut is being borne by this Budget. The sheer size of that tax cut is important in terms of the effect upon marginal rates last year. The more general point that we in this country should ponder is who got us into the mess of high marginal rates. Who made a swill of the tax system? It was the coalition parties. Who satisfied every pressure by handing out concessions which are now being abused for tax minimisation purposes? It was the coalition Government. That is why it made tax optional. It allowed people to cheat right through the 1970s, only to describe the McCabe-Lafranchi report as a political stunt. It was dragged screaming by Costigan to the barrier and was finally driven to tidy up the criminal schemes which it allowed to prosper during its term. This Government has done something about rates of taxation by giving a tax cut that the nation can afford. The last tax cut, given in desperation by the coalition in the 1982-83 Budget, of over $2.2 billion was one that it knew it could not afford to give in a debilitated, recessed economy and it blew out the Budget deficit the following year to $9.6 billion in prospect. In other words, the low heels opposite were worried about their hides. We remember what happened when Malcolm Fraser was trying to have a 1982 election. There was a big debate about whether he would or would not. He put in a $2.5 billion tax cut but he knew well that he could not afford it. The former Treasurer also knew well that they could not afford it. What they said was: `We will just stick that on the public debt'. When this Government came to office what did we find? On the first day the Prime Minister and I met the Secretary to the Treasury we found a $9.6 billion deficit. That was our fiscal inheritance from the previous Government's last tax cut. That is what honourable members opposite are about. They are cheats, cheats, cheats and they have all always been cheats, cheats, cheats! The only genuine tax reform that this country will get will be from this Government. This Government will make the tax system fairer for all decent Australians and we will reduce marginal tax rates. So we do not need any geeing along by the Leader of the Opposition who was playing dominoes with Barry Simon in room U67 while this debate was going on and who resigned in a fit of pique, in a fit of principle. Having left wages in chaos and having ruined the country with a wage explosion he retired to the upper floors of the- Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to section 37 of the Australian Constitution and ask whether you have received a letter from the honourable member for Blaxland resigning either his seat or from the office of Treasurer because he failed at the tax summit. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have on previous occasions warned honourable members about raising frivolous points of order. If the honour- able member for Mitchell offends again I will take action. I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —The honourable member for Mitchell does that regularly. This is one of the people of business. I think he used to own a car radio installation firm. He got up from under the dashboard, put on a pin-striped suit like an overcoat and walked into the establishment. He used to get around this place in a pin-striped suit. What great people of business! I could not trust him with a jam jar full of 5c bits. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —The Treasurer will resume his seat until the House comes to order. I remind honourable members that I show considerable tolerance during Question Time because I believe that honourable members should have the opportunity to ask questions. If I take action, that opportunity is greatly diminished. I ask honourable members to observe reasonable standards in their conduct. I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —I will round up the answer by saying that this Government is the only government that has taken taxation seriously in this country. This Government is the only government that has tried to make the tax system fairer and to clean the cheats out of the system. It has tried to take away the minimisation devices to make the tax system fairer. The coalition parties continue to frustrate our legislation in the Senate and they continue to protect tax avoiders and evaders. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talks about a jack-boot approach to fringe benefits as though this walking around the tax system is in the slightest way defensible. It is just a ludicrous position for him to adopt. The same sleazy attitude that members of the Opposition have always had to taxation is just part and parcel of the kind of question which the Leader of the Opposition asked. Mr LEE —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs. Is it a fact that, under the current youth allowance regime inherited from the Opposition, the Commonwealth Government provides greater financial assistance to 16 and 17-year-olds who elect to receive unemployment benefit than to those who decide to complete their secondary education? Does the youth training package announced in last night's Budget provide for the secondary student allowance to be doubled by 1988? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government's increased assistance to young Australians will go to those who are most in need? Mr DAWKINS —I think the short answer to that question is yes. Mr Tuckey —Are you going to do the bottom of the harbour testing on Kim's subs? Mr DAWKINS —At what age did you leave school, Wilson? Mr Tuckey —I left school at 17. I was as smart as you. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. The Minister will answer the question. Mr DAWKINS —Under our arrangements maybe even the honourable member for O'Connor could have had a better education. It has been recognised over the recent past and, most particularly, with the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development examiners into youth policy in Australia that there exists for some young people-I am not suggesting for all-an incentive to leave school early because of the higher level of assistance that can be provided under the unemployment benefit than is available for those who decide to remain in the education system. This is a most difficult choice particularly for those who are from less privileged families. We know that young people from less privileged families tend to leave school earliest and that the earlier they leave school the worse are their opportunities of obtaining and retaining a job. So the Government has set in place a plan which, by the beginning of 1988, will ensure that there will be no financial incentive for young people to leave earlier than the end of secondary school. Indeed, there will be no financial incentive for them not to participate further in the tertiary level of education. Financial support is not the only reason and may not even be the major reason why people decide to continue in education but it is certainly an important factor for a large group of young people who have not been participating in the education system and, as a result, have inferior opportunities for employment in the future. It will be noted that the major increase for 1986 will be in the secondary allowance because we think we have to start at that level to try to ensure that more young people are remaining in the secondary school system and then going on to the tertiary education system. We will see the already impressive improvements in education participation improve even further. I think that not only will that be an advantage to those young people who remain in the education system but also it will be of crucial importance to Australia as a whole in terms of increasing its capacity to produce and compete with the rest of the world. Mr SINCLAIR —My question is directed to the Treasurer. In view of the anomaly between the rhetoric of his Budget Speech and the arithmetic on the question of wage discounting, the continued prevarication which is the general attitude of the Government towards future wage claims in that respect and a very firm statement by the Prime Minister in Perth on 12 April last at his decision-makers' luncheon that depreciation will provide an opportunity to achieve substantially higher incomes and employment in the longer term only if the competitive advantage is maintained, how can the Treasurer justify promising a catch-up for any loss due to wage discounting? Mr KEATING —We are not promising catch-ups. We are talking about the maintenance of living standards over time. People on the other side of the chamber do not seem to understand that this is possible in a growth economy. We made it quite clear that there is no problem between the fact and the rhetoric that the Prime Minister used on that occasion. It is true that Australia's external position will be improved if our competitiveness is maintained. Our competitiveness can be maintained only if our inflation rate and our cost structure are comparable with those of the people with whom we trade. In this case it means that depreciation can bestow enormous benefits upon Australia if the initial price effects of that depreciation are quarantined and not passed on into wages and ongoing inflation. That was the point of the Government's policy announcement last night and we will be following that through in the appropriate forums. Ms MAYER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Is the Government concerned to encourage the care of the infirm and handicapped outside institutions? Can the Minister tell the House whether proposals in the Budget will assist in developing this type of care? Mr HOWE —The Government believes that the care of many severely handicapped or aged and infirm is best done in the home. We believe that we need to move away from the philosophy that previous governments employed, which encouraged institutionalisation of the aged and handicapped, and to create the circumstances where people, if possible, can live within their own homes. Of course, that is a very easy goal for a government to announce and to suggest it is pursuing, but this Government recognises that if it is to achieve this aim it needs to take very concrete steps. Two steps have been taken in this year's Budget that will assist people in this situation. Firstly, in my own portfolio we have created a new carer's pension. A carer's pension will be paid to people caring for a spouse or a close relative who requires constant care and attention. It will be an important benefit for people caring for an aged parent or a handicapped child in the home. It replaces the existing spouse carer's pension paid only to husbands caring for their wives. Secondly, the Budget also provides arrangements for people being paid the handicapped child's allowance. This will allow people to continue to be paid the allowance for up to 28 days while the child is temporarily absent from the home in respite care. During the last year a number of honourable members on both sides of the House drew my attention to the very severe problems people face in caring for handicapped children and the desperate need of these people to have their child looked after for a period within institutions. This measure, which fundamentally allows for the child to be cared for within the home but does provide for payment during respite care within an institution for a short period, will be of tremendous benefit to many families supporting handicapped children within the home. I believe that those two measures alone-not to speak of the home and community care programs and other programs for which my colleague the Minister for Community Services is responsible-demonstrate that the Government is concerned to develop concrete measures that will support the caring of people within their homes. Mr PORTER —I refer the Minister for Health to the rapid increase in medical benefit payments under Medicare resulting from increases in over-servicing and overutilisation under bulk billing. How does the Minister explain the increase in the rate of growth of patient utilisation of medical services from 3.9 per cent three months ago in the May Forward Estimates to 5.4 per cent in last night's Budget? Dr BLEWETT —I point out that the elements of the increase are set out in the Budget. Just under half the increase in medical benefits derives from increases in the level of scheduled fee payments to doctors. Secondly, just under 2 per cent derives from demographic change; that is, the increasing aging of the population, plus an increase in the population. Utilisation, including demographic change, as the honourable member points out, increases by approximately 5 per cent. The chief reason for a bigger increase in utilisation this year has been explained to the House on previous occasions, that is, that as a result of the settlement with the medical profession there is an expectation built into those figures that a greater number of people will opt for private treatment in public hospitals. Again, as a result of the change of classification in public hospitals there will be an automatic increase in the number of private patients in the public hospitals system. Those patients will be paid for out of the medical benefits, and that is the explanation of the change from the period in which the Forward Estimates were announced, when that agreement with the medical profession and its effects had not been worked out. As I say, I think we have given an accurate account of the increase. Mr MILTON —Has the Minister for Communications seen the reports in the Australian of 19 August and 21 August which detail allegations that MI5 controls who gets a job at the British Broadcasting Corporation? Can the Minister assure the House that neither the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation nor any of its allied security organisations are involved in such activities in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation? Mr DUFFY —Recent reports in the media have indicated that some BBC staff-in particular, current affairs journalists and some program makers-have been vetted by Britain's internal intelligence service, MI5. In September 1984 a similar question concerning ASIO investigation of ABC staff was asked of the ABC's Managing Director, Mr Whitehead. He replied that only two ABC staff members had been referred to ASIO for security clearances. These clearances were a prerequisite for a training course on protective security conducted by the Attorney-General's Department. Staffing matters under the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act come within the prerogative of the Managing Director, who may designate any staffing positions within the ABC as requiring a security assessment prior to an appointment. The ABC has advised me that no other security clearances of ABC staff by ASIO have been requested by ABC management. Mr TIM FISCHER —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask: Earlier this year, did the Prime Minister, along with his colleague the Minister for Primary Industry, receive assurances from the European Economic Community in respect of highly subsidised beef trade to the western Pacific? Is it a fact that that letter of assurance failed to cover all potential markets for Australia in the important western Pacific basin? Will the Prime Minister raise this matter during the visit of Commissioner Andriesson next month? Will he advise the House why comprehensive assurances were not sought originally to cover all our relevant markets in the western Pacific? Mr HAWKE —The House will recall that on the occasion to which the honourable member refers I was accompanied not only by the Minister for Primary Industry but also by representatives of the friends of the National Party; that is, the National Farmers Federation. The National Farmers Federation, which seems to have the very firm view that it knows much more about the interests of the rural community than the honourable member comes within a bull's roar of knowing, expressed not only privately to me but publicly its satisfaction and appreciation of the job that I and the Minister for Primary Industry were able to do in Brussels on behalf of the meat industry. Once again I accept that the National Farmers Federation can speak more accurately for the meat industry and the rest of the rural industry than the honourable member will ever be able to. I accept its congratulations on the job we did. Having said that, when the representative of the European Commission comes out here next month the Minister and, if necessary, I will address the overall question to which the honourable member alludes. Mr MAHER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Communications. Is it a fact that delivery of mail by Australia Post in Sydney has improved greatly in recent months? Mr DUFFY —As honourable members on both sides of the House are aware, concerns have been expressed for some time regarding the delivery of mail, particularly in New South Wales. Based on world standards of mail delivery, very satisfactory levels have been reached in all Australian States except New South Wales. However, it is true, as indicated by the honourable member for Lowe, that, as a result of initiatives which have been put in place in Australia Post in New South Wales, there is an improvement in the New South Wales mail service. The problem which caused one dispute some months ago was identified and has been solved. As a result it is anticipated that improvement will continue. There is still a good way to go, because this problem has been around for many years. It is not something that honourable members opposite were able to do anything about. However, fortunately at this stage it looks as though what the honourable member for Lowe has indicated is correct; that is, that there is currently a good deal of improvement. It is hoped that it will continue. Mr BURR —I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Opposition members-He isn't here. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Primary Industry is not here. Is a Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry present? Mr BURR —I will readdress my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the widespread apprehension that is flowing through the timber industry in Australia at the moment, will the Prime Minister indicate when his Government will make a decision regarding the renewal of export woodchip licences? Mr HAWKE —No, I cannot. Mr KEOGH —I ask the Treasurer: Will he inform the House of the reaction to the 1985-86 Budget by various groups in the community? Do those reactions confirm the views of the Federal President of the Liberal Party of Australia on the electoral consequences of a disciplined and responsible economic policy? Mr KEATING —We are waiting for Mr Valder to appear on the private Westpac No. 1 report again to give us his private view on the Budget. Some commendatory words were said of the Budget in the media and by certain groups today. The Age said: Mr Keating spoke last night in terms that were both confident and cautionary, striking absolutely the right note. What about that? The Australian Financial Review said: This Budget is a serious and largely non-ideological effort to put a responsible philosophy into effect. The Sydney Morning Herald said: Last night's Budget more than complies with the spirit of that `trilogy' promise. Bob White, speaking on the `Carwash' report, said: Yes, I think we have to be happy that the Government has fulfilled its trilogy of promises and I think . . . it is a commendable achievement without any increase in taxation. A spokesman for the Australian Chamber of Commerce said: The Federal Government has correctly identified a strong and vibrant private sector as critical to sustain economic growth. The spending restraint and reductions in the deficit are a positive contribution. A spokesman for the Confederation of Australian Industry said: The 1985-86 Federal Budget is a generally responsible attempt to sustain economic growth through an increasing reliance on a viable private sector. CAI commends the Government for the substantial cut in the total Budget deficit and reducing the record high gross public sector borrowing requirements. A spokesman for the Master Builders Federation of Australia said: The package will have a positive effect on the private sector at the same time as it meets desirable social welfare objectives. The Reverend Alan Nicholls of the Australian Council of Social Service said: I think the welfare and community sector also welcomes this Budget and welcomes in particular the improvements targeted on the poorest people on every measure of the poverty line in Australia. That is, I think, a reasonable round-up of the assessment this morning. Mr BEALE —Is the Treasurer aware that, in a speech given at Oxford on 7 June 1985, the shadow socialist Treasurer, Mr Hattersley, stated that `the model of centrally controlled public utilities does not meet our needs' and that `the Party was never intended to be committed to old style nationalisation-the public monopoly run as a monolithic bureaucracy from London'? In view of this stark repudiation of government-owned enterprise by the Treasurer's socialist colleague, will he now revise his thinking and repudiate the remarks he made in answer to a Dorothy Dix question on 23 May 1985 in which he said that the type of action being referred to by Mr Hattersley would be lunatic and vandalism? Mr Maher —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I direct your attention to standing order 142. This is not a matter related to the Minister's portfolio. Mr SPEAKER —The matter is an economic matter. I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —Let me first take the opportunity to say that I am pleased that the Opposition has no more questions on the Budget. Secondly, let me confirm my remarks made in the House about public enterprise to which the honourable gentleman referred. I also make the point that, if what is intended by the honourable gentleman's question is to lend further weight to the charade that the only way one deals with recurrent outlays of the Commonwealth is to sell assets, I refer him only to Mr Valder's comments about fiddling at the edges in trying to deal with recurrent outlays. The problem of outlays growth, of cutting expenditure, is one to be dealt with over a long period. This Government had five months to put this Budget into place. It had five months of effort to cut recurrent outlays, but not by selling off assets. I do not know what the point of the honourable gentleman's question is. If he is asserting, for instance, that the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia has not played an important and almost unique role in this country in accepting savings from small savers and turning them into housing, creating one of the biggest housing institutions in the world, I do not know what he is referring to. If he is talking about the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia, I say that the Commonwealth did not sink one dollar into that bank until this Government put $150m of capital into it after, for years, taking hundreds of million of dollars in profit into the consolidated accounts of the Commonwealth. So if the honourable member's argument is that that institution does not pay, he is wrong. If he is prepared on that basis to get into Qantas Airways Ltd and have private carriers fly only the trunk routes, leaving all of the other important areas of South East Asia and our near neighbourhood to some other ill-defined service, I think that would be a very foolish policy. Given the fact that for so long Qantas has provided a major public service in this country effectively and efficiently and ranks proudly beside any airline in the world in terms of service and price, I do not know what the honourable member means. If the honourable member is talking about Trans Australia Airlines, which provides a valuable service in this country as a domestic airline, I do not see his point either. The point the honourable member is probably making about my counterpart in Britain is that the British Labour Party has rejected for a long time the notion of a centrally planned economy and the notion of having major areas of enterprise in the public sector. My Party, similarly, rejects that. However, that is not to say that we reject public enterprise per se. We are proud of the public enterprises we have. We have tried to make them better and more efficient. We have substantially restructured them and made them stronger. If the whole point of this nonsense is to maintain that in some way the jokers opposite have some policy to deal with the recurrent costs of the Commonwealth, pulling down public sector outlays, and if those opposite think they are going to kid anybody out there that they have an answer to the Commonwealth's growth rates of outlays by selling off assets, they are quite mistaken. It is simply a matter of choice whether one keeps an asset or sells it and takes the funds into one's accounts. It does not affect the question of recurrent outlays. One has to take the political scalpel out, do the hard slog and work through the outlays, as this Government has done. That is the difference between the Government of honourable members opposite and this Government. Honourable members opposite, as members of the so-called party of managers, may think that they have the allegiance of business in this country; they do not. Business thinks that they are mugs and hill-billies; and it is right. Honourable members opposite might still have the allegiance of a few middle managers still dragging their mortgages behind them but they do not have that of the owners, the entrepreneurs and the captains of business. They do not have the support of the small business people, who want a growth economy. Their loyalties are to the party which delivers economic growth, and that is the Australian Labor Party. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has sought my indulgence to answer a question which the honourable member for Bradfield asked him yesterday, and to which he promised an answer. I give the Minister that indulgence. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Yesterday, during Question Time, the honourable member for Bradfield sought clarification of the use of penalty provisions provided under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act for non-compliance with specific camping regulations. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act does detail arrangements whereby campers are required to camp in designated areas or take out general camping permits. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service administrators and rangers in Kakadu and in other national parks around Australia have found that penalty provisions are best utilised as a preventive measure to stop loutish and general bad behaviour. The adoption of strict day-to-day checks on campers' permits would add enormously to the work load of rangers and would deflect their attention from wildlife duties. Opposition members-Oh, come on! Mr COHEN —I suggest that, before honour-able members opposite have their epileptic fits, they wait to hear the rest of my answer, because they will be a little embarrassed. While the pickets at Mudginberri have not sought permission to camp, park rangers have been more than satisfied with their behaviour. Mr Tuckey —Have they? Mr COHEN —I say to the honourable member that he should hang on and contain his excitement. There have not been complaints from other tourists or campers in the park. I also point out to the House that the workers at the abattoir site have not sought permission to camp within the confines of the park; however, as they also have not caused any concern to rangers and or to other visitors in the area, the use of penalty provisions has not been envisaged either for the pickets or for the workers at the abattoir. This Government believes that the best resolution of industrial disputation is through due recourse to the established conciliation and arbitration processes and not through seeking recourse to legislative measures that have been set in place to overcome problems associated with park administration. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Law Reform Commission report No. 26-Evidence, Volumes 1 and 2 Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation annual report for 1983-84. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report on the Asian Pacific Regional Trade Law Seminar, incorporating the eleventh International Trade Law Seminar held in Canberra between 22 and 27 November 1984. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 29 (1) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present the Human Rights Commission Annual report for 1983-84. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Legal Aid Task Force final report 1985. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Family Law Council entitled `Creating Children-a Uniform Approach to the Law and Practice of Reproductive Technology in Australia'. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), I present the Official Establishments Trust annual report for 1983-84. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, and on behalf of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), I present the task force report on repetition strain injury in the Australian Public Service. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 39 of the Maritime College Act 1978, and on behalf of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), I present the annual report of the Council of the Australian Maritime College for 1984. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1978, and on behalf of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), I present the report by the Council on the operations of the Canberra College of Advanced Education for the year ended 31 December 1984. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honour- able members, I present the report by the Independent Air Fares Committee on cost allocation review, East-West Airlines Operations Limited. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report for 1983-84 on the operations of the registered health insurance organisations. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, and on behalf of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), I present the Industries Assistance Commission report on Vinyl Planar Forms- Developing Country Preferences-and the Industries Assistance Commission report on castors-Developing Country Preferences. The reports were posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —On behalf of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), for the information of honourable members and especially the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), I present the Commonwealth Government response to the report of the Interim Council on the Proposal for an Institute of Freshwater Studies. The document was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Jacobi) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister forScience) —On behalf of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), for the information of honourable members, I pre- sent a report by Dr J. L. Symonds on the History of British Atomic Tests in Australia. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. I commend it as good reading. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Telecommunications Commission Service and Business Outlook report for 1985-86. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Postal Commission Service and Business Outlook report for 1985-86. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report on the Future Directions for Commercial Television Volumes 1 and 2. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present the first report by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on remote commercial television services. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —During Question Time, in answer to a question from the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) quite falsely made the claim that those in the Opposition who support an aggressive policy of privatisation see it as a method of- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has received the indulgence of the Chair on the basis that he has been personally misrepresented. It is not the practice of the House to allow honourable members the privilege of that sort of explanation if it has been a matter of a group allegation. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition either must go immediately to where he has been personally misrepresented or resume his seat. Mr HOWARD —I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker. Are you saying that a claim by the Treasurer about a group of people on this side of the House who support a policy of privatisation, in circumstances where I have been publicly identified with that attitude and that policy, does not in any way refer to me? Mr SPEAKER —That is not the question. The question is that the allegation was made against a group. It has been the practice in the House not to deal with such allegations against groups. There is no personal misrepresentation in the matter. What you are seeking to do is to open a general discussion. I think that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would realise that if he does that he will make absolutely impossible the situation for personal explanations. There are other avenues of debate. Mr HOWARD —I am indebted to you and, out of deference to you, I will not pursue the matter. Mr BEALE(Deakin) —Mr Speaker, I also seek your guidance. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), in answer to my question, on a number of occasions waved his finger in my general direction, looked at me and said `you'. In those circumstances, Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented and would be grateful if you will allow me to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will resume his seat. He will learn, when he has been here a little longer, that there is a hurly-burly of politics and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has shown the judgment that comes with the experience of that hurly-burly. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Attorney-General-Kingsford-Smith) —by leave-On 21 May 1985 the Director of Public Prosecutions advised the Secretary to my Department that a letter written by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and addressed to the Family Court of Australia, Sydney, amounted to contempt of that court. The letter in question was written on behalf of a constituent who was objecting to orders that had been made in respect of matrimonial property. This matrimonial dispute had been before a single judge of the Family Court and was later varied on appeal to the Full Court of the Family Court. Further proceedings were listed on 29 March last in the Family Court, Sydney. These proceedings related to the enforcement of the orders that had been made. The right honourable member's letter referred to a sworn affidavit made by the constituent and shown to him. In his letter the right honourable member stated that after discussions with the constituent he believed the contents of the affidavit raised fundamental questions affecting the validity of the judgment handed down and he further requested that in the circumstances the contents of the affidavit `should be brought into consideration by the Court before the judgment is processed further'. I am advised that this letter was received in the Sydney Registry of the Family Court of Australia, having been delivered by hand at 9.15 a.m. on 29 March 1985. I am advised that on 29 March the Acting Registrar of the Family Court wrote to the right honourable member advising that his letter had been received and that the case concerning his constituent had been disposed of that morning but that his letter had not been shown to the trial judge but had been brought to the attention of the Chief Judge. The Acting Registrar advised the right honourable member that to write to a member of the judiciary was highly improper and sought an explanation. On 4 April the right honourable member replied to the Acting Registrar's letter of 29 March pointing out that his request was that the constituent's affidavit should be brought into consideration by the court and that his letter merely gave reasons for his request. He emphasised that these reasons were not presented to influence the discretion of the court. I am advised that subsequent to the receipt of the right honourable member's letter of 4 April the Principal Registrar referred the right honourable member's letter to the Attorney-General's Department with the notation that the Chief Judge had suggested that the matter be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is necessary to balance the duties of members of parliament against the law of contempt. I am certain that the right honourable member is not the first member of parliament to have representations made to him by a constituent in respect of family law matters. I am also of the view that many constituents request honourable members to assist them in legal matters by making written representations on their behalf when the constituent is obliged to appear in court, particularly when that constituent is not legally represented. It is acknowledged that the right honourable member's letter was not before the court and in no way could it be interpreted that the letter could influence the judge. However, the difficulty for members of parliament is that the law of contempt applies where it can be established that there is an intention to influence a judge's decision. Representations made by members of parliament, by their very nature, are likely to be interpreted as intending to influence the person to whom they are made. This case has highlighted the need for me to raise the dangers in writing to members of the judiciary regarding proceedings before them. While it may be perfectly in order for a member to speak in Parliament on behalf of a constituent and, subject to Standing Orders, to disagree with judicial decisions, the same protection does not apply in respect of letters the member may write to a court requesting that a constitutent's written submission be considered; that is the difficulty in this case. I do not wish to single out the right honourable member in particular as many members of parliament run the risk of finding themselves in the same position. This case merely highlights the need for me to mention the difficulties that can arise. Honourable members are constantly asked to make representations on their constituents' behalf. They are obliged to assist their constituents as best they can and understandably want to pursue their representations with some vigour. However, they must stop short of putting themselves in a position where their behaviour can be seen as conduct intending to obstruct or pervert the course of justice or where it may be established by conduct that there was an intention to influence a judicial decision. I emphasise that such communications may be seen in this light even if the member of parliament making representations is acting in the utmost good faith and doing what the member thinks is the best by his constituent. It should be emphasised also that actions for contempt can be taken by the court itself and are not necessarily a matter for me. There are proper avenues for bringing matters to the attention of the court. These are by the constituents and their respective legal advisers bringing evidence before the court. It cannot be done by the back door method of private communications with the judge either by the parties in the case or by other persons acting on their behalf whether they be legal advisers or members of parliament. I understand that on many occasions lay persons endeavour to communicate with a judge of the court. In such cases, the court has usually proceeded by the method of the Registrar writing to the person to point out the impropriety of that action. However, the courts expect a higher standard of conduct from members of Parliament. The courts expect that members of Parliament will be aware of the law and will advise their constituents that the proper way of submitting evidence to the court is by presenting oral or affidavit evidence through their legal advisers or in person. In this case I am not satisfied that the right honourable member has committed contempt of court. It is clear from my Department's files that the constituent in question has vigorously defended the matrimonial proceedings; has taken them to a court of appeal and has been reluctant to accept the decision made. The hearing of 29 March was by way of enforcement proceedings. I am of the opinion that the constituent's personal attitude and demand that his local member and, through that medium, my Department, assist in his dilemma caused the right honourable member to make repeated representations requesting there be intervention in this case. There was no legal right to intervene and accordingly these requests were declined, but obviously the constituent was not prepared to accept that advice. I am now advised that the constituent's affidavit referred to in the right honourable member's letter, which is the cause of this complaint, was sworn on 11 December 1984 and filed in court in person by the constituent when he appeared for himself on 14 December 1984. In other words, when the right honourable member wrote his letter on 28 March 1985, I am advised that the affidavit referred to in the letter had already been considered by the court some months before. With hindsight, it would have been better if the letter had not been written. It appears that the letter was delivered to the court in an effort to mollify the agitation of a constituent who was adamant that his affidavit had not been properly considered. There was no possibility that the right honourable member's letter could have any influence on the proceedings because in legal terms the substantive issues between the parties had been decided on appeal well before that time and the constituent's representations, including his affidavit, had been dealt with by the court in the previous December. Accordingly, I am of the view that no action should be taken against the right honourable member. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-First, I make no apologies for representing the electors of New England. There are, however, a couple of fairly fundamental questions that have been raised in the course of this statement and I am grateful to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for the opportunity to canvass them. The first is that I think it needs to be comprehended that there are extraordinary difficulties for many people in two areas of the family law jurisdiction at the moment. One is in the question of the custody of children and the second is in the distribution of matrimonial property. I shall address the matter of the general status of the Family Court in a moment. Equally, the circumstances of this particular constituent need to be understood. When the Attorney-General was speaking a moment ago he referred to the fact that no doubt others in this place have also made representations in respect of the exercise of judgment within this jurisdiction. I refer only to one other and that received some publicity not a little while ago. In that instance it was the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) who made representation by letter to a particular judge of the Family Court. That judge read the letter; it was not a casual representation. Indeed, I gather that in this instance the letter was hand delivered to that particular judge. Quite properly, the Minister, representing his constituent, had pointed to the concern of that constituent-`the dilemma of saving the woman's home and her sanity'. That quote is from an article by Paul Sheehan in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 November 1984. The difficulty in my case was that this particular constituent was, like many, not a man of substantial means. However, he was a man of sufficient means to have the right to legal aid denied him. He had, in fact, appeared on his own behalf on appeal. He was therefore in the situation where an affidavit, which he believed very strongly set down his position and which, in his view, had not been adequately considered by the Court, was going to be ignored in the enforcement proceedings which were to be undertaken on 29 March. In other words, this constituent, having had representation in the initial case, having not been entitled to legal aid, having no legal representation in the second instance because of his income and having been to appeal, was seeking to have an affidavit which he had prepared and which had been lodged by the Court reconsidered at the enforcement proceedings on 29 March last. It is not altogether without merit to mention that, as far as this constituent's circumstances were concerned, it was his allegation that, were the enforcement procedures to prevail, not only would he lose the ability to sustain himself and thus be forced on to unemployment benefit, but also he would be unable to meet the maintenance order that was in force on him and his wife and children would henceforth be in circumstances where they would need to be cared for by the state. He sought to bring into the Court's consideration certain matters relating to that which he believed had been given inadequate consideration on an earlier occasion. In the circumstances there was no other recourse for this constituent other than to come to me as his member of parliament. Are members of this place going to refuse to represent their constituents who are not entitled to legal aid and who have no ability to get any other advice on a matter that they see affecting their whole financial future? As a person of honour, this individual felt that the consequence of the order was going to force both him and his family into dependence on the state. Was I, as a member, to say: `I am not going to represent you'? Indeed, in my view had I done so I would not have been meeting the proper responsibilities of a person elected to this Parliament. Honourable members must remember that matrimonial causes is a Federal jurisdiction; it is not a question of an individual being able to go to a State member. This is a matter of Federal jurisdiction; in this case where was no legal aid available; the individual had no legal advisers to whom he could turn and nobody from whom to seek advice except his Federal member of parliament or perhaps a senator. In those circumstances, I make no apologies for having written, not to seek a particular consideration of that man's point of view, but to ask that the affidavit which had been submitted on an earlier occasion be reconsidered. The Attorney-General says quite properly that there are procedures which a court requires to be followed in the instance of representations to a court. I think it is worth looking at them in relation to the position of a Federal member. I refer to page 4 of the Attorney-General's statement where he says: There are proper avenues for bringing matters to the attention of the court. These are by the constituents and their respective legal advisers bringing evidence before the court. It cannot be done by the back door, by private communications with the judge, either by the parties in the case or by other persons acting on their behalf, whether they be legal advisers or members of Parliament. I contend that members of parliament are in an entirely different situation. I do not know the detail of the affairs of that constituent. Certainly I have met him, he has come into my electoral office and I have considered his case. I tried to give him what help I could, but I am not in a position where I can go before a court and attest to the matters which he represents to me. I could only do so within my personal knowledge of the affair. Matters that are represented to us as individual members of parliament have, in my view, the same professional privilege that should and does adhere to any of the submissions made to any other member of a profession in this country. As an individual member of parliament, I am in a position-and I suggest that every other member of parliament is in an identical position-where I cannot go before a court and attest to matters that are put to me by a constituent. I am not a party to the case. Although he is a constituent, he is not in any other way connected to me. Am I now in a position where I am told that I have to go before the court to act for this man in the only way that he has of final recourse-that is, through his Federal member of parliament? I put to the Attorney-General that that cannot be correct. As members of parliament we must have an ability at least to write a letter to say that certain matters should be considered by the court. Once again I draw attention to the instance of the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. In that instance, Mr Uren was told that he had made an unwarranted intrusion into the judge's handling of the matter to which he took `great exception'. Mr Uren was told: His honour can only speculate as to the reason for your writing to him privately, and points out that if you had any legitimate reason to intermeddle in the judicial process, there exist procedures by which you could have intervened--- It is interesting that on that occasion there was no suggestion by the Director of Public Prosecutions that there should be contempt of court procedures. But in my case there is. In the instance I have just quoted the Minister wrote privately. I did not write privately. I wrote to the Court. In the Minister's instance the judge who heard the case read the letter. In my case I did not address the letter to a particular judge, I addressed it to the Court. I did not try to intervene directly and I did not intervene by putting a particular circumstance. I asked whether the Court would hear the submission which was prepared by way of proper affidavit and which had already been considered by the Court. Why does the Director of Public Prosecutions see fit to represent that I should be prosecuted by way of contempt of court, when in the Minister's case there is no suggestion of any reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions? I suggest that therein lies another tale. There are a number of other matters that need to be referred to. There is the general question of the way by which, in terms of a response, the officer, who was only an acting registrar, responded. In his letter to me, dated 29 March-and the Attorney-General referred to it in his statement-he said: To write to a member of the Judiciary in the manner in which you have done is highly improper. In my view, that letter constitutes a prima facie breach of the privilege of the Parliament. Had it not been for my sensitivity about the problems of the Family Court, about which I want to say a little in a moment, that letter of itself would have been a breach of parliamentary privilege. I know there is a problem of trying to divide adequately the responsibility between the administration, the judicature and us, as members of the legislature. When I receive a letter, not from the Court but from a person who purports to be the Acting Registrar, which says that my acting properly on behalf of a constituent is highly improper, I frankly take strong objection to it. I see it as very regrettable that in a circumstance where I am making not a private representation but a very public one, and making it not to an individual judge but to the Court, there should be that measure of sensitivity, particularly in the Family Court, to the receipt of that sort of representation from any member of this chamber or indeed from the other place. I think it is worth while referring to the second reading speech on the introduction of the Family Law Act by the then Attorney-General, Senator Murphy. At page 2827 of the Senate Hansard of 13 December 1973 he said: Honourable senators will recall that in November 1971 I moved a motion, which was carried by this Senate, that there be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry the matter of `the law and administration of divorce, custody and family matters with particular regard to oppressive costs, delays indignities and other injustices'. In the course of the second reading speech and through the whole of the development of the Family Law Bill in this place and in the other place there was an acceptance that the family law jurisdiction had to encourage informality, that the processes of law were to be contained. The purpose of having a Family Court set up as it is now constituted was to encourage an informal process of hearing evidence, giving evidence and examining witnesses, so that the problems that individuals undoubtedly have in matters that affect their livelihoods and their family relationships can be adequately considered without some of the trappings of the law. In my view that means that not only is the Family Court in the Federal jurisdiction but its processes need to be considered in a different light from the inevitable formality that applies properly in the criminal law jurisdiction or the civil jurisdiction. The family law jurisdiction is different. I believe it is quite proper that there should be a basis on which there can be a proper and careful consideration of all the matters that surround a case. It would certainly be regrettable if the Attorney pursues the line he has taken in his statement and suggests that members cannot even write, in the circumstance that they are the point of final appeal, to the Court in general. I accept that there should not be special recommendations or representations, but there certainly needs to be an ability for a Federal member to write to the Court, explain the circumstances, and ask that particular evidence be considered. I believe that for them not to be able to do so would create not for us as individuals, for we are not personally involved, but for our constituents an inequity before the law that frankly cannot be sustained. There are, I believe, a couple of other matters that need to be considered. Firstly, I think it is worth while again considering the remarks made by Sir Harry Gibbs on the occasion of his giving his biennial review of the state of the judicature in Australia. Honourable members will recall that on the occasion of that address he saw fit to comment on some matters pertaining to the Family Court. He said: . . . this was not necessarily because of any failure on the part of its judges. `It may have been a mistake to establish a separate court to administer the Family Court Act. `Quite apart from some jurisdictional problems, the creation of that court has made it difficult to maintain the highest standards in the making of judicial appointments'. I offer no view on that other than to say that there is without doubt a very real concern that, regrettably, there has been the tragic assassination of Mr Justice Opas and the death of Mrs Watson, the wife of Mr Justice Watson. No one in this chamber and no one in their right mind in our society would in any way accept that that is the proper or valid way by which any protest should be lodged. Indeed, to all who have been affected by those two deaths I extend my own deepest sympathy. I think it needs to be understood that Sir Harry Gibbs was not talking so much about the way in which the Court exercised its judgment as about the problems he sees in the administration of the law in the way the Family Court is now constituted. I do not intend to go through the details of his argument, but I think it is worth while noting that he, the senior judicial officer in Australia, saw fit to make those comments. We who have the legislative responsibility, who constituted the Family Court, need to have that in our minds when we consider the future. Indeed, I was pleased to note the following comment in a the Age of 8 August in relation to the Attorney-General: Bowen considers overhaul of Family Court. The Attorney-General himself said: Big changes to the operation of the Family Court are being contemplated . . . . . . broadening the court's jurisdiction, streamlining its deliberations and allowing its judges to sit on other matters. I commend him to that procedure and practice and trust that legislation to that effect will be introduced into this Parliament without undue delay. I think this does need to be said about the Family Court, and John Slee said it as well as I could in the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 August: . . . a court that is not just specialised, but isolated; not just proud of its work, but defensive and resentful of all criticism, however justified. While one can understand the difficulties under which the members of the Family Court function one has to accept that there will be extraordinary difficulties if they cannot accept proper and valid criticism and cannot accept intervention in a dispassionate way on matters that are relevant to the exercise of their responsibilities. In no way, of course, should any one of us seek to intervene in the processes that are within their responsibility. But it is proper, as the final point of appeal, I would contend for any member of parliament to act as I did in this instance. Indeed, I refer to comment of David Solomon's in the Australian Financial Review of 8 August last, when he commented, following Sir Harry Gibb's remarks: The Family Law Act was not designed to be legalistic, and the Family Law Section, which represents lawyers who practise before the Family Court, has confidence in the judges and court staff in the discharge of their difficult duties . . . The point is that if it is not designed to be legalistic then surely there should be some flexibility in those remarks that are received. There are but two other brief matters that I would mention. The first is that I find it interesting that the Director of Public Prosecutions did not see fit to comment on the remarks made by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. It is even more notable that those remarks that were made by the Minister for Finance, Senator Peter Walsh, about Mr Justice Phillip Evatt were totally ignored. How come we have a Minister who makes statements which directly go to the core of statements made by a member of the judiciary, albeit functioning as a royal commissioner-that is, the remarks of Mr Justice Phillip Evatt-and it is said, in the course of an interim report, that they can be allowed to go in the way they were; yet in this instance it is suggested by the Director of Public Prosecutions that in some way I should be prosecuted for contempt? Surely, once again there needs to be at least some equality before the law in the interpretation of members of this place. The final matter that concerns me is that, as we all know, in the last few weeks there has been some argument about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The interesting part of that argument is that much of it originates from comments that are made by some of those who see fit to reject any criticism of themselves. While I accept that it is proper for members of the judiciary to play a role in the community, and I understand their desire and wish to do so, I trust that they will always have in mind that at some future occasion some of their number may need to sit in judgment on the matters on which in public they have previously given opinions. I find it of interest that the Chief Judge of the Family Court was among those signatories to the letter that criticised very publicly the ABC's new management, and criticised it at both upper and middle levels. I believe it is relevant that there needs to be an opportunity for members of the judicature to have views and to express them privately if they so desire, but I think it inappropriate for them, having done so, then to try to cast the stone and criticise those of us in this place who try to the very best of our ability to represent our constituencies. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —by leave-I do not know why the right honourable gentleman wants me to apologise. I have already said that I did not find any contempt in this matter. The right honourable gentleman raised a number of matters which I was not going to raise. He raised the question of another member of parliament being in very much the same predicament as himself. I have a report from the Director of Public Prosecutions which says that he asked for the papers concerning the other honourable member. The Director said that the papers were made available at his request because he considered that neither case should be looked at in isolation and that, quite apart from the fact that a good deal of time had gone past without any action being taken in respect of the other matter, the other member did withdraw, did apologise in a fulsome manner when written to by the court and the court did not request that the matter be pursued further. Mr Peter Fisher —Why not? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Because of the apology. The point in this case-and I am not trying in any way to drag it out-is that the Family Court of Australia was anxious that I should note that the problem in this case seems to be twofold for the right honourable member. Firstly, the right honourable member, it says, should understand the processes of the law, as all honourable members are expected to understand the processes of the law. Secondly, it says that, when confronted with the views of the Acting Registrar, the right honourable member did not appear to comprehend the difficulties and the seriousness. One can read into that that there was an objection by the Court that the right honourable member did not see fit to apologise. I am not going to debate it here. Let me just come to the point. That makes a distinction which I hope the right honourable member understands. What I am anxious to tell all honourable members is that they are not allowed, under the laws on contempt, to write to judges. This is not the first time that this has happened. It has nothing to do with the Family Court. I am very mindful that when the right honourable member was a Minister he made an explanation in defence of one of his own members-I think it was the then honourable member for Macquarie-when the Chief Justice of New South Wales said that that honourable member was guilty of contempt because a letter had been written to the Chief Justice asking that leniency be extended in a matter. I am very mindful of the fact that the right honourable gentleman made an explanation in defence of that situation. Let me make it very clear: Ignorance is no excuse under the law. The point all honourable members have to look at is that any letters that any of them write can be considered contempt. I only want to mention that to them. Mr Ian Cameron —Do you go on television and defend judges? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a pity that we cannot get some sense into this because we are not trying to make a political issue out of it. Let me make it very clear. The idea of giving an explanation was not so much because it relates to the right honourable member but because it relates to every member of parliament. It is a grave contempt of a court to communicate with or to seek in any way to influence a judge upon the subject matter which he has to determine. That is the law. The court itself can take action for contempt. I am here only to alert all honourable members to the fact that they are in that position. I am anxious to explain publicly that I do not agree with the Director of Public Prosecutions in this case. I think that is fair for everybody. I appreciate what the right honourable gentleman has said about this particular court, but I emphasise that it does not matter which court honourable members write to; they are in difficulties. If a constituent has problems about making representations, they cannot be made by members of parliament or anybody else writing letters. That is the difficulty honourable members might find themselves in. They are not allowed to get away with it in those terms. The Family Court has had a lot of publicity. It is a very difficult jurisdiction and I am sure that there is room for improvement along the lines that I would like to see brought about. Its judges do a splendid job. They are limited to that jurisdiction. We can imagine the difficulties they have in trying to decide disputes related to custody and matrimonial property. It is not an easy jurisdiction. To that extent I support them to the utmost. It is not easy for them to have to undergo criticism that they are not able to do their job. The right honourable gentleman did not make that criticism, but the real issue is that we cannot have a suggestion that it is an inferior court. Its judges are doing a splendid job under very difficult circumstances. The appointments were not necessarily made by my side of the House; many of them were made by the right honourable gentleman's Government when it was in power. This has nothing to do with the politics of appointment. I know that that issue was not raised, but I want to see a court of the utmost capacity. I want to see the members of that Court recognised as being at the top of their profession. That is the important part. In the Family Court there may be an opportunity for issues about which the parties agree to be dealt with speedily, but where the parties disagree they must be dealt with by a judge of the highest standing because a judicial decision has to be made. I think there are difficulties in an exclusive jurisdiction. It is difficult to have judges limited to that jurisdiction and not able to do other work. I am anxious to explore with the co-operation of all honourable members, because this is a non-party matter, the question of freeing up the Court to give the highest calibre to its judiciary so that they are able to undertake all sorts of other judicial work. I think that would help no end. I thank honourable members opposite for indicating that they do not see any difficulties there. I want to make the general point that in law, which is what this is all about, all honourable members run the risk of committing contempt if they dare communicate with a court. That is the difficulty. That is the reason for this suggestion. I do not think it is at all fair to try to make an example of any one member. As I say, many members would have written letters and got away with it on the basis of an apology. For reasons related to the right honourable member's tenacity in the issue or perhaps his own personality, he does not think he should apologise. That is a matter for his judgement. In my view, he has committed no contempt anyway. Having made that explanation, I hope that this is the last time I have to deal with the matter of contempt. I know that the right honourable member mentioned another matter. He should not think that that has been overlooked by the judge concerned. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Taxation: Private Medical Insurance 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 sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on health fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie,Mr Hicks,Mr Hunt,Mr Langmore,Mr MacKellar,Mr Ruddock,Mr Sharp and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will set aside a national park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals be undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners as in duty bound ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Charlesworth,Mrs Child,Mr Chynoweth and Mr Hurford. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned totally deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school education, as it will not only affect children in their most formative years but also their families. We urge you to reverse proposals for cuts in children's services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Downer,Mr Steele Hall,Mr Hurford,Mr Jacobi and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian national flag be changed only with the approval of the nation as expressed in a referendum'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Chynoweth and Mr Mildren. 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 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 symbolizes 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 ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that there is a need to end the current discriminatory application of sales on confectionery and the other anomalies existing in sales tax law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this tax should be replaced by a broad-based consumption tax with a uniform ad valorem rate, without any exemptions whatsoever. by Mrs Child,Mr Chynoweth and Mr Hurford. To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of The South Australian Country Women's Association Incorporated and the undersigned shall showeth: The necessity to restore the concessional price of fuel in rural areas-without which there will be increased freight and production costs. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will restore concessional price of fuel in rural areas for the benefit of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Downer,Mr Jacobi and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in the 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; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation. 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 give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. by Mr Drummond,Mr Rocher and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely'' Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as ``Capital Gains tax after death'' Gift tax Increased Company tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron and Mr Conquest. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Preschools and Day Care Services are a reversal of A.L.P. policy to make child care services available to all at an affordable cost. Further, that the fee rises arising from the cuts will cause great hardship to the majority of families using these services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton and Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Governments failure to act to correct the anomolies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21st March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be replaced before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's bill in the Senate for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill in the Senate to repeal the Labor Governments iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, including farms, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small enterprises finally sell these assets are not ``windfall gains'', but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business or farm by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the bussiness or farm to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses and farms often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell these assets to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging regional residents (country and outer metropolitan) with regard to the provision of access to art forms, in particular to tours of professional performing arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organizations to maintain access to performing and other art activities in country and outer metropolitan areas, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd and Mr Peter Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: As residents of the city of Mackay and the shires of Pioneer, Mirani, Sarina and Broadsound and surrounding districts, your petitioners do humbly pray that the Australian Government, in recognition of the present plight of the cane growing industry in our region and other parts of Australia, and in recognition of the importance of the industry to the economic and social well-being of our community, provide urgent financial assistance to canegrowers to ensure the survival and future viability of our local economy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia draw to the attention of the house- That we should co-operate with America to prevent a nuclear War. That we should have a stronger Alliance with America pursuing a common goal of sensible and controlled nuclear arms development. That we should have a referendum to establish the desire of the Australian people to have a more definite and secure commitment in our defence relationship with America. That the referendum should read- That Australia maintain and strengthen its treaties with the United States of America even though that may result in separate and different agreements between the U.S., New Zealand and Australia. Your petitioners therefore request that the above referendum be taken to the Australian people to vote on. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth- That the current ``epidemic'' of adverse reactions to medical drugs (both prescriptions and over-the-counter) constitutes a severe health problem. The monitoring of such reactions is inadequate. There is a lack of awareness of the role of such drugs in causing disease. Consumers are confused by the large number of unnecessary brand names for the same drug. There is insufficient onus on drug companies to compensate the victims of adverse drug reactions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray- 1. That there should be- (a) Mandatory reporting of suspected drug reactions to the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (A.D.R.A.C.). (b) Recording of pre-death medication on death certificates. (c) Collection and publication of the resulting statistics. 2. That the labelling of drugs should include- (a) Generic (or chemical) names in place of brand names. (b) Warnings of recorded adverse reactions. 3. That Australia should seek uniform international surveillance of medical drugs. 4. That Pharmaceutical companies be made automatically liable for injury or death caused directly or indirectly by their products. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Campbell. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have 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 koala. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Charlesworth. 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. That they are not satisfied with the legal aid system in Australia. 2. We believe that legal aid should provide a solicitor for any type of court appearance even for a parking infringment for a pensioner who is below the poverty line. 3. The undersigned agree that we are not second class citizens and we need to be represented by a solicitor. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that legal aid must represent any pensioner for any type of court appearance. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Child. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully show: As a part of the world wide campaign by women in the final year of the United Nations' Decade for Women for `Equality, Development and Peace' (1976-1985) and in view of the grave possibility of nuclear catastrophe, the Union of Australian Women calls on the Australian Government to: intensify its efforts for nuclear disarmament. remove U.S. bases from Australian soil. keep the Pacific and Indian Oceans nuclear free. by Mrs Child. 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 Australian possesses, which may be applied at an international level to reap significant economic and technological return to the nation, and; Since an appropriate space program for Australia must involve presently uncoordinated industry, government and research agencies, united together with Federal Government funding; Your petitioners therefore pray that you will support the establishment of an Australian Aerospace Agency to manage aerospace programs under a Federal Budget, promote technology transfer, and market our expertise overseas, while ensuring the continued operation of existing space-related facilities within the nation. by Mrs Child. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 5. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: (i) The financial situation of students enrolled at Australian post-secondary institutions is already extremely difficult and any increase in the financial commitments of students would gravely worsen their financial difficulties. (ii) Those students and potential students from social groups currently under-represented and disadvantaged in the education system would be most severely affected by the re-introduction of fees for post-secondary education. Yours petitioners therefore pray that: 1. Post-secondary tuition fees not be re-introduced for any category of students. 2. Emphasis should be on increasing access to education by, among other things, increasing student financial assistance. And your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Mr Conquest. 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 their concern at Family Allowance funding and your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject any proposal to reduce the level of Family Allowance fund. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to maintain the present system of progressive increases in the rate of payment of Family Allowance up to the fifth child. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to index the present funding level of Family Allowance to Consumer Price Index movements to maintain its real value at current rates. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That we the undersigned are greatly concerned by, and totally opposed to proposed taxation changes and the introduction of new taxes, value added tax, consumption tax or retail turnover tax, capital gains tax, death duties, gift tax or inheritance tax. We wish you to repudiate any or all of these taxes in part or full. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Commonwealth Government of Australia will protect our society from these taxes, And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: 1. We affirm our belief that, in Jesus Christ, human sexuality is placed in the context of mutual loving relationships and therefore Christians reject any form of pornography which depicts violence against adults and/or children and the economic, physical and spiritual exploitation which is basic to hard-core pornography. 2. We urge the Parliament to prohibit the importation or production of this kind of pornography. 3. We request the Parliament to continue a public inquiry during 1985 to report on the operation of Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to video tapes and video discs which have been refused classification or classified ``X'' by the Film Censorship Board. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. 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 horse protected from industry and indiscriminate slaughter. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority the decision of the Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard-core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with grave concern and deplore the decision of the Hawke Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become more widespread during the period of this inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representative in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in arid areas motorists die of thirst and heat on roads and highways. The Australian Bureau of Statistics mentions that: In 1980 12 died of thirst, 11 died of heat. In 1981 12 died of thirst, 11 died of heat. In 1982 6 died of thirst, 20 died of heat. These deaths happen after their vehicle breaks down. They have not enough water to last for weeks on the roads waiting for help. When they realise they run short of water, that's the end, they panic they think of their children and start looking desperately for water around. Unfortunately there is none. When they are overtaken by the de-hydration process it is too late to come back. They die where they are, in terrible pains. The present Petition purports to prevent the motorists dying of thirst by the placement of watercups at regular intervals along the roads and highways so that they can find within a reasonable walking distance the supply of water they need to save their life. 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 petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. We are completely dissatisfied with the pricing policy of petrol in this country. 2. We are aware that it has an adverse affect on the living standards of the average wage earner of this country. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will propose and pass a motion that the price of petrol be reduced by 3c a litre in line with a commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the frequent and substantial increase in the price of petrol and diesel fuel. 2. That we are aware that these price increases have an adverse affect on the living standards of the average Australian wage earner. 3. That increases in fuel prices add to farm costs and further reduce the average income per farmer which has already fallen to one-third of national earnings. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Government will immediately reduce the price of petrol by three (3) cents per litre in line with the commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign and take all possible action to prevent further increases occurring. 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. A petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That facilities and conditions for the treatment of ex-service personnel at the Repatriation General Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria are being seriously eroded by the closure of wards specifically for veterans and by the appallingly anomalous salary inequities for nursing staff. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament ensure that funding is immediately made available to reopen wards and to correct anomalies in salaries for the dedicated and specialised nursing staff at Heidelberg, and other Repatriation General Hospitals, so that aging veterans who made immeasurable sacrifices for this country can be assured of a continuity of care and treatment. And your petitioners as in diety will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: 1. That the functions of local government involve assessing local demand for services and either providing, or facilitating the provision of, those services; 2. That a transfer of responsibility for the provision of services from one level of government to another must be accompanied by a corresponding transfer of funds; 3. That local government in Victoria is becoming increasingly involved in the planning and provision of human services in particular; 4. That the level of services currently provided by or through local government cannot be maintained, and certainly cannot be increased, if the funds made available to local government through the personal income tax-sharing arrangement are not maintained at the present level; 5. That we are totally opposed to any reduction in the percentage of personal income tax allocated to local government. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the funding of local government without the consent of representatives of local government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned, the Lord of Knights, Officers, Knights and Members of the Order of the White Cross International, a Humanitarian Knighthood for the Defence and Protection of Life, and the Grand Master and Knights of the Order of the Rainbows and residents of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth: That we, the undersigned petitioners are deeply concerned about the intent and preparations of the present Government to introduce compulsory Identification-Cards for all Residents of Australia, which may constitute far-reaching consequences for the ordinary individual and that these consequences substantiate our utmost concern. (1) The introduction of said Identity Cards had occupied the minds of previous Governments for all sorts of reasons, but were dismissed due to stern resistance of the Australian Public as being an intrusion into the privacy of the individual at large. We hold that the World has realised and indeed envies the great personal freedom Australians can proudly call their own. Their right to live and let live, respecting the privacy of others, minding their own business. Shall this vital privilege of the individual be put to the chopping-block by a reform-happy Socialist Government, which may see a need to come in step with Orwellian-spirited State Powers elsewhere in the World? An Identification-Card may look very innocent indeed, containing no personal information other than name, address and number, possibly a photo of the person concerned, yet the number is the key to the Computer behind the Card, the information stored in the course of time. If such is to be the future, the individual may only suspect that ``Big Brother'' knows about one's political affiliations, financial status, religious beliefs, frequency of changing addresses or employment, abortions, divorces and what more! In short: One's past and present is engraved in this proposed simple and innocent looking Identity Card. We believe that such instrument of identity-control must prove disadvantages on all levels for the ordinary citizen, including pre-judgment in employment situations, particularly in the Civil Service sector or simply during a routine-check by Law Enforcement Officers at the road-side. One may then pray, the right Party is in Power in order to receive a fair treatment. (2) We further believe that By-Laws, most likely to follow the introduction of I-D Cards may also create a lot of inconveniences for many people in the form of timewaste and fines to pay. We humbly ask the Honourable Members of the House to consider the day to day practicality of the ordinary resident, many of whom may in the rush-hour to work forget the said I-D card and thus this would constitute in principal already an offence, subject to prosecution and punishment. Surely in the wake of introducing said Identity Cards great restrictions and cautious limitations may be promised by Ministers concerned, pushing aside fears of bleak consequences, yet this door-opener to citizen-control with the aid of Computers is likely a step by step procedure. Is the Public not used to ``broken promises'', to ideals being compromised for opportunities? (3) We, the undersigned petitioners doubt very much that the introduction of the Identity Card would reduce the crime-rate in Australia, or would lead to a higher success-rate in bringing criminals to Justice, nor that the problem of illegal immigrants would be diminished. Considering the dropping success-rate in solving crime-cases in European Countries, where I-D Cards exist for decades the relatively high success-rate of the Australian Police should indicate that competence and efficiency of Law Enforcement Officers are better measures to police Law and Order in a country than I-D Cards. Surely, there will be always promoters of the ``Ideal State of Uniformity'' with a ``Big Brother'' watching us all, like the former Chief of the German Federal Police, Dr Herold, calling for ``the transparent Citizen'' in his Publication ``The Sun-State''. We, the undersigned petitioners rather side with the concept of ``Unity by Diversity'' and we do believe such concept is still very dear to the hearts of true Australians. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Honourable Members of the House of Representatives reject the introduction of a compulsory Identification Card. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled this humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. The Richest 2,000 people own as much as the poorest 2 1/4 million. It is a travesty in these circumstances that 2 million people are living in poverty in this country (Bob Hawke 11.7.81, Sydney Morning Herald). The present provision of Social Benefits is absolutely inadequate . . . locking recipients into poverty (including 800,000 children of those on social welfare pensions or benefits). To enable all Australians to share in the wealth of their country we call on the Australian Government in the forthcoming Taxation Reform to . . . 1. Raise the tax threshold to $10,000. 2. Double the permissible income ($30 to $60) plus indexation. 3. All pensions and benefits to be raised to 30% of the male average weekly earnings and indexed to C.P.I. 4. Full standard pension to be paid on an individual basis to eliminate the discrimination against married couples currently losing $30 per week. Furthermore, we strongly oppose the introduction of a broad-based indirect tax. Thereby shifting the tax burden onto those dependent on social welfare and low income earners. Further increasing their poverty while allowing continuation of high income earners and tax avoiders to pay little or no tax. by Mr Mildren. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humbe petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That we are concerned at the proposed withdrawal of Federal Funding from pre-school education. This is 20% of the pre-school budget. Thus it will be difficult to maintain existing programs and impossible to provide pre-school education for those children not receiving it now. We urge the Commonwealth Government of Australia to maintain this funding. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This Petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That it is proposed Australia Post's Post Office Agency on the corner of Green and London Streets, Joondanna, Western Australia will be closed down on 30 June, 1985. Your petitioners therefore pray that this Agency be kept operating for the benefit of the many people who avail themselves of its services and who appreciate the convenience of its location. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That on 28th February, 1985, the Senate passed a resolution that read: (i) that Australia, as a member of the United Nations should fulfil its obligation to promote and encourage respect of human rights and fundamental freedom, and should support the European Parliament's Resolution in respect of the Baltic States. (ii) that in order to do so the Australian Government should, on its own initiative, and by seeking the support of like-minded governments, bring the question of human rights and self-determination for the Baltic States before all appropriate forums of the United Nation's, and especially before the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and, (iii) that the Department of Foreign Affairs should be directed to take all necessary steps in order to implement this Resolution. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members and the House of Representatives will concur with that resolution. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned call upon all Members to pay due respect to all returned service personnel. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all changes to benefits for veterans, and conditions of service for military personnel, as announced in the May Economic Statement, be withdrawn as to allow sufficient time for sensible community debate before any veteran or service person can be unfairly disadvantaged. by Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Federal Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- That we the undersigned wish the present Australian Flag to be retained for all time as the Flag of Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will retain the National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the introduction of a consumption tax will increase the tax burden of those who can least afford it-middle and low income earners, pensioners and beneficiaries. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should oppose any increase in, or expansion of, indirect tax, especially the introduction of a broad-based consumption tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fairfax 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 Adermann. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people and concerned citizens of Deniliquin and District respectfully showeth the recently announced cuts in Pre-school funding may cause closures to many Pre-Schools. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will ensure that Commonwealth funding be restored for all our children's sakes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully sheweth: 1. That there is considerable concern in the Aboriginal Community that the decision of the Aboriginal Development Commission to close its Area Office in Swan Hill will: (a) Adversely affect the Aboriginal Community in the Mallee &Goulburn Valley Area of Victoria: (b) Deny immediate access of members of the Aboriginal Community to an Officer of the A.D.C.: (c) Lead to a reduction in services for the Aboriginal Community in the Mallee &Goulburn Valley Area of Victoria: (d) Create further unemployment in the Aboriginal Community: (e) Deny the development of self determination from the Aboriginal Community in The Mallee &Goulburn Valley Area of Victoria. 2. Calls upon the Government to intervene to prevent the closure of the said Area Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peter Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The Petition shows: That certain citizens of the State of Victoria are concerned by the Australian Government's failure to adequately fund the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The ABC, both in radio broadcasting and television, has in spite of a history of severe government cut-backs over the past years, given Australia wide broadcasting of excellence and balance. Your petitioners therefore pray that the present government take positive steps in the next budget to halt the destruction of ABC programming, without forcing the Commission to introduce commercial advertising, as we believe this will certainly destroy the Australian Broadcasting Commission's quality and independence. by Mr Lamb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that 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. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The uncertainties surrounding wages policy and economic growth revealed by last night's Budget. 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 HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.43) —Since the Budget was brought down last night, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has showered himself with self-congratulations about his third Budget. Certainly we in the Opposition welcome the fact that there has been a significant reduction in the size of the Budget deficit. We also welcome the fact that, unlike the first two Keating Budgets, in which he spent money like a drunken sailor, there has been an increase of only about 1.5 per cent in real terms in Commmonwealth outlays. Certainly that kind of approach is better than the totally irresponsible, wilfully spendthrift approach that was adopted in the first two Budgets. But before the Treasurer settles back into too much self-congratulation about this Budget, there are a few things that ought to be kept in perspective. Mr Tim Fischer —Like interest rates. Mr HOWARD —I shall come to interest rates shortly. But we ought to understand the perspective in which this Budget was framed. Last night the Treasurer himself told us that we would have an inflation rate at the end of this financial year of at least 8 per cent, which is double that of our major trading partners. If he does not get up on discounting-and his record of getting up with the unions lately is not too good-we shall have an inflation rate of between 9 per cent and 11 per cent. So if Simon and Bill get their own way, we shall have an inflation rate that takes us into double digits. Even though this year the Treasurer did not spend as recklessly as he did in his first two Budgets, the average real increase in government spending under the Hawke Government is 4.9 per cent in real terms. That is more than double the average of the seven Fraser Budgets; and this man comes in and purports to give Opposition members lectures about fiscal responsibility. He is still, without question, the highest taxing, biggest spending Treasurer that we have seen since Federation. But not content with that, under the third Keating Budget 750,000 pay as you earn taxpayers will be going into higher tax brackets this year, with 500,000 of them moving into the 46c rate. He is backing and filling, and twisting and turning. At Question Time, when he was asked about this, he indicated that come September, the bleak September statement on taxation, there will not be any relief for those three-quarters of a million Australian taxpayers who will be going into higher personal tax brackets because he got rolled at the taxation summit. I know that the Treasurer wanted to change the tax system, he wanted to alter the tax mix; but he got mugged at the Canberra International Motor Inn during the taxation summit-as he may well get mugged at the John Curtin Hotel in Melbourne, where all those IR Club deals are made. When there is a bit of sticky going in the discounting case, I suppose the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will come running along and, reminiscent of his old days at the Australian Council of Trade Unions, he will say, ``Look fellows, we will go over and work it all out', and poor old Paul will be left out in the cold again, in the way in which he was left out in the cold at the taxation summit and he was rolled by the unions. But not content with leaving those 750,000 Australian taxpayers out in the cold, the Treasurer also brought down a Budget that disclosed a very interesting statistic. It disclosed that under the present Treasurer, per capita overseas debt in Australia has risen from- Mr Keating —Not that again. Mr HOWARD —Yes, that again; and the Treasurer will hear a lot more about it. He does not like his overseas debt. Last night he said: `You do not want to worry about overseas debt; forget about it. The real reason that it has gone up is that we have had a devaluation, and you know what happens when you have had a devaluation: We have to pay more for our overseas debt'. What a surprise it is. Until we have a revaluation, we shall be stuck with that problem, and the policies that the Treasurer is pursuing will not give him a revaluation of our currency. To return to the theme, however, in June 1983 overseas debt was $1,571 per head. By June 1985 it was $3,326 per head. It has gone from 14.6 per cent of gross domestic product to 25.1 per cent. The Treasurer cannot come back and say: `It is all private sector'. A lot of it is private sector. Mr Keating —Most of it is. Mr HOWARD —I thought that the Treasurer would say that most of it is. But it so happens that the ratio of increase in the liability on the public account is exactly the same as the ratio of increase on the private account. What makes the situation worse, of course, is that Australia's external debt servicing obligations, expressed as the ratio of interest payments and contractually due capital repayments to exports of goods and services, stood at 8.3 per cent of GDP in 1979; it had risen to 33.6 per cent by 1984-85. We did not hear any of that in the 25 minutes reserved for the television last night when the Treasurer tried to represent that he and his Prime Minister were the greatest things since sliced bread so far as the Australian economy is concerned. But not content with that perspective for the Budget, the Treasurer did not tell us last night that interest rates under him are the highest in real terms that Australia has seen since the Great Depression. Yet he had the indecency, the temerity, in concert with his Prime Minister, before the last election campaign, to promise the Australian people that we would have lower interest rates in 1985. He got up at Question Time today, buttoned up his coat and said: `Look, the market sets interest rates; I have nothing to do with it. It is all out in the market'. I happen to agree with him. The market does set interest rates. He did not worry about that economic finessing in the run up to the election; he did not worry about it in September of last year when he was heavying the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia to let the money supply run out so that interest rates were kept artificially low before the election. That is why there has been such a ridiculous blowout in the money supply from the Budget projections. I know that some of that blowout is due to deregulation, but not all of it is. One has only to read the Governor's Copland Memorial Lecture delivered a few months ago in which he put it very squarely on to the Treasurer and made it perfectly clear that this Government has run until fairly recently quite a loose monetary policy. The Treasurer also did not tell us that although he brought down the public sector borrowing requirement-he brought it down to 5.6 per cent of the gross domestic product from the dizzy levels he gave us in his first two Budgets-it was still in relative terms 50 per cent above the public sector deficit in the United States. Yet he and his Prime Minister, on their sundry journeys overseas, had lectured the Reagan Administration about its high Budget deficits. In relative terms the Keating deficit this year, taken in concert with the deficits of the States, is 50 per cent greater than the United States deficit. Most of the States and cities in the United States run Budget surpluses. He did not tell us that, either. He did not put that in the 25 minutes that the television gave him last night. He also did not tell us that one of the reasons he has been able to bring about a big reduction in the deficit is that he has had a rather good profit from the Reserve Bank this year. I do not begrudge him profits from the Reserve Bank-I was happy to have a profit from the Reserve Bank on one or two occasions myself-but there are some remarkable one-off features about this particular profit, as he well knows. It would be a pretty stupid Treasurer who thought that year after year he could repeat this sort of dividend that he got from the Reserve Bank this year. The other thing that he did not tell us is that one of the reasons why there has been a good improvement in the deficit outlook is that he has projected a fall in unemployment benefit payments. It remains to be seen whether or not that fall is achieved. So whilst the Opposition welcomes the fact that this year the Treasurer has not spent quite so drunkenly as he did on the first two occasions, let us not get carried away about the economic parameters of the third Keating Budget. Let us remember that if those optimistic growth forecasts, which are really the centrepiece of the Budget, either do not stand up or turn out to be far more qualified than the Treasurer thinks, the whole Budget will fall. That is crucially dependent upon what happens on the wage discounting front. That brings us back to the Treasurer's clout within the trade union movement. I ask honourable members to remember that this is the man who stormed the country, who laid it on the line, who told us that he was not a shrinking violet. He said: `I am not in this business to be messed around by fools. If I cannot get this tax package up I will go. I have more useful things to do with my time.' Mr Keating —I never said that. Mr HOWARD —He said that he would go if he did not get the tax package up. He pounded in here and said: `It is what you do in this game that matters, not what you say, what you promise, what you threaten or what you beg. It is what you do.' He promised the world on taxation and he delivered us a rout. We all know who was routed; we all know that it was the Treasurer, the honourable member for Blaxland. He had a deal stitched up. He told everybody, out of the corner of his mouth, that Bill and Simon had told him that it was okay and that he could get it through. What happened when the going got a bit rough? The good old Prime Minister ran down to the International Motor Inn and he stitched it up. That was done with such complete disregard for the Treasurer that, the morning after, the Treasurer was still saying on the steps of Parliament House that he was no shrinking violet, that he was after option C and that he would get it. But that did not happen. Yet he comes in here and expects us, and the Australian people, to believe that, having failed to deliver the unions at the Taxation Summit, he can deliver the unions on wage discounting. Anyone who imagines that the unions will go quietly on wage discounting should have heard Simon Crean last night. They should have watched the two of them debate each other. The Treasurer was frightened to say boo to Simon Crean. The magical word `discounting' does not even appear on page 13 of the Budget Speech. He talks about bringing it to the attention of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, he talks about having a discussion about catch-up and he talks about this or that. Then, last night, he said to me: `Look, I told a Press conference that I was going to discount and I told the National Press Club'. Why did he not put it in the Budget Speech? Is he frightened? Has he got it wrong again? He mucked up the discounting section in the mini-Budget and he has mucked it up again on this occasion. He ought to know, as many other people know, that the unions have a very good mastro when it comes to attitudes to wage discounting. The unions learned very early in the piece that when politicians talk about wage discounting agreeing with them is a mug's game. The unions have had no better authority on this than one of their former presidents, that is, the present Prime Minister of Australia. This is what he had to say about all this damned fool discounting: We'll say to the Government, `We know inflation is at 16 per cent and we believe it's quite likely it may reach 20 per cent in the next two quarters. But we will not indulge in a trade-off in wages for some conjectural reduction in inflation. That was the philosophy of Bob Hawke when he was President of the ACTU, and that is the philosophy that Cliff Dolan, Simon Crean and Bill Kelty still support. That is why the Australian public is entitled to take with an enormous grain of salt the pretentions of this man who failed to deliver the unions on taxation, despite all of the hype and all of the discussion, despite all of his strutting around Australia. Do we really believe that he can deliver the unions on wage discounting? Do we really believe that he believes he can deliver the unions on wage discounting? He says that he will have a talk about it. He says that the Government believes in the maintenance of real wages but that there will not be any catch-up. However, he refers to a catch-up in his Budget Speech. I think that at our most charitable we are entitled to suspend judgment on whether or not this man who failed to deliver the unions on taxation can deliver wage discounting. One has only to look at Budget Statement No. 2 to find out how crucial wage discounting is to the whole Budget edifice. If the Government does not get wage discounting, it is done so far as that 5 per cent growth figure, and its continuation, is concerned. That is the centrepiece of the whole Budget strategy. In immortal Treasuryese, Budget Paper No. 2 says: Provided its cost and price consequences are handled adequately, the depreciation could still be having a favourable impact on activity beyond 1985-86. On the other hand, if they are not, the macroeconomic outlook would become progressively less favourable as 1986 unfolds. In other words, the Treasury is saying that the recovery will fall into a heap if we do not get wage discounting. Can we really rely on the Treasurer to get wage discounting? He told us he would deliver tax reform; he told us that he was the hottest number on tax reform in this country. He is now pretending to be the hottest number on wage discounting. We are entitled to assume, from his track record, that he will not get up on wage discounting and that casts a fundamental and serious doubt on the whole Budget strategy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.59) —During September of 1984, at page 1000 of Hansard, this same honourable gentleman, the honourable member for Bennelong and Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), was repeating a theme which he had put forward for a month-that whoever was putting together the next Budget would have huge difficulties in handling it and that we would have a $12 billion Budget deficit on our hands. He said that the unassailable fact was that next year we would have in this country a major budgetary problem. Referring to deficits in earlier years, he said that they would be reduced to pygmy proportions by the deficit problem we would face next year. On 11 September he predicted that the Budget deficit this year would be $12 billion unless we had a mini-Budget in March to increase taxes. This is the sort of bunkum he went on with last year. Last year I said it was rubbish. Every year he drags himself into this chamber and says: `I know you have brought the Budget down. It might be okay, but wait until you get to next year and then you will see the problem'. That happened in 1983-84, it happened in 1984-85, and it is now happening in 1985-86. The fact is that we will do next year what we have done this year. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was on this theme for a month and he even had some commentators interested in this theme. I see that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is smiling. He has been trapped again with his own stupid rhetoric. The fact is that the Government did not have that problem. This Government sat down with an ambitious but, nevertheless, manageableexpenditure-cutting exercise in a routine way and produced the right deficit outcome this year. So we can weigh up all this huffing and puffing against the Deputy Leader's fulminations last year on this issue. The other thing he said was that we spent recklessly in 1983-84 and 1984-85. What he does not understand-I have told him over and over again-is that the best deficit is not necessarily the lowest deficit. The lowest deficit was not the best deficit in 1983-84 or 1984-85. The deficits for those years were right, and because they were right we got growth in the economy. Yet the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, after we have clocked up these phenomenal growth rates, says: `You had the growth numbers wrong. You had the outlay numbers wrong'. We did not have them wrong, We had them dead right, and we have them right again. Mr Tuckey —All you have done is finance growth with debt. Mr KEATING —You boxhead, you would not know. You are flat out counting past 10. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask for that remark to be withdrawn. Mr KEATING —I will withdraw it if you shut up for a while. Mr Tuckey —I will shut up in the normal way I have to. You are an idiot. You are just a hopeless nong. You would not know. Mr KEATING —Shut up! Sit down and shut up, you pig. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, the fact of the matter is- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Before the Treasurer proceeds, there was a request for a remark to be withdrawn. The Chair did not hear the remark, mainly because of the noise that the honourable member for O'Connor was making. Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. The fact is that the Government did not spend recklessly in 1983-84 or 1984-85. Those deficits were right. The spending levels were right. The outcome in the economy establishes that. That is the case this year. It is not a matter of giving me any marks this year to detract from our performance over the last two years. Our performance was right then as it is right now. I just demolish this nonsense that the only deficit is the lowest deficit. This is the sort of misery mentality the former Treasurer inflicted on this country-trying to get the lowest deficit and fighting inflation first. It all failed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should not give us any lectures about fiscal policy. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a point last night about the overseas debt and he has tried to make it again. He talked about the rate of decline in the public sector borrowing requirement in the United States of America and in Australia. It is true that our public sector borrowing requirement is higher than that in the United States, but what is also true is the spectacular rate of decline for Australia. Australia is down 2.4 per cent in its public sector borrowing requirement within two years and the United States is up 0.4 per cent. Canada is down 0.9 per cent and we are down 2.4 per cent. It is the speed of the change that is important. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should ask himself this question: Who let the States out of Loan Council control, the big electricity instrumentalities and the large State authorities' borrowing programs? Who let the rabbit out of the bag? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Mr Fraser let it out of the bag. With a global limit we have got it back in and we have tried to get some discipline in borrowings, which we have been able to effect in the last two years. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is to blame for the blow-out in the public sector borrowing requirement when he had his mad railway program, his mad coal loader program, and every other mad thing he had when Malcolm Fraser decided that he would play Santa Claus to the States. The other thing the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did was to leave to us the sharpest deterioration in our fiscal history in 1983-84. He now has the indecency to say to us: `You have all these indebtedness problems'. Who left us the indebtedness problems? We have spent the last three years trying to bring them down to a pace consistent with economic growth. On page 65 of Budget Statement No. 2, private debt is shown at 25.4 per cent of gross domestic product, up from 5.8 per cent in 1980. The reason for that is that we had an investment boom in this country in respect of energy projects but those same energy projects did not produce their returns in the world market because the energy prices collapsed in 1982-83. Over time they will make their money. Over time the indebtedness relating to them will come down. Even so, they are not in a position where their viability is threatened. We are not talking about some sovereign debt problem of projects of the South American variety built for foreign exchange reasons. These are sensible, properly commercially-structured projects for which there have been borrowings. The public, Commonwealth debt is 6.2 per cent of GDP. This has risen through the 1980s but it is much lower than in the 1930s, the 1940s or the 1950s, and it is offset by official reserves of 6.5 per cent. The figures are 6.2 per cent for the Commonwealth and 12.6 per cent for the total public and publicly guaranteed debt. But that 12.6 per cent has `legrande bouffe' the States went in for as a result of the former Treasurer's action from 1980 to 1983. So the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should not talk to me about external debt. God strike me! The other thing is that the stock of United States dollar, deutchmark, yen and pounds sterling debt is revalued upwards by our depreciation, so the Australian dollar denomination of the debt rises in the first instance. Mr Tuckey —Of course it does. Mr KEATING —If the honourable member listens for a while he might learn something. That is because of the depreciation. The same depreciation which has upvalued the debt in Australian dollar terms will change the balance of imports and exports and drag the current account down. As it changes it will also revalue the debt downwards. While I take a fairly serious and cautious attitude to the question of Australia's external indebtedness, one has to trace its history to understand where it came from and to understand that the former Government let the genie out of the bottle. Honourable members opposite should not go on about that. That dispenses with the third matter raised. The next one is the question of the money supply. The former Treasurer did not hit the money supply target once in six years. This Government did so in its first year of office by selling $12 billion- Mr Howard —And then you gave it away. You lowered the pass mark. Mr KEATING —I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to hear me out. I heard him out. We did so by selling $12 billion worth of bonds. As if we would sell $12 billion worth of bonds one year and give up on it the next year! The former Treasurer was not able to bring in financial deregulation because the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System had already been eaten by moths on the shelf. That financial deregulation changed the relationship between activity and the monetary aggregates. That is why now, with the money supply-M3-running around 17 1/2 per cent, if we were seeking- Mr Tuckey —You could not even deliver Christmas presents to Warren Anderson. Mr KEATING —Why do you not shut up, you clown? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, this man has a criminal intellect and I wonder why he is even in the Parliament, much less- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer is making a personal reflection. He knows that that is contrary to Standing Orders. Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, this clown continues to interject in perpetuity. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The Chair is capable of handling the situation. I ask the Treasurer to refrain from making personal reflections. Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was doing so in response to one from him. I just make this point: If this Government were to chase the money supply down a hole to bring that 17 1/2 per cent back within the target range, we would simply destroy this economy. It would do nothing more than satisfy some lunatic fringe interest in the Liberal Party of Australia. It has nothing to do with monetary conditions because monetary conditions are firm. It has simply to do with the change in aggregates. This is happening in the United States and in Britain. The Governor of the American federal reserve system, Paul Volcker, has changed various indices over the last couple of years. He has widened them. He has a pretence at targeting. That is all it is; it is only a pretence. He has gone from one aggregate to another. He has broadened the aggregates from two percentage points to five percentage points. It is a pretence. We will not go into some pretence here to try to find an aggregate about which we cannot possibly make a judgment. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition well knows that that is just a phoney, lousy debating point he has now raised. He now talks about the Reserve Bank profit. What he does not understand about the Reserve Bank profit is that there is $800m in the Budget from the Reserve Bank. That is offset by outlays of $400m on the other side of the Budget which the Commonwealth pays the Reserve Bank on the bonds it holds when it buys those bonds to provide cash for the cash base of the economy. That is $400m against $800m, a net $400m. The Royal Australian Mint this year has a $200m decline in its contribution to revenue. From the Reserve Bank-Mint sector of the non-taxation receipts there is a net contribution of $200m to the Budget. As well as that, the Reserve Bank has sold Commonwealth assets in the form of currency, for which it has reaped Australian dollars and, like any government selling any asset-the mob opposite believes in privatisation-it is entitled to take that into its books. If one makes a choice to sell an asset one is entitled to take it into one's books. That is $200m. Opposition members should not say that in some way the deficit has been reduced because of Reserve Bank profit. That is bunkum. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that as well. I now turn to wages. God, I would have thought the honourable member for Bennelong would be the last person to raise his head about wages. When he was Treasurer he presided over the greatest wage explosion in this country's history, put our economy into negative growth for the first time in 30 years and gave us a recession nearly as deep as the Great Depression of the 1930s. He claims he has some credibility on wages. He cavils at the wages and incomes accord and the problems posed by depreciation. The only solution he would have is chaos: Let them all go out there and get their part; let the unions and the high points of the economy take their increases, paying a minimum guaranteed wage to the people at the bottom end. That is his policy. In other words, have a maximum for the work force and a maximum plus for those who are exceedingly strong in the work force. That is his policy. He is not happy with 5 1/2 per cent award wages; he would rather have 14 per cent. Mr Speaker, in the last 27 months of this Government the increase in award wages has been 12 per cent. In the last 27 months of the Fraser Government, when the honourable member for Bennelong was Treasurer, it was 28 per cent. Is that what he wants? He will never learn anything. He has been giving commentary on an economy entering its third year of growth, but he is still pulling out the old chestnuts that took him to defeat, as though he has learned nothing. He is like an economic Bourbon-he has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. He is trying to tell us that he has the right solution to wages. This Government, the accord and the Australian Council of Trade Unions have faced these problems before and we will face them again, but they will be faced with the constructive relationship of the accord. Without it we would still have hundreds of thousands of people left in unemployment, particularly young people. The fact that 410,000 people are now in jobs is no thanks to the Liberal Party or the National Party; it is thanks to the policy mix on this side of the House and the conducive relationship with the trade unions. It ill becomes the honourable member to say anything about that. Finally, the honourable member for Bennelong made much of the tax debate. He said that I said: `What you do is what matters'. That is right. I will repeat that: `You are judged by what you do'. What we have done is to implement almost entirely the recommendations in the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System-that moth-eaten thing the honourable member for Bennelong left behind, forgotten on the shelf. As well as that, we are seeking to bring about substantial tax reform in this country, something he might have wanted to do but never tried to do because the Treasury had no conceptual plan for a consumption tax and could not have had it in his time. I reject the matter of public importance absolutely. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(4.14) —Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr Punch —Hoorah! Mr BEALE —The cheer squad is here, but a bit depleted. Mr Deputy Speaker, once again this Government has thrown away the chance to restore Australia to its former pre-eminent position as one of the world's richest countries. When it first came to power it had the opportunity to take advantage of the world economic recovery, the breaking of our drought and the effective wages pause. Instead of capitalising on the situation it proceeded to become the biggest taxing, biggest spending government in Australia's peacetime history. It increased spending in real terms by over 6 per cent in each of the first two years and this year spending is up again in real terms by about 1 1/2 per cent. Analysis emphasises the uncertainty that surrounds this dubious document. Thirty per cent of all taxpayers-as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) leaves the chamber he should remember this-will move into a higher tax bracket this year. It would be a bold man who would forecast that the incidence of higher taxes on so many taxpayers will not affect the incentive of those workers. As we know, higher taxes do not encourage hard work and productivity. Overall income tax in this Budget is increased by 11.6 per cent. No less a person than Eric Risstrom forecast that this figure is more likely to be 15 to 17 per cent. He stated: Frankly, I doubt the income tax revenue statistics. With incentives reduced and the level of tax collections doubtful, it is not surprising that there are uncertainties about this Budget.Furthermore, pay as you earn taxation has increased by 13.3 per cent, compared with a stated inflation rate of 8 per cent. Once again, the Government has shown the PAYE taxpayer no mercy. Once again, the tax burden falls on the wage and salary earner and on small business. The Treasurer has made no effort to reverse the trend which, 30 years ago, had only one per cent of taxpayers paying a marginal tax rate of 46c in the dollar and now has about 40 per cent of taxpayers paying a marginal rate at about the same level. How can the Government meet its growth rate target if the average taxpayer has to work from 1 January to 10.30 a.m. on 12 June each calendar year just to pay government bills? This Government, with its corporate state outlook, its acceptance that big government, big business and big unions should impose their collective will on the community, has yet again demonstrated its disregard for small business. Nothing in this document suggests that this vital and creative sector of our society will in any way be encouraged to take the necessary risks to create prosperity for us all. Receipts have increased by 13.2 per cent. The Treasurer, who has now deserted us, has indulged in self-praise on the fact that there is to be a minor reduction in the deficit. It is not hard to make a minor reduction if receipts are up 13.2 per cent and the inflation rate 8 per cent. Mr Cleeland —Is he your expert? Mr BEALE —The honourable member should learn to count, too. But the crucial aspect is that there is still a deficit, and a very significant one at that. The deficit of about $5 billion will still add to our large structural deficit. We will still have to pay interest, not only on the existing deficit but also on this year's increase. Budget Paper No. 8 on page 9 shows the value of total government securities on issue is now $56 billion, an increase of a startling 43 per cent over the last two years. Furthermore, from a table hidden away on page 308 of Budget Paper No. 1, we now learn that public debt interest will be nearly $7 billion this year, an increase of 19 per cent on last year's figure. These figures, selected from a Budget the Treasurer calls responsible, are appalling. The conclusion is inescapable. I am sorry the Treasurer is not in the chamber so he can look in the public gallery and see the people from whom we are stealing. We are stealing from our children. This Government is the main accomplice in that theft. This further deficit, added to the already existing large deficit, requires that to pay the interest bill we must expropriate our children's future taxation. No member's household-including the household of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay)-no business and no government should continue to run at a deficit, but there seems to be no effort by the Treasurer to bring spending under control and balance the Budget. No wonder there are uncertainties surrounding last night's Budget. It would be uncharitable to say that the Government has made no effort to cut spending. Mr Leo McLeay —Do not be uncharitable. Mr BEALE —It would be uncharitable of me not to acknowledge the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for Grayndler. Let me give an example of the Government's efforts to cut spending. Export development grants have been cut from $192m to $121m. It is unbelievable that the Government continues to spend money on its own pet schemes, yet cuts funds in an area that is vital to Australia's future. Australia is going broke. Last year our balance of payments deficit was about $10 billion; yet we are reducing support for our exporters. Treasury documents show that at the end of June Australia's external debt was $68.5 billion. Last month our payments deficit was an incredible $1.362 billion. We all heard what the Treasurer said. He said that he inherited the external debt. Rubbish! It has doubled in the last two years. It is now running at the rate of $15 billion a year. Furthermore, each taxpayer in the private sector is now owed $15,000 by the Government. By June next year the external debt will be $78 billion, around 35 per cent of the gross domestic product. By the bicentenary, it will be $100 billion and then we will really have something to celebrate. Honourable members opposite can go around their maypoles saying: `We made a ton'. Tremendous! The cost of servicing our overseas debt-about $12 billion-is now greater than was the total debt just over five years ago. These servicing payments are going up at a faster rate than our exports. We now know what the Government thinks about exports. I am glad to see that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is in the House. He could help, simply with one stroke of the pen, by getting Mudginberri back to work. Our international competitiveness will not be restored until first we control our inflation rate, which is currently running at nearly 10 per cent and which is admitted by the Treasurer to be 8 per cent, and, secondly, we deregulate our labour market to make it more responsive to world conditions. This Budget makes no effort to facilitate the resolution of these two most important matters. Australia will not rejoin its rightful place as one of the world's richest countries until we cut taxes so that initiative can be restored, small business revived and more prosperity created. This requires curtailing government expenditure. Here the Treasurer has been found wanting yet again. This Budget is a curious, dubious document. The growth rate of 5 per cent is dubious. The inflation rate of 8 per cent is dubious. The tax collection figures are dubious. In so many aspects there must clearly be cause for uncertainty. This uncertainty will be heightened by the knowledge that this document is not all we are to get. The tax package is yet to come. If this Budget is all the world's best Treasurer can give us, we should replace him with someone who can count. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! Before calling the honourable member for Streeton, the Chair extends indulgence to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to make a brief comment because of its relevance. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I apologise in advance to the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) for leaving the debate. I have to catch a plane to fulfil a commitment in Melbourne. I would not wish to be discourteous to him. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(4.24) —It is unfortunate that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) will not be around to hear my rebuttal of some of the few things he has said. I am rather amused by the fact that the wording of his matter of public importance was far different from the content of his speech. He certainly did not stick to it. He certainly did not make any reference to a wages policy or economic growth. I am not surprised, because the Opposition has shown that it lacks any comprehensive, detailed wages policy. Certainly its record when it was in government is one of negative growth rather than positive. There is an explanation of why the honourable member lacked fire and verve in what he had to say. I believe that the honourable gentleman actually secretly supports the Budget. He actually finds very little in it to disparage or complain about. However, he was obliged to go through the act of blustering and puffing up, of giving some sort of pretence to his numbers on the back bench, which he hopes to amass into a majority over his current Leader, that he has something to say, that he is made of stern stuff, the mettle of leadership. Further proof that there is nothing those opposite can say, that they do have a vacuum of opinion on this matter, was the paucity of questions on the Budget at Question Time. After one or two preliminary rounds of feinting boxing moves they ran out of steam. There were no questions from the Opposition on the Budget. We moved on to extraneous matters which certainly had nothing to do with the matter of public importance before us now. We then heard what must be one of the most cliche-ridden, set scripts provided to a member of this Parliament. I suspect that when the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) heard that he was to be the supporting speaker for the Opposition during this debate he rang the Institute of Public Affairs and the Australian Small Business Association and said: `Quick, get me something. I do not understand anything about the Budget. I need a set script with some cliches in it'. Both organisations, which obviously wrote the script, are so out of step with the rest of business feeling, the business praise for the Budget handed down by the Treasurer yesterday, that the script was completely peripheral to the Budget and the debate today. I found it very difficult to swallow when the honourable member cried crocodile tears for wage and salary earners. The honourable member is noted as one of the up and coming band of union bashers and wage and salary bashers from the other side. He is itching to get on to that front bench and take over the role with the waddy to try to crush the unions into submission. The honourable member said that the Government was stealing from the babies in the street. I found that extremely hard to take when not one small advance in tax reform ever came from his side of the House during its period of government. We have attempted, we have talked about, we have debated tax reform. We will hear the final package of tax reform very soon. Let me get back to the Budget, brought down last night. Its strategy received praise right across the spectrum. Right across business, the unions and the economy we hear praise that this Budget strategy is the correct one. It is designed to bring about sustainable private sector economic recovery. There is nothing vague about it. There is nothing uncertain about it. We now have the third year of sustained economic growth which is pinned on a consistent Budget strategy. Because of this Budget, we expect a non-farm growth of 5 per cent over the coming year, which is 4 1/2 per cent in total growth of GDP. The honourable member for Deakin referred vaguely to wealth, saying that somehow we should return to some pinnacle of being a wealthy nation. Yet no mechanism for achieving economic growth-the generator of wealth in this country-was mentioned by those opposite. During the three years of office of this Labor Government since April 1983 we have achieved greater growth than was achieved during the whole eight years of the Fraser Government. However, just as important as the magnitude of growth is the pattern of that growth. Once again, this Budget continues to provide the certainty of growth in years ahead. Last year, despite pumping up the economy through government expenditure, only one-third of the economic growth occurred in the public sector. Two-thirds, or nearly 70 per cent, occurred in the private sector. Expectations for the coming year are that the contribution of growth to the economy by the public sector will be halved again. That is, less than one-sixth of the growth will be in the public sector. This Parliament must recognise that when growth is sustained in the private sector, when the level of unemployment is going down and jobs are being created, there is certainty in the air. The honourable member for Deakin compared Australia with other countries. I can say only this: While this Government will not be satisfied until we have almost no inflation and extremely low interest rates, it is a fact that the rest of our major competitors and trading partners in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are actually experiencing declining growth, whereas it is the reverse in this country; we are expanding. Provided that there is co-operation and the talks between the Government and the leaders of the Australian Council of Trade Unions are successful, we can expect that about one quarter of our predicted growth will be due to the effect of the depreciation of the Australian dollar. The Treasurer was adamant that the responsible task before us is that of ensuring that the one-off inflationary effects of depreciation do not become built into the underlying rate of inflation. I ask honourable members to contrast that acceptance of responsibility, that declaration of intention, with the inability of the Opposition when in government to develop a policy to come to grips with the fact that the value of the Australian dollar was out of step with the world economy. The previous Government had no alternative policy, other than relying on an over-inflated dollar, because it could not cope with the changes that deregulation and even a free float in the economy would demand of it. The reason it had no policy lay in its utter contempt for the cornerstone of success of this Labor Government-the prices and incomes accord. The accord has been the mechanism which has allowed this Government to talk in co-operative fashion with the peak council of the wage and salary earners and to deal with inflation. This has meant that we have had a growth in jobs and a drop in the level of inflation. I ask honourable members opposite to contrast that improvement with the deplorable record of the previous Government and the situation just three or more years ago. That Government had a lack of policy; it had no wages policy whatsoever and, as the Treasurer said earlier in this debate, in 27 months this country experienced a wages blowout of 28 per cent. The previous Government had an abysmal record. It was unable to develop a wages policy and to control the wages blowout. Worse still, added to that Government's sorry record of economic mismanagement we had 10 per cent unemployment, 13 per cent inflation, negative growth rates, record levels of industrial disputes, and also record Budget deficits. The honourable member for Deakin said that he was concerned and that we should do something about the proposed level of the Budget deficit. He said that $4.9 billion was too high. In percentage terms of gross domestic product, the current proposed Budget deficit announced last night is less than half of the record Budget deficit that the now Opposition left us when, fortunately, it was defeated in March of 1983. Let us have no doubt about that and let us be quite clear that the Australian people do not want to return to that sorry state, that dismal performance. The talks to be held in the next few weeks between the Government and the ACTU are crucial. It is quite correct for the Treasurer to say that the Government will ask the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to take into account the effect of the deflation of the Australian dollar. There are many costs in production. Wages are only one of those costs. They are not the total contributor to inflation caused by the devaluation. Working people should not have to carry the total burden of inflationary effects, but they should be expected to bear a fair and proper burden. So the Government proposes to modify its support for full indexation, after talking over with the trade union movement a comprehensive package that will honour and preserve the accord which, according to the OECD, has been a remarkable and successful instrument of wages policy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee's report on proposals for variations of the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and its environs-Eighty-fifth series-together with extracts of minutes of proceedings and the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.36) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Foreign States Immunities Bill 1985 is to set out in clear and accessible form the law relating to the jurisdiction of Australian courts over foreign states, their agencies and instrumentalities. This matter is currently determined according to the common law. The legislation will implement the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in report No. 24 on foreign state immunity; which was tabled in the Parliament on 10 October 1984. The report was prepared after thorough examination of similar legislation in other countries and extensive consultation with relevant organisations and individuals. The matter was referred to the Commission by the previous Government. It is non-contentious and we expect bi-partisan support. The Bill is concerned only with immunity from suit and related matters such as the proper scope of enforcement measures and service of process. It does not confer immunity from substantive laws nor does it concern liability to criminal proceedings. The Bill is strictly prospective in effect. Since the early nineteenth century it has been recognised that foreign states are at least in some ways in a special position when action against them is brought before the courts of other states. The basic justification for immunity is the notion of sovereign equality of states. Until the early 1970s, it was generally thought that at common law foreign states and their agencies were entitled to absolute immunity from jurisdiction. The civil law countries, by contrast, have long distinguished governmental and private transactions of foreign states, according immunity only to the former. In a series of recent decisions United Kingdom courts applied a restrictive immunity approach and declined to accord immunity in respect of commercial transactions. The United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada, Singapore and other common law countries have legislated to apply this restrictive immunity approach. There have been no recent Australian cases on the matter. Although it is likely that Australian courts would adopt the restrictive approach taken in the United Kingdom prior to enactment of legislation, there are many areas of uncertainty. Because other common law countries have now legislated on the matter there will be little case law to develop and clarify these areas of uncertainty. The main argument for the restrictive theory of foreign state immunity is that commercial or trading activities conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments should not attract the special jurisdictional immunity enjoyed by foreign states. Australia's increasing involvement in international trading and financial activities, including the involvement of foreign state agencies in investment and banking or other trading or financial activities in Australia, make the subject of increasing importance to Australia. The proposed legislation follows the United Kingdom State Immunity Act 1978 in laying down a general rule of immunity for foreign states which is made subject to the following exceptions: Commercial transactions will not be immune. This includes all contracts for the supply of goods or services or for loans or guarantees. This will bring Australian law into line with the law of other major financial centres such as New York, London and Singapore. It is an essential step if Australia is to develop as an international banking centre conducting sovereign risk lending. Torts resulting in death, physical injury or damage to tangible property will not be immune if committed in Australia by the foreign state or by its servants acting in the course of their employment. As an example of such a case, a person injured in a road accident involving diplomatic personnel acting in the course of their employment will be able to sue the state for damages. The diplomat personally will continue to be protected by diplomatic or consular immunity in accordance with internationally agreed rules. The foreign state will retain its immunity where only economic loss is suffered-that is for torts such as defamation, misrepresentation, deceit, and negligent mistatement unless the tort occurs in the course of a commercial transaction. Employment contracts entered into by foreign governments will not be immune from suits unless the contract is made with a person who is a foreign national and not a permanent resident or national of Australia. Disputes concerning immovable property-for example, land-will not be immune. This lack of immunity will apply accordingly to claims that the foreign state is using its property here in such a way as to constitute a nuisance. Other matters for which immunity to some extent will be removed include disputes involving industrial and intellectual property, membership by the foreign state in a locally formed partnership, company or body corporate, and the conduct of arbitrations. Apart from these circumstances prescribed by the legislation, a foreign state also is able to submit voluntarily to the jurisdiction. This may be done, amongst other ways, by a written agreement in advance or by submission in the face of the court. `Foreign states' are defined to include political subdivisions or component units, such as provinces or states, and hence the Bill extends immunities to them. This could assist the Australian States to claim similar treatment in foreign states on the grounds of reciprocity. The proposed legislation will deal also with the immunities of `separate entities' such as state trading corporations or investment commissions that are agencies or instrumentalities of the foreign state but have a separate legal existence. `Separate entities' are given, in most respects, the same immunity as the state. In practice, this means that entities with exclusively commercial functions-the majority of those involved in dealings with Australia-will lack immunity. Consistent with the approach taken to immunity from jurisdiction, the property of foreign states is made immune from execution to satisfy judgments obtained against it, subject to specified exceptions. Commercial property is not immune from execution. This is defined as property being used by the foreign state substantially for commercial purposes and can never be military or diplomatic property. Consistently with the lack of immunity of immovable property, such property loses its immunity from execution consequent upon successful suit against that property. A foreign state also may waive its immunity from execution with respect to any property. The third area of major reform which the Bill implements is an area about which currently there is considerable uncertainty; that is, the appropriate way to serve court documents on a foreign state. The new legislation will also enable service of writs on foreign states to be carried out by the Department of Foreign Affairs using diplomatic channels. It also makes service of an initiating process effective where it is in accordance with an agreement or treaty. Certain procedural requirements additional to those imposed by the general law will apply where foreign states are parties to a suit. For example, there is an extension of the time for entering an appearance before judgment in default of appearance can be entered against foreign states. The legislation does not affect any immunity or privilege conferred by the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967, the Consular Privileges and Immunities Act 1972, and the Defence (Visiting Forces) Act 1963. Nor does it affect immunities conferred on foreign states by or under other Commonwealth legislation. Where the immunities and privileges under the Bill exceed those allowed to Australia by the laws of a foreign state, regulations may be made modifying the operation of the legislation in relation to that state. Regulations also may be made to modify the operation of the legislation where a treaty is concluded between Australia and a foreign state in which different provisions have been agreed. An additional matter covered is the immunity of a head of state acting in a private capacity. The position at common law is unclear. The legislation provides that a foreign head of state acting in a private capacity has the same immunities as a head of a diplomatic mission similarly acting. These immunities extend to the spouse of the head of state. This is the approach of the United Kingdom legislation and has the advantage of bringing a rarely litigated issue under a well-developed body of law which has been specifically developed to satisfy the needs of both the sending state and the receiving state. The financial impact of this legislation is likely to be minimal. Any additional administrative workload resulting from my Department's role as recipient of process to be served on foreign states, or from the role imposed on the Department of Foreign Affairs to secure service through diplomatic channels, is not expected to impose any significant financial costs. Finally, I take this opportunity again to congratulate the Law Reform Commission on its excellent work on this reference. It is an outstanding example of legal scholarship and of the continuing relevance and importance of the Law Reform Commission. The report will prove, I am sure, of lasting importance and of use not just in relation to this legislation, but also to other countries and international bodies like the International Law Commission which are continuing to work in this area. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.45) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The provisions of the Bill before the House have two effects. The major amendment is to extend the ambit of the Census and Statistics Act to enable the external territories to be included in the 1986 and future censuses of population and housing conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Earlier censuses of the external territories were conducted under local ordinances. The amendment implements, in part, the Government's policy that the inhabitants of the territories will be treated in the same way as other Australians. The provision relates to such territories as are prescribed. This avoids the necessity to conduct the Australian census in external territories where there would be significant operational difficulties and cost for relatively little benefit. The amendment does not extend Part III of the Census and Statistics Act to the external territories. This is because the needs of the territories for statistics other than those derived from the census are likely to be significantly different from those required by other parts of Australia. The extension of the Australian Bureau of Statistics statistical activities, other than the censuses of population and housing, is therefore unlikely to be necessary or cost effective. The additional cost to the ABS of extending the census to the external territories is estimated as $58,000. The Bill also provides for an amendment to Section 14 of the Act. This will overcome a technical difficulty of the existing wording. It does not change the intention of the existing provision, which is to ensure that people are not liable to any penalty for omitting, or refusing, to state the religious denomination or sect to which they belong or adhere. An explanatory memorandum is available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to authorise payments in 1985-86 arising out of decisions taken at the Loan Council meeting of 30 May 1985 which fall outside the provisions of the Financial Agreement Act 1928. Specificially, this Bill seeks to authorise: the payment of general purpose capital grants to the States in 1985-86; the prepayment of capital grants during the first six months of 1986-87, pending passage of similar legislation in that year; the continued payment in 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 of loans on concessional terms and conditions of amounts nominated by the States and the Northern Territory from their approved borrowing programs as being for the purpose of public housing; and to provide scope for the payment of concessional housing loans in the first six months of 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. The amount to be advanced to each State under this last provision is limited to an amount equal to one-half of the amount it was permitted to nominate in the previous year. Loan Council decided to hold the total State Government's borrowing programs to $1,564.5m in 1985-86, the same money level as in 1984-85. This will assist the Commonwealth in further reducing the public sector borrowing requirement in 1985-86. Since 1975-76 one-third of the State governments' borrowing programs have been provided by the Commonwealth as interest-free capital grants. For 1985-86 only, the capital grant provision is to be increased by 7 per cent, or 36.5m to $558m, or approximately 35.7 per cent of the total program, and the loan component reduced by an equivalent amount. The effect of these grants is to relieve the States of debt charges-that is, interest payments and sinking fund contributions-which they would otherwise have to pay, and the grants accordingly have a substantial beneficial effect on the overall financial positions of the States. The grants were introduced to help States finance works, such as schools and other capital works, from which debt charges are not normally recovered. There are, however, no conditions attaching to the manner in which the grants are applied by the States. The arrangements whereby the States and the Northern Territory are able to nominate part of their approved borrowing programs for public housing were introduced in 1982-83. As a condition of the payment of these funds, the Bill contains provision that a State or the Northern Territory must be able to meet its matching requirements for the purposes of the Housing Assistance Act 1984. Subject to that, nominated funds will be provided to the States and the Northern Territory as the loan terms and conditions set out in the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, and hence will bear interest at the highly favourable rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum and will be repayable over 53 years. In deciding to continue the arrangements the Government has recognised the considerable contribution made by the arrangements to the financing of public housing in the States and the encouragement it has given the States to increase their housing expenditures. However, the concession represents a large and growing ongoing cost to the Commonwealth in terms of the reduced interest payments received from the States and, as a result, the Government has found it necessary to introduce some limits on the application of the concession. The Bill therefore imposes limits on the proportion of Loan Council borrowings which States and the Territory can nominate of 30 per cent of the loan component of their programs. This exceeds the proportion of the loan component which has so far been nominated by any of the States, except for South Australia and Western Australia, which in 1984-85 each nominated the whole of their loans. As a transitional arrangement, the Bill provides that those two States will again be able to nominate the whole of their loans in 1985-86, 60 per cent in 1986-87 and 30 per cent thereafter. This Bill forms an important part of the Commonwealth's overall financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory and I therefore commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(4.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to amend Section 6 of the principal Act to set the upper ceiling for the new levels of the charge to be fixed by regulations. As honourable members will recall, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) announced on 22 March the broad parameters of the new overseas student policy. Decisions on the direction of the policy followed consideration of the reports of two independent committees. These were the Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy, chaired by Professor John Goldring, and the Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program, chaired by Sir Gordon Jackson. Both committees identified the hitherto hidden subsidy in the overseas student program-that is, the gap between the cost to the Commonwealth of providing places for overseas students in educational institutions, and the contribution made by those students through the overseas students charge. In 1984-85 this subsidy was valued at $98.6m for students from developing countries-about 96 per cent of all overseas students. The student's contribution through the overseas students charge represented about 25 per cent of the average cost of a place in higher education. The increase in the overseas students charge proposed in this Bill raises that contribution to approximately 35 per cent of the average cost. As from 1 January 1986, the new levels of student charge will be, subject to regulations, $4,340 for courses in medicine, veterinary science and dentistry; and $3,500 for all other courses. The overseas students charge raised $30.3m in 1984-85 and is expected to raise $45.5m in 1985-86, but $3.065m of this amount relates to 1984-85 charge payments not recorded until 1985-86. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. (Quorum formed) Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(4.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the Treasurer (Mr Keating), on behalf of the Commonwealth, to guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas Airways Ltd to finance the purchase of a Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft. Acquisition of this aircraft by Qantas will bring to four the number of B747-300 aircraft in Qantas's fleet and will bring Qantas's total fleet in March 1986, when the aircraft is delivered, to 28. Qantas's decision to purchase an additional B747-300 aircraft was a result of market growth, and the company's need to participate fully in that growth. The fourth aircraft will join the company's existing three 747-300 aircraft on the Sydney to London route, and will enable Qantas to operate a daily B747-300 service on the Kangaroo route to maximise the marketing impact of the new aircraft type. A number of the company's competitors already operate, or are planning to introduce, this type of aircraft on the Kangaroo route, and the fourth aircraft will also allow Qantas the option of introducing upgraded services on other routes. The extended upper deck aircraft has proved very popular with passengers, particularly with business travellers. Like the company's existing extended upper deck aircraft, the new aircraft will also be powered by the latest generation of fuel efficient Rolls-Royce engines. In addition, satisfactory offsets arrangements have been concluded by the Government with both the air frame and engine manufacturers, and these arrangements will provide benefits by way of manufacturing activity and technology transfer to Australia's aircraft manufacturing industry. The provision of a guarantee for Qantas's payment of, and payment of interst on, amounts borrowed for this new aircraft and related spare parts and equipment will be limited by the Bill to $US115m or its equivalent in other currencies. The provision of the guarantee does not involve the Government in any cash outlay, but does create a contingent liability for the Commonwealth. The terms and conditions of Qantas's proposed borrowings for the new aircraft are to be subject to the Treasurer's approval. The Bill also provides for proper security to be given to the Commonwealth over such property as the Treasurer deems satisfactory, and Qantas is to undertake to maintain adequate insurance of the items under the loan guarantee, and to protect the security of the Commonwealth against the sale or mortgage of the aircraft. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(5.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Economic Statement to the House on 14 May announced that the export market development grants scheme was to be revised, effective from 20 May 1985. This Bill gives effect to the changes announced in my media release dated 14 May. The EMDG scheme was first introduced in 1974 and has been amended on several occasions since. It is based on the same principles as the export market development allowance scheme which operated from 1961 to 1974. The EMDG scheme aims to encourage Australian exporters to seek out and develop overseas markets for goods, services, industrial property rights and know-how which are substantially of Australian origin. It provides financial incentives in the form of taxable cash grants for eligible expenditure incurred on overseas market research and development such as advertising, overseas representation, the cost of participating in overseas fairs and exhibitions, overseas travel associated with trade promotion, and the cost of bringing agents or buyers to Australia. For some time, however, the Government has been concerned about the operation of the scheme. Apart from its rapidly escalating cost and concern over its abuse, increasing doubts arose over the scheme's effectiveness. The Government is concerned to ensure that public funds provided for export incentives are used in a cost-effective manner and result in an improvement in sustained export performance. It is mindful that the EMDG scheme is an incentives scheme to encourage Australian exporters to seek out and develop overseas markets and not a subsidy for industry. Against this background, last year the Government asked the National Export Marketing Strategy Panel, chaired by Mr Bill Ferris, Group Managing Director of Barlow Marine Ltd, and comprising representatives from the export sector, to examine the EMDG scheme, in the context of providing general advice on the most effective marketing strategies through which the Government can assist in increasing Australia's exports, particularly of manufacturers and services. I take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Ferris and his panel for their very thorough report. At the same time, my Department of Trade undertook an evaluation of the scheme based on a random sample of EMDG claimants. Subsequently this year my Department undertook a second evaluation of the scheme based on a separate random sample which confirmed the results of the initial evaluation. It can be seen then that the Government's examination of the scheme has been most extensive and underpinned by solid analysis. It involved consideration of the Ferris report, which, incidentally, was the subject of extensive consultations with exporters and export organisations, including through public seminars in all States, as well as two evaluations of the scheme by my Department. The outcome of this examination was quite unequivocal. The Ferris Panel concluded that the existing EMDG scheme was badly designed and that there was a need for significant reforms if the scheme is to provide a positive inducement to genuine exporters in a cost-effective and measurable way. The Panel made 15 recommendations designed to make the scheme more accountable and `results oriented', to remove the backlog of unprocessed claims and to tighten up and streamline certain administrative procedures. Similarly, the Department's evaluation disclosed major deficiencies in the scheme. Almost 50 per cent of claimants were shown to be dropping out of the scheme after three years, having generated little or no export earnings. The scheme enabled recipients to obtain grants of up to $200,000 per year for the first three years without necessarily generating any export earnings at all. Thereafter, claimants had to have export earnings of only $25,000-$10,000 in the case of industrial property rights and know-how-to be eligible for further grants. In other words, it was possible for them to receive grants of up to eight times the level of their export earnings under the existing export performance test. Another important finding was that less than 5 per cent, or some 300 claimants, generally the large exporters, were receiving almost one-third of total EMDG payments. Many of these were subsidiaries of large international corporations with access to their own `in house' marketing networks and therefore with a questionable need for assistance from scarce public funds. Not surprisingly, therefore, usage of the scheme and its cost was escalating dramatically. In the four years ended 1984-85 fiscal year the number of claimants under the scheme rose by some 40 per cent and the total cost by around 120 per cent. In turn, the mounting cost of the scheme has led to its being underfunded in recent years by successive governments, resulting in a large backlog of unprocessed EMDG claims. The Ferris report recommended that urgent action be taken in this area. The Government shared this concern and towards the end of 1984-85 provided funds of $54m by way of an Advance to the Minister for Finance to reduce the backlog of outstanding claims. These funds were additional to the $125m provided for the EMDG scheme in the 1984-85 Commonwealth Budget. With the provision of these additional funds. The carry-over of unprocessed EMDG claims as at 30 June 1985 was reduced to a more normal level. In reviewing the scheme, naturally enough the question was raised: Why have any export incentives at all? After all, a report of the Industries Assistance Commission in 1982 had recommended that the EMDG scheme be terminated with effect from 30 June 1985. This threshold question was thoroughly examined by the Ferris Panel, which concluded, inter alia, that an export incentives scheme is needed to motivate Australian companies into export action and, in particular, to counter the legacy of the post-war import replacement strategy for industrial development. The Ferris Panel examined a number of alternative export incentives schemes, falling into three categories: Tax-based schemes; advance approval, project-type schemes; and a general access, reimbursement scheme. It came out in favour of the third option-a general access, but reformed, EMDG scheme. The Government accepted the broad thrust of the recommendations contained in the Ferris report, in deciding that a general access EMDG scheme be continued. It was clear that a general access scheme was supported overwhelmingly by major export organisations and industry groups. In reaching this decision the Government was mindful of the IAC's views but influenced even more by Australia's relatively poor trade performance and the urgent need-as outlined in my statement on Australia's trade to the House on 13 May 1985-to improve our performance as a trading nation. The Bill provides for the amended scheme to continue until 30 June 1990. While the Government accepted the main thrust of the relevant Ferris report recommendations, it was not able to endorse some specific elements for a variety of reasons. Apart from the important question of cost considerations, the Government was mindful that the recent large depreciation of the Australian dollar and a reduction in the rate of inflation had improved the international competitive position of Australian exporters. It was also anxious to address the shortcomings of the scheme which emerged from my Department's evaluation of it. Let me now outline the major changes that are being introduced in this Bill. The provisions are being strengthened to ensure that only firms which export can continue to receive EMD grants beyond two years. The maximum grant entitlement will remain at $200,000 per year. New claimants will be eligible to receive grants of up to $200,000 in their first two grant years without being required to achieve any export sales. The decision by the Government to depart from the Ferris report recommendations in order to provide this two-year `no exports' period of grace for new exporters resulted from the consultations held on the Ferris report. The Government accepted that new exporters often require a lead time between market development and export sales. Thereafter, however, the maximum grant which can be received will be the lesser of $200,000 or a percentage of export earnings declining progressively over a five-year period, as proposed by the Ferris report. That is, the maximum grant entitlement will be determined by export performance. Firms which have been receiving the benefit of grants for some years will be subject to the percentage of export earnings applicable under the amended Ferris report formula to their next grant year. As under the existing scheme, `approved bodies' will be exempt from the export earnings test since these are organisations which promote the exports of members of an industry but do not export in their own right. Grants will not be payable to claimants with export earnings in excess of $20m. The Government believes that, at a time when there is a need to reduce Government expenditure, such large exporters are less in need of the support of a Government export incentives scheme and that scarce Government funds are better directed towards assisting committed small to medium size exporters. Because of its unique nature, tourism did not sit easily with some aspects of the EMDG scheme. Obviously there were difficulties in applying an export performance test to the tourism industry. Accordingly, the tourism industry is to be excluded from the scheme. However, given the importance the Government attaches to tourism as one of Australia's fastest growing industries, and as a foreign exchange earner, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) recently announced the introduction of a new tourism overseas promotion scheme to be administered by his Department to meet the tourism industry's particular needs. This scheme will continue the provision of Government assistance to the tourism industry. It will have the advantages of producing a more co-ordinated and efficient promotional effort and will enable specialist advice to be given to prospective tourism promoters. Statutory authorities, except those primarily funded through industry charges, those subject to income tax or those which provide eligible educational services, will be excluded from the scheme. This is to eliminate the element of `double dipping' in the past where authorities which are already funded by the Government have also been claiming government grants under the EMDG scheme. This will be effected by regulation. Grants will be paid only on the amount of eligible expenditure in excess of $5,000 incurred in a grant year. The Government believes this represents a reasonable amount of expenditure which claimants should be prepared to bear in order to demonstrate their bona fides as well as some financial capacity to mount sustained export activities. It considers that this threshold of eligible expenditure represents an important safeguard against the possiblity of public funds going to claimants not genuinely interested in, or indeed engaged in, serious efforts to develop export markets. The threshold also obviously contributes substantially to the necessary reduction in the cost of the EMDG scheme. Significantly, analysis by my Department showed that the dropout rate of claimants with eligible expenditure of $5,000 or less was up to 50 per cent greater than for claimants as a whole. The $50 per day promotional visit allowance will be discontinued and, where first class air travel in undertaken, reimbursement under the scheme will be restricted 65 per cent of the fare. These measures again reflect the Government's resolve to limit abuse of the scheme and to reduce its cost to the Budget. In recognition of the potential for considerable export earnings, education and hospital and medical services are to be added to the list of services eligible for grants under the scheme. As the cost of defending patents can be extremely high, insurance premiums paid in protecting Australian patents, registered designs or trademarks overseas and copyrights open to infringement outside Australia will also be eligible. Several technical and administrative amendments will be made to the scheme to improve its operation and to limit abuse. In particular, section 38 is to be substantially strengthened following close examination by the Export Development Grants Board and my Department, to curtail abuse and manipulation of the scheme. A decision of the Adminstrative Appeals Tribunal in 1984 highlighted problems with the interpretation of the section as it now stands. In the amended section, the Board will be clearly given the power to adjust grant entitlements where claimants, to obtain a larger grant, have taken action to re-arrange their affairs in a way that is not in accordance with the spirit of the legislation. The Export Development Grants Board will be empowered to collect statistical information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the scheme, as recommended by the Ferris Report. Provision is also made for the Government to act quickly to deny the granting of export incentives in cases where it is decided to take economic measures against a particular country, in the context of, for example, international action arising from a United Nations Security Council resolution. This provision will be used to give effect to the Government's decision announced by my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) on 19 August to terminate the EMDG facility in respect of majority owned South African firms. The termination of the EMDG facility for these firms is to take effect from 19 August. Grant entitlements up to that date would, or course, be honoured. Bona fide contractual arrangements entered into before the exclusion date but acquitted after this date would also be honoured. Other elements of the existing scheme are not being changed. Given identification of major shortcomings with the existing scheme, urgent remedial action was obviously required. The Government therefore took the view that the 1984-85 grant year-for which grants are determined on the basis of the old scheme-should be terminated on 19 May 1985 to enable the amended scheme to come into effect on 20 May. Early implementation was also necessary if the Government was to make some cost savings in the 1985-86 financial year. This is because the cost of the EMDG scheme to the Budget in any fiscal year relates to expenditure by exporters in the preceding fiscal year. To have provided a greater period of notice for changes to the scheme by, say, not making them effective until the 1985-86 grant year, would mean that resultant Budget savings would not be made until the 1986-87 fiscal year. Notice of the date of implementation was given by the Treasurer in his economic statement on 14 May. Other factors considered relevant in introducing the changes as from 20 May 1985 were the long period over which exporters were aware that the Government was reviewing the scheme and the scope for expenditure to increase markedly during any lengthy period of notice of changes to the scheme. The Government has, however, accepted that, in some cases, the early termination of the 1984-85 grant year could pose particular problems for those claimants who were relying on a full 12 months grant year to satisfy the old export performance test, and the Bill makes appropriate provision for exports between 20 May and 30 June 1985 to be taken into account in such cases. The Government sees the amended scheme as maintaining a worthwhile level of assistance to committed smaller to medium sized firms in a more cost-effective and measurable way, and at the same time contributing to its efforts to restrain spending and reduce the Budget deficit. The Government estimates that, in its first full year of operation, the amended scheme will result in cost savings of approximately $80m. This is notwithstanding the eligibility of new types of services and costs under the scheme which is estimated to cost approximately $1.6m per year. I would emphasise that in developing the proposals to amend the EMDG scheme the Government, after extensive analysis, has very carefully selected the main elements such as the $20m cut-off point on export earnings, the $5,000 minimum eligible expenditure test and the export earnings test. This has been done in order to produce a balanced package, which will best address the identified shortcomings in the scheme and effectively allocate the Government's assistance to the export sector, via the scheme, consistent with its intention to reduce spending and control the deficit. Honourable members will be aware of the Government's decision to establish an Australian Trade Commission from 1 January 1986. The Commission will have a senior part time Board drawn from the private sector and a Managing Director, a position open to anyone from the community. It will provide exporters with the full range of advice and assistance but in a more consolidated and co-ordinated fashion. As such the Commission will encourage a more efficient and targetted approach to Australia's export effort. A separate Bill to establish the Commission will be presented later in this session. The Commission will assume the responsibilities, functions and powers of the Export Development Grants Board and administer the EMDG scheme as amended by Parliament. However, given the need for urgent amendment of the EMDG scheme so that processing of EMDG claims for the 1984-85 grant year can proceed, the Government is proposing that the EMDG Act should first be amended to give effect to these changes. The Bill now before the House seeks to do this. In conclusion, I would emphasis the importance the Government attaches to prompt passage of the legislation which, as I have indicated, forms part of the package of cost savings announced by the Treasurer in his May economic statement. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(5.19) —It is a sad day when a government of any political persuasion must move to deregister a trade union. Deregistration is and should be a last resort, one made only in exceptional circumstances, because the deregistration of a trade union can have a very great effect in the labour market. The Builders Labourers Federation, however, has ceased to have the proper and decent hallmarks of trade unionism about it and has become a body whose actions are dictated by people who will resort and have resorted to tactics not befitting the name of unionism in any way. The BLF is guilty of violence, damage to property, interruption of concrete pours and intimidation of fellow workers as well as employers to achieve different objectives. The BLF tactics have extended to action against parties not directly involved in the industry, and against other unions. Indeed, members of the Builders Labourers Federation have occupied buildings of insurance companies, private organisations and, on at least one occasion, the premises of another trade union. They have engaged in violent demonstrations and have threatened and physically assaulted fellow trade unionists. I do not intend to go over ground already covered in this debate by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), but suffice it for me to say that the Builders Labourers Federation is now, without exception, a body in the history of trade unionism of this country which is being spurned and shunned by the rest of the trade union movement. It has been expelled now for the second time from the New South Wales Trades and Labour Council. The BLF has well and truly finished its last chance dance. Earlier today we heard the usual rhetoric from the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack)-always short on detail, long on rhetoric. We also heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) criticising the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). Let me say at the outset that it is not the Government that is on trial here for any level of competency in regard to the deregistration and handling of the BLF. The Building Industry Bill is precise, accurately targeted and will be rapid in its resolution. What is on trial here is the drift and indecision-the Leader of the Opposition so readily uses that term-and the administrative incompetence of those opposite in industrial relations, particularly the then Minister for Industrial Relations in 1981, the current Leader of the Opposition. At the outset I remind him that the Australian Labor Party has been in government for little over two years. I also remind him that the recent history of the BLF, beginning in 1974 with its various violent activities, its recourse to industrial practices not seen in regard to other unions, and right up to the period of 1981, when he first moved for the deregistration of the BLF, covered seven years, during which time almost exclusively there was a Liberal-National Party coalition government, If we have been lax or untimely in our role in relation to the BLF, what does he say about his own Party in government and himself? Let us explore it. While I am on the subject, I remind the Leader of the Opposition that in 1976 the BLF reregistered. What did he have to say about it then? I can find nothing on the record about that. In particular, I want all those builders out there in the electorate, in my electorate of Barton and everywhere else, who are traditional Liberal voters, and I want all the unionists in the afflicted areas in relation to the BLF across the country, and anyone else who requires decency, firmness and a bit of guts in industrial relations, to compare the stark contrast of Andrew's ambivalence and the Hawke Government's resolve on this question. On 17 February 1981, the then Minister, the honourable member for Kooyong, took the matter to the Federal Cabinet seeking, pursuant to section 143 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the cancellation of the registration of the BLF. It is interesting that a statement of claim contained over 800 particulars when it came before the trial pleadings, pleadings that were an arduous and tedious process. When the applicants were required to provide further and better particulars, they were required to assemble detailed information about hundreds of incidents on sites all over Australia. That is the kick-off that we had under Andrew Peacock, and let us explore that a little further. When the deregistration proceedings finally commenced in Melbourne on 8 November 1982, those proceedings having been instituted fully 14 months before then and decided upon by the Federal Cabinet, at the then Minister's behest, 21 months before then. So, after nearly two years of deciding to take action against the BLF, Andrew Peacock, the great industrial warrior who had the hide to come here and criticise us today, managed to get the whole thing kicked off-after two years. It is a joke. And he wants to talk about us being slow. He was the slowest of the slow. His legislation had little chance of achieving a lasting settlement. It was ill prepared; it was without popular support; and it was without any agreement whatsoever among the union movement. With all of that in mind, the undue haste that the honourable member for Kooyong, the Leader of the Opposition as he is now, brought to industrial relations in this country and the BLF at that time, in 1981, resulted in one thing, and one thing only: Andrew Peacock managed to unite the whole of the union movement behind the BLF and he managed to make Norm Gallagher a martyr, and thus we have the present situation. It is the shoulders of Andrew Peacock upon which sits the responsibility for the delay in tackling the BLF. Indeed, his legislation involved no adequate consultation with employers who were, as they said at the time, placed in a no win situation. That was their judgment, not ours. Indeed, we can turn to the Australian Financial Review of 16 September 1981 and an article headed, `Viner bids to erode Peacock's credibility with backbenchers'. I say to my colleagues on this side of the House that at that stage Andrew was involved in yet another internal faction fight. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! I remind the honourable member that he should be referring to the Leader of the Opposition as the Leader of `the Opposition'. Mr PUNCH —The Leader of the Opposition, the Minister as he then was, was involved in yet another faction fight inside his own Party; but that is by the by. But this is what the article had to say about the unpreparedness of Andrew Peacock's resolve as regards the BLF: The Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Viner, attacked his predecessor, Mr Peacock, yesterday for being unprepared to proceed with the deregistration of the Builders Labourers' Federation at the time he resigned from Cabinet. Mr Viner told Parliament that when he became minister on April 16 this year the case was in a `state of unpreparedness'. That is the Leader of the Opposition, mark 1. Then, of course, there is what the industry itself had to say. I refer to the transcript of PM of 17 September, the day after, and explicitly to the remarks of Mr Ken Lovell, the Director of the National Industrial Executive of the building and construction industry. This is what he had to say about the preparedness of the then Government, the then Minister, who had just resigned, and the deregistration proceedings in regard to the BLF: But the actions that they have taken over the last eight months, often without proper consulation with the industry, mean that really we will have to look at the situation when they decide to seek the application-deregistration. He went on to say: But it is a matter of continuing concern that decisions, for example, to defer the deregistration application are taken without consultation with the industry. It will be noted that he says `over the last eight months', and that was late in September 1981. For a significant period of that eight months, dating back from September 1981, the then Minister, the only person to whom Mr Lovell could have been referring, was the present Leader of the Opposition. Yet he has the unbelievable gall to come in here today and criticise us. The reality is that the honourable member for Kooyong then attempted to shift the blame for his parlous record as the Minister responsible in this matter, and on 23 September he abstained from a motion of no confidence in the Minister who followed him, the then honourable member for Stirling. This circus that they called action continued, with Viner ultimately releasing the name of the Costain building company, causing the Melbourne Age of 18 September to report in its headline: `Gaffe makes builders wary of BLF case'. The article, by two journalists, said: The building industry might withdraw its support for the Federal Government's deregistration case against the Builders' Labourers Federation because of a gaffe by the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Viner . . . Mr Lovell is reported in this article to have said: Employers in future will have to make their decisions after seeing what the Government has actually done, not on the basis of its announced intentions. So I suggest that before the Leader of the Opposition comes in here and criticises us over the BLF deregistration proceedings he should have a good hard look at the mess in which he left the proceedings when he resigned from the Cabinet and how his own Party carried on from there. Members of the Opposition still have not learnt about the realities. They are still talking without having any concrete proposition for action. The Australian of 24 September 1981 provides the final indictment of just how prepared the then Liberal Government was in the matter of the BLF. Under the headline `Case to proceed tomorrow despite departmental advice', it said: The Federal Government is to begin attempts tomorrow to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation-even though the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Viner, was told by his department in mid-July that employers' support for the case was near collapse. The article then referred to a confidential minute to the then Minister, Mr Viner, which revealed that as recently as two months before the Federal Government had been without evidence of BLF activities at the Loy Yang power station. Honourable members will recall that that was one of the most prominent sources of industrial disputation involving the BLF, yet the Government could not get even that right. What an unbelievable indictment. On the same day, on the AM radio program, Gallagher claimed to all the world that he had a complete list of builders who had co-operated with the Government to deregister the BLF. What a farce; what a mess. Yet, as I have said, the Leader of the Opposition has the unbelievable gall to come in here and criticise us. The wash up of all this is that the supporters of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) on the other side of the House must be experiencing deja vu. The honourable member for Kooyong was then unable to keep his ministerial duties up to scratch and attempted to shift the blame. How often have we seen in this Parliament blame shifted to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? The AustralianFinancial Review of 2 December 1981 provides the best conclusion to the mess that went on through that year, having started with the now Leader of the Opposition. Under the headline proclaiming `High Court told BLF hearings could run for years', the article stated: The High Court was given an indication yesterday of the extraordinary political, legal and constitutional ramifications of the continuing battle between the Builders Labourers Federation and the Federal and Victorian Governments. The court was told by the Victorian Solicitor-General, Mr D. Dawson QC, that the Federal Court hearings aimed at having the BLF de-registered could go on for `years rather than months'. That is the mess those opposite left. Yet they ask why this Government terminated the deregistration proceedings in 1983. I should have thought that the answer was perfectly simple. The Leader of the Opposition had managed to turn the deregistration proceedings into a saga longer than War and Peace. He had managed to unite every trade union behind the BLF and he had managed to make Norm Gallagher a martyr. That was not a bad effort. He managed to kick off that whole process, and was followed in his exhortations by his colleagues. It is little wonder that in May 1983 we attempted to reach an agreement, including the famed moratorium, with the employers. I need to remind those opposite that in the first half of 1984 the employers still recognised the problems with deregistration and were still hedging around it. It is a final indictment of the Liberal Party and the criticisms its members are making in this House today that the employers withdrew from the deregistration proceedings in June 1984. The honourable member for Tangney forgot to mention that. He also forgot to mention the secret meeting between the BLF and the Master Builders Association in September. The MBA was still pursuing the Government's no deregistration course as late as September, and it had the agreement signed. That is the reality of the discontinuation of the deregistration process. It had been botched up to such a degree that it was unworkable. The Bill before the House has an expeditious, fast-track solution aimed at what is ultimately a problem in New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. It provides the opportunity for other unions to take coverage. So unlike the previous Liberal Party deregistration proceedings, these proceedings will actually hurt the BLF, stop the BLF, rather than repair it and help it to grow. That was the effect of the coalition's deregistration proceedings. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition did not read the Bill before he made his contribution today because he went so far as to say that it does not provide any means by which other unions-he mentioned the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia and the Australian Workers Union-can take coverage. That provision is in the Bill, and I suggest that he and his staff read the Bill before they criticise the Government for something that they know very little about and in which they have a poor track record. Most importantly, this Bill makes sure that the proceedings go before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. History will see that there was an impartial judge; not the lynching of a union but rather collective action before the appropriate industrial body by the governments of Australia, Victoria and New South Wales and the community as a whole against a union that now can be regarded only as the Libya of Australian industrial relations. A number of final points have to be made. We are presently seeing in this country a widespread rhetorical attack from the Liberal Party on the parameters of trade unionism. This is despite real unit labour costs now being back to 1966 levels, it is despite the lowest rate of strikes in 17 years, and it is despite three years of growth in gross domestic product of 4 to 5 per cent. It has to be said in this House this afternoon-I challenge those opposite to hear this and to heed it-that the Labor movement, the Labor Party in government in New South Wales, Victoria and Australia, and the trade union movement, has shown itself to be prepared to cleanse itself of the bad apple in its barrel. This is in stark contrast to those opposite, who continue to hide and apologise for the bad apples in their barrels-the tax avoiders, the corporate crooks, the people we have tried repeatedly to bring to justice and whom their Senate members have protected. Our action in this situation is in stark contrast to that. In the context of the prices and incomes accord, it remains to be said that the Liberals not only still have no framework for a wages policy but also that they can now be seen to have no policy on industrial and political morality. I suggest that they re-examine themselves, and do it very soon. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(5.39) —The union movement has to decide whether it is prepared to argue for a system in which there are no effective santions against industrial activity, however outrageous. Would the trade union movement propose supporting a system where anything goes? If that question is answered in the affirmative, there is little doubt that the very existence of the trade union movement could be threatened. `If the lack of penalties encourages the irresponsible use of industrial power, then widespread community support for the type of action seen in Queensland will result'. Those are not my words; they were attributed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in an article in the Australian on 13 August 1985, wherein he pointed out the inevitable consequences of the use of union power without responsibility. This, of course, was supported by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in debate earlier today. We certainly hope that he gets support from the Australian Council of Trade Unions in this move. The Builders Labourers Federation has set its sights on power-absolute power to act in whichever way it has a desire to act, regardless of the legality or morality of its actions. This extremism is demonstrated by the BLF's attitude to industrial relations: `Give us what we want or you will suffer'. The history of this union's blatant disregard of accepted principles bears testimony to its warped attitude. The cause of industrial relations problems is not necessarily that one of the parties involved is a union. Causality is often the existence of a workplace problem. Events do not happen in a vacuum but occur in response to changing circumstances in the overall industrial environment. I should qualify that by saying `usually' or `normally'. That qualification is necessary when discussing or debating industrial relations and the BLF's role in the workplace. If there is no problem the BLF will create one. It is not interested in the welfare of the workers. I repeat: It is not interested in the welfare of the workers. Union power and standover tactics-that is what it is all about. As the Prime Minister himself said today, it is about anarchy in the workplace. The nature of the employment relationship dictates that the economic context will probably always be of considerable importance. It is more than the division of wages and profits, because the relative bargaining power fluctuates with variations in the state of the economy and often the economic conditions in specified industries. Macroeconomic impacts are most often emphasised, however, in practice and of greater importance to the determination of workplace rules are microeconomic factors. The BLF has a reputation-I might add, a bad reputation-for perpetrating costly, ill-conceived, unwarranted disruption on building sites. One of its tactics-just one of many-is to time the strike when the employer is facing contractual penalties for late completion or perhaps financial loss because of some commitment to take delivery of or to instal certain equipment. Whether this action is in response to a workplace problem or merely to gain an additional site allowance is irrelevant to the BLF. The attitude of Australian society will be extremely important in shaping the new nature of this country's industrial relations. The overwhelming support for the Queensland Government's action in handling the power dispute has demonstrated that power without responsibility will not be the prerogative of the BLF union bosses and that Australian society has had enough. Unions are creatures of legal and administrative processes in Australia rather than the outgrowth of protracted worker struggles. The enactment of the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1904 saw the re-emergence of unions under the sponsorship of the various arbitral and conciliation bodies subsequently spawned. Employers were forced to recognise unions and unions were readily recognised by the arbitral machinery. Government regulations, through a form of compulsory arbitration, was seen by our founding fathers and unionists as a sensible means of overcoming labour's bargaining inadequacies with management. Alfred Deakin said: We can now substitute a new regime for the reign of violence by endowing the State with power to impose, within the limits of reason justice and constitutional government, its deliberate will upon the parties to industrial dispute. Of course, the BLF is not interested in the eradication of a reign of violence. If that happened, what would it do with all its baseball bats? With what would it be able to substitute its baseball diplomacy? I read in the Courier-Mail in June this year that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) said that he did not want his supposed housing-led recovery jeopardised by the nonsense and bastardisation that have been carried out by the BLF. The Minister is nothing if not an optimist if judged by his subsequent appeal to the union to show a little consensus and industrial decency. Inter-union co-operation in bans has been a feature of Australian unionism which is to be expected of a class-oriented organisation. However, this bond of comradeship and support has been broken by the unilateral action taken by this renegade union which has caused disruption and harm to the nation, the employers and the members of the unions employed at the workplace. The call for fraternal support of other unions is now going unheeded and has been replaced by enmity, which had been transcended previously by strong traditions. For the BLF there are no rules of the workplace. Rules suggest a code of behaviour predictable within recognised and defined limits. If anyone should claim that the BLF abides by the rules, the boundaries could only be without definition and without limit. Actual industrial action is not represented by Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showing the number of days lost through strikes. The damage caused by BLF action in the middle of a concrete pour by imposing lightning bans is never documented in statistics, but the employer suffers greatly, just as he would from strike action. Guerilla tactics are the BLF's forte. Statistics can be the tool of those trying to demonstrate that all is well in the workplace. This Building Industry Bill is not an attack on unionism per se, but an attempt to remove legislatively a malignant growth which is affecting all responsible unionists through irresponsible action. Last year the President of the ACTU issued a last chance warning to the BLF. It is laughable that he should issue a further last chance warning this year. When is last really last? The latest episode with this maverick union engenders a sense of deja vu as we see the previously threatened courses of action being trotted out yet again. If credibility means anything like the dictionary definition, this must be the time to sort out the mess once and for all. The cry `It is time' has more relevance in this issue than it has had at any other time. The forces seeking change must be united because this is not a time to be wimpish. Division within government ranks must not be the excuse for retreat. It is not the time to back off. Divine intervention will not eliminate factions. Whilst a firm hand is required, I must emphasise that it needs to be the right hand. The recent decision by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to pass on the 2.6 per cent national wage rise, which followed the Victorian Government's decision to back the BLF in a trade-off for its lifting bans on government works, is indicative of a weakness which the Australian elector will not tolerate. The Nunawading by-election outcome surely indicates that firmness and consistency are a desired quality of government. It is to be hoped that these same qualities are demonstrated by employer groups and individual employers. The nation asks: How long can public and private funds be squandered as a consequence of the costly delays brought about by stoppages, bans and similar tactics? The history of the BLF's activities over the last 10 to 15 years, as outlined by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in his second reading speech, portrays a picture of almost unbelievable chicanery and ruthlessness. The Minister hoped that the Bill would be dealt with expeditiously. I believe that I speak for all honourable members on this side of the House when I say that it is hoped that the speed with which the legislation is passed is matched with an even quicker use of the powers contained therein. On the question of powers, we expect that the impartial consideration by the Commission, as outlined in clause 4 of the Bill, will be undertaken without undue delay, as is indicated in sub-clause (6) of the aforementioned clause, and not, as has been reported in the Australian on 24 July 1985, that `the whole process could take up to 12 months'. The question must be asked: What if the Commission is not satisfied that the BLF engaged in action that was in contravention of or inconsistent with the intent of those undertakings and agreements listed in clause 4? The vote from this side of the House is for the Government to act to solve the problems it acknowledges are caused by the BLF's most harm to the boss attitude and actions. We are not voting to give the Commission the chance to overrule the Parliament. The legislative system of industrial relations is compulsory in two senses. An arbitration decision in the form of an award is binding on the employer and employees covered by it. The more significant aspect is that either the employer or the trade union can legally compel the other to deal with issues of common concern through arbitration by submitting such issues to the appropriate authority. How far does this compulsion extend? As far as the BLF is concerned, it appears that it can flout the orders ad nauseum, having only to back off periodically when the heat is too much and then revert to its former course after a short period. Deregistration, by depriving the union of certain advantages, such as access to tribunals, gift of incorporation, competence to sue members in ordinary courts, and a degree of protection against the emergence of competition due to the practice that registration is not automatically granted, will, under this Bill, be a somewhat restricted option. I refer to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I refer in particular to section 143 (1), which provides that any organisation namely, one registered pursuant to the Act or person interested, the Minister or the Registrar may apply to the court for an order directing the cancellation of the registration of an organisation. Clause 5 of the Bill before the House restricts the opportunity to act upon the Commission's declaration under clause 4 to the Minister only and denies the other parties referred to in section 143 (1) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act the ability to initiate action in their own right. We have the situation now where there is no requirement of the Minister to apply to the Commission for a declaration. Given that such an application is subsequently made and a declaration is then forthcoming, it is left again to the Minister to direct the registrar to cancel the BLF's registration. I am concerned with the extent of ministerial discretion in the present climate, with the President of the ACTU voicing the opinion that the BLF should be given another chance, as well as seeking the passing on of the 2.6 per cent wage rise. Both points have been mentioned earlier. I turn to the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial relations. He stated: Its objective is to provide machinery for the cancellation of the registration of the Builders Labourers Federation under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act or to provide for the effective equivalent of such deregistration in parts of Australia. Given the Government's past record, I suggest that honourable members on this side of the House will have to crank that machinery continuously and relentlessely to ensure that it is implemented. He continued: The Federation has around 35 000 members in non-residential construction, with almost 70 per cent of them employed in the industry in New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. It is a pity that the more principled State branches may have to suffer the consequences which were not of their making but were of the making of the members of their union in the States of New South Wales and Victoria and in the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister continues: Further, it- that is the Federation- has broken numerous undertakings as to its conduct given to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Industrial Registrar and the Federal Court of Australia. I suggest that this Bill is only the opening skirmish with the major conflict to follow. It will be interesting to see on what side of the line the Government's factions enter the battle. This Bill seeks to deregister a union. Other industrial actions have been taken by unions which should be brought to the notice of this House. I refer to how the Australian community as a whole suffered heavy losses as a result of the last Commonwealth Public Service strike, led by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association. Its claim for an 8 per cent salary rise for public servants was outside the prices and incomes accord. The method then used by the strikers was to cut off the flow of millions of dollars to the Federal Government, which cost the Australian taxpayers some $18m in interest alone during the period of those industrial actions. Earlier in the year vital coal shipments to Japan were held up and more than 20 vessels were kept at anchor in New South Wales harbours as a result of a railway strike, not a coal strike, over a manning issue. The union's claim was repudiated by all relevant arbitral authorities and was condemned even by the Labor Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran. Mines were closed and mining jobs were lost. I believe that the time has come for this House to take note of the great concerns of the people of Australia who have been faced with continuing disruptions to their lives and in the workplace. They have said that they have had enough. I believe that the Bill which has been introduced in the Parliament by the Government to take action against the Builders Labourers Federation is a first step to bring to the notice of those unions that wish to go into disputation on points which are really irrelevant to the manner in which their workers are employed that this Government, supported by the Opposition parties, will implement the powers which are given to it under this Bill, even though a lot of the power is being given to the Minister himself. I believe that the Government should act, and act with haste, because the people of Australia want to see the Government taking a responsible attitude in regard to the actions of militant union leaders who have caused such disruption in the Australian workplace. I remind this House that surveys taken show that the union members can see that what they are being asked to do by their union bosses is such that their livelihood is being threatened by these actions. There have been numerous indications of this in the Queensland power dispute. We have had situations where union has been pitted against union because one union has been called out on strike and disrupts the working practices of other unions. In my own electorate of Hinkler, there was a situation in Gladstone where the power house unions were called out. I remind honourable members that there is an alumina plant in Gladstone. If those smelters are kept without power for up to four hours the smelters could be out of operation totally for up to four years. The members of a union who work at the power house and the members of the union who work in the smelter live side by side in an urban environment, their children go to school together and their wives attend social activities together. There would have been a very detrimental situation in that city if the power union workers had held out for more than four hours and placed the lives and aspirations of those smelter workers in such a perilous situation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Blanchard) Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(5.58) —The Building Industry Bill, as many previous speakers have said, is quite significant legislation. I would like to begin by directing some remarks to members of the Opposition-the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest), who has just resumed his seat, and others. One of the dilemmas that Opposition members face because of their attitude to industrial relations is that they tend to see all unions and all unionists as being troublemakers and likely to disrupt the economy. This was demonstrated when they last, lamentably, held government. They were unable at that time to show that one of the ways to handle industrial relations is to get the support of the broad base of the union movememt for one's actions. Then, having achieved that support, one is able to identify those unions which are acting in a way that is not in the best interests of the community. The difficulty that our predecessors faced was that they treated all sections of the entire union movement as if they were troublemakers. They treated the members of the Australian community as if they were troublemakers. That is no substantial way to establish an industrial relations policy. The problem that honourable members opposite face is that behind their attitude towards industrial relations is still the mentality of a jackboot. Until they are able to resolve that in their own minds and until they are able to depart from that as an option in terms of industrial relations, they will have that difficulty. I do not know how we on this side can possibly teach honourable members opposite that intolerant behaviour begets intolerant behaviour. Honourable members opposite still seem to think that the likes of Mr Bjelke-Petersen represent the high point of Australian industrial relations. Mr Slipper —Sir Joh. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Honourable members opposite might bleat about Sir Joh. We do not. We refer to him as Mr Bjelke-Petersen and we will continue to do so. As far as the attitude to industrial relations of honourable members opposite is concerned, they just do not have it right yet. I thought they would have learned from having been sent to the cold areas of opposition. However, they still do not have it right. They still seem to see all unionists out there as troublemakers and all unions as likely to cause trouble. We are a little more mature in our understanding of Australian society. Australian society is not like that. It is very mixed. There are troublemakers. We are dealing in this legislation with a union that is regarded as being substantially a troublesome union. However, we also suggest to the Opposition that the rest of the Australian union movement has the capacity to act within the accord and to deal with its membership and activities in a way that we would regard as being responsible. If honourable members opposite do not regard that claim as being substantial, they should look at the figures on working time lost when they occupied the Government benches and since we have occupied the Government benches. They will find that the change is quite remarkable. That change is substantial evidence that the approach of honourable members opposite to industrial relations does not work. It is the approach of the arsonist. If they see a fire, they throw petrol on it. Commonsense communities do not do that. Honourable members opposite can make their own decisions as to whether they are commonsensical. The Australian electorate has done that twice. I say to the Opposition: Adopt a more mature approach to industrial relations. I also suggest that when honourable members become a little agitated about time lost with respect to the BLF they should also consider time lost in all the industrial disputes that occurred when they were in government when unemployment grew so rapidly. Neither of those indices casts any favourable light upon honourable members opposite. In fact, they present them in the light of being incompetent managers. While they are trumpeting John Stone around the country and forecasting clouds of gloom with him, they might remember that he was one of the fellow vandals in respect of the Australian economy. The Australian community has not forgotten. I do not think honourable members opposite should forget either. This Bill is about reducing industrial relations to a sensible state of affairs. It is about identifying the activities of the Builders Labourers Federation. Its objective, as previous speakers have said, is to provide machinery for the cancellation of the registration of the BLF. We recognise that. We also recognise that that has to be undertaken with the support of the union movement, the community and the employers. One notes that the terms-that is, getting support-are rather significant. I note that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) said that he was a little doubtful as to whether the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was the right arena in which this decision should be made. We have no worries about that. We have been long time supporters of the role of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commisssion. However, we know that the Opposition's real agenda is to dismantle the Commission. Let it go ahead and try it on. Mr Slipper —Hear hear! Mr RONALD EDWARDS —You see, Madam Deputy Speaker; Opposition members are the same old bunch of arsonists. They see a fire and they cannot help themselves. They have to begin to identify a serious situation. The serious situation is that they are not able to produce any normality in industrial relations. We are prepared to accept the role of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission because we accept its role as an umpire in disputes and as a setter of standards in industrial relations. However, we are also prepared to say that when we see an area of trouble in industrial relations we are prepared to deal with it. This legislation does that. There is a lot of testimony to the difficulties that the BLF has created in terms of industrial relations. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has spoken about that in his second reading speech. It is necessary for me to identify four areas in talking about the objective of the Bill; that is, why it is necessary to proceed to establish machinery to deregister the BLF and what reasons we might adduce for that. First, there is the breach of the undertakings that the BLF made to the Federal Government, to fellow unions, to employers and to the Federal Court of Australia in May 1983. When we came into Government we had a major amount of damage to repair in industrial relations as well as in the economy. We felt that it was appropriate to say to the union movement generally and to employers: `We would like you to get some agreement about the establishment of an accord for industrial practice'. We did that. The BLF was a party to that agreement. It was a party to those negotiations. It said then that it would engage in good conduct in industrial relations. It breached that agreement. Secondly, we turn to the breach of the undertakings to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In national wage cases the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission argues that parties to those proceedings must engage in substantial compliance with the guidelines of the Commission. Substantial compliance requires that unions and employers must show that they have not engaged in unfair and unnecessary industrial action during that period. It is necessary for parties to a national wage case who are seeking increases in wages to be able to say: `Our conduct has been such that we earn this increase in the national wage'. In 1983 the BLF again said that it was prepared to behave itself to earn that increase in the national wage. Again, it breached that undertaking. That was the second major breach of undertakings. The third major factor was the breach of undertakings to the Federal Government in December 1983 with respect to deregistration. As the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) who preceded me on the Government side said, the previous Government had commenced deregistration proceedings against the BLF. Those proceedings were bound to be long and drawn out. However, at the same time they were also remixed proceedings because the previous honourable member for Stirling who was at one stage the Minister for Industrial Relations had great difficulty in pursuing those actions. I will not pursue that argument further because he is not in a position to respond, not being in the House. However, it is important to observe that there was then a great deal of confusion both with the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), who was at one stage the Minister for Industrial Relations, and the then honourable member for Stirling over what was the appropriate procedure. When we came into government we said to the BLF in the discussions of May 1983: `We are prepared to look at the question of deregistration'. We did that in December 1983. We said: `We will not proceed down that path involving the Federal Court because we believe that there is another way to proceed in industrial relations'. The undertakings the BLF gave to us then were breached again. That was the third breach. The fourth breach was the breach of undertakings to employers in July 1984 when again, in the context of the negotiation of a superannuation package and good conduct arrangements on sites, the BLF, along with other unions who were party to those negotiations, said that it was prepared to engage in good conduct in industrial relations. It did not. It breached that undertaking. In our view as a government, and in my view, that consistent failure to engage in fair dealing and good conduct in industrial relations warrants some extra action. The extra action is that to which I have referred, that is, to establish machinery to provide for the deregistration of the BLF. I believe that it is important to describe very briefly the significance of the building industry in this country and what a strategic location the BLF occupies within it. Since we have been in government we have recognised that in general both the housing and construction components of the building industry have been substantial employers. We have set about restoring them to economic prosperity. Our performance in terms of the Budget has been significant. We could talk about the first home owners scheme in the private sector of activity. We could talk about the admirable contribution to public housing by the State governments, particularly in Western Australia. One of the reasons the housing sector has been so successful is that the BLF has not been able to get in on the sites and enrol workers. That is why most of the jobs on building sites-that is, cottage construction-have been able to proceed without the disruption that has been characteristic of the construction industry. Sadly, our budgetary commitments in terms of the construction industry have been let down by the BLF. Let me give honourable members an indication. In the period from May 1984 to May 1985 there has been an increase of 52,000 employed in the construction industry in this country, an increase of 11.9 per cent. That increase shows not only the gross fixed capital expenditure commitment of the private sector but also the capital outlays expended by the Government. We were prepared to invest money to ensure that those industries are restored. In that climate, the BLF has been engaged in some of the worst behaviour that one could imagine. That is just not on for the Government. Under the prices and incomes accord we are doing something about increasing employment. At the same time we are doing something for the housing sector and we are improving capital arrangements in the economy. If a union in a key place in an industry is not prepared to play its part and say `let us make sure the jobs keep going', we will be left with very few options. The BLF has refused to accept the jurisdiction of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It has refused to accept the normal procedures relating to conduct on building sites. It has refused to accept what would be regarded as civilised behaviour by the union movement, employers, its own members on building sites and, certainly, the community at large. All the evidence is there-I could go through it, but I will not-that the union was prepared to do a number of things, ranging from taxes on fellow unionists, employers and other organisations in society to general random behaviour. We would be wrong as a government if we were to say: `Let us turn a blind eye to that behaviour and let us say that it is not happening'. We are saying that we believe that such actions cannot be condoned and that they need to be dealt with very firmly. Whilst I am on this topic, I shall make one other observation. I am talking about the situation that faces the Government. The Government believes that by establishing growth in the public sector it will be in a position to restore economic health. It has achieved growth in the last two Budgets and the hope now is that the Budget that was presented last night by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will get private fixed capital expenditure going. I can go through the evidence to justify that hope; it is in the Budget Papers. These aims are just too crucial for us as members of this society to allow the actions of the BLF to affect such developments. Let me give honourable members two examples. The Budget proposes expenditure on airports around Australia such as Perth Airport in my State of Western Australia, Canberra Airport-dear me, that is necessary-Townsville Airport, and so on. At the moment work on those airports can be delayed by the whims of the BLF. The Government is committed also to the expenditure of $15.5m on a court complex at Parramatta. Honourable members will note again that that is a strategic area of expenditure and the BLF is strategically placed to disrupt that expenditure. That proposed development will result in jobs, prosperity for the contractors who are working on those jobs and prosperity for the surrounding community. We hold the view that it is just not satisfactory to allow such developments to be disrupted in a cavalier way, and the evidence is that that is what the BLF is prepared to do. I agree fully with a previous speaker from the other side of the House who said that when the heat is on the members of BLF start to behave themselves and when the heat is off they misbehave. I think that the community accepts that argument. The testimony is there. That is why it is necessary for us to proceed in the proposed manner. One instance which I find particularly disturbing relates to Western Australia. It is important to put this on the record, because many members of the BLF are not aware of this. The rules of that union require that, if one is working as a builder's labourer in the construction industry, one must give written notice when one leaves the industry. It is fair to say that some members of the union who are working as builders' labourers are not people who normally write many letters; in fact some of them are relatively unskilled in writing and producing written documents. Obviously it does happen that, when some members leave the industry, they fail to notify the union. The union has been pursuing those members and collecting unpaid dues which those members were not aware they had to pay. The union not only has been using its own members to collect that money, but also has been using professional debt collectors. I know of no other union in Australia which, when a member leaves the industry and goes off to another occupation, which is quite a natural thing in anyone's working life, pursues that former member with that degree of grudging victimisation as has the BLF. That is inexcusable. Many people have said: `It is behaving like a union; it is looking after its members'. True, there is such evidence, but there is more evidence to show that its behaviour towards fellow unionists in other unions and former members of its own union is absolutely contemptible. We have to say that this legislation is about behaviour that we as members of a civilised society are not prepared to accept. Let us not forget that we are dealing with a union whose conduct is not the same as that of the Australian union movement in general. We should be aware of that fact. I say to members of the Opposition that, before they come in here and get terribly excited about militant unionism, they should realise that we can show up one union's misconduct only if the rest of the union movement is behaving. We have achieved that. Before any member of the Opposition gets terribly excited about all these terrible unions, I say that we must achieve a calm sea; only then can we see where the ripples are. We have achieved that. The trouble is that before we came into government there was an absolute tidal wave of trouble; there were industrial disputes right across the industrial spectrum. We have the sea calm and we can now see where the ripple is. Those honourable members of the Opposition who wish to become terribly inflamed in this debate should remember that good conduct in most industrial relations has to be pursued before misconduct can be isolated. That is what we have done. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for that. It deals with an application by the Minister to the Commission. Despite the whims of some members of the National Party of Australia who might want to display king-hit Joh's mentality with regard to industrial relations, the Government is not going around hitting unionists on the head at any whim. It is saying that, if there is evidence of industrial conduct which it does not agree with, it will say to the Commission: `Will you have a look at that conduct?' If, in the view of the Commission, that conduct is regarded as misconduct in the area of industrial relations, the Commission can proceed to make recommendations. I shall deal with specifics. Clause 4 lists certain criteria. One relates to compliance. In other words, we have to ask whether a union has engaged in activities which we would regard as not complying with industrial relations. That is not arbitrary behaviour. The Australian community is concerned that, if a government engages in arbitrary behaviour at the ministerial level, such as that which the Queensland Government seems to favour in industrial relations, we shall see the shadows of the 1930s in Germany. We on this side of the House are not talking about arbitrary ministerial behaviour: We are talking about behaviour that is constrained by good conduct; and that is what we are insisting upon. We have to ask whether that conduct is likely to hamper the settlement of a dispute. That is one of the criteria in clause 4. The Commission and the Minister are concerned with the good conduct of industrial relations. For those who are concerned about the rights of the Federation, importantly, clause 6 provides an opportunity for it to make submissions to the Commission to the effect that its conduct was all fair and above board and that the Commission ought not to proceed with deregistration. A crucial and significant question is that of coverage for union members. Clause 8 of the Bill provides that if deregistration were proceeded with, it would be possible for another union to grant coverage to members of the deregistered union. I say to honourable members opposite that, in talking about a union and union power, they have to deal with the capacity of an organisation, whatever that organisation may be, to organise and to cover its employees. It is not just a case of saying: `Let us deregister a certain union and everything will be fine'. It is a question of asking whether it is possible to establish another organisation that will behave itself in a responsible manner and that will provide coverage for those members. The Government's approach has been thought through. It is a consistent approach to industrial relations and to dealing with industrial disputes. I conclude by saying that the issue at stake here is established misconduct. That is very clear. It has been recognised by the community, by the employers, by the Commission, by the courts and by this Government, but it is established misconduct in relation to good behaviour in the context of the prices and incomes accord. This Bill will set up important procedures because they will enable us to deal with a major area of misconduct in Australian industrial relations. I believe that, if we proceed with this Bill and if it is successfully carried, it will enable us to further our record in industrial relations. Accordingly, I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House. Mr BURR(Lyons)(6.19) —At the outset, I must admit that I feel very sorry for the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards). I have heard some good speeches from the honourable member, but I have just listened to a 20 minute speech in which the honourable member for Stirling has done his very best to deceive himself. I feel very sorry that he has adopted such an attitude, because I am quite certain that, in more thoughtful or reflective moments, he would adopt a very much different attitude to this issue from that which he has stated publicly here tonight. The Building Industry Bill relates to the proposed deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation. But the real issue before this House and before the Australian people is not the deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation; the key issue is law and order within the trade union movement. The honourable member for Stirling said that we on this side of the House lump all of the trade unions into the one melting pot. That is true. We do put all the trade unions into the same pot, to be consistent and to comply with the laws of the land. We apply the same principle to every citizen and every other organisation in Australia. We say that trade union members, collectively or individually, have no immunity from the laws of the land. Government members have said that the union movement has no immunity from the laws of the land. We on this side of the House will never accept that concept. I am sorry for the honourable member for Stirling. I have a great personal regard for him, but if he assumes that the Australian Labor Party, in government or opposition, in any party of Australia, does not provide immunity from the law for the trade union movement, clearly he does not know his Party's conference resolutions. I strongly suggest that he read some documentation from his own Party. I remind the honourable member, or any other member on the Government side, of resolutions that were passed at the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party in July 1979. I am sure Madam Deputy Speaker would be aware that these resolutions have never been rescinded by the Australian Labor Party. They are still the policy of the Government Party and they are still required by the organisation of the Party to be implemented by the Government. One of the resolutions from the July 1979 Conference states; An ALP Government would recognise `the rights of unions to regulate their own affairs in a democratic way free from Government and judicial interference...' That final section-`free from Government and judicial interference'-is the key to what the Government is doing now. It is the key to the whole approach of this Government towards the trade union movement. That is a requirement of the Australian Labor Party on this Government and on State governments as well. The key issue is not simply the deregulation of the Builders Labourers Federation; the key issue is whether trade union members, collectively or individually, should be required to comply with the laws of the land. Clearly, in the case of the Builders Labourers Federation there have been breaches, not only of civil law but also criminal law. I quote from the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) when, referring to the Builders Labourers Federation, he said: Its resort to industrial blackmail, thuggery, violence and intimidation, has added a further ugly dimension to its activites. Mr Hodgman —That is Normie's bunch for you. Mr BURR —I agree, that is Normie's bunch, and also Mr Black's in New South Wales. Those words are from the Minister himself-`blackmail, thuggery, violence and intimidation'. Those are not just breaches of industrial relations practice, they are breaches of criminal law. Yet what action has this Government taken to enforce the law of the land on this union or any other union? Those matters are not a recent revelation to the Minister or to any other member of the Government. The Winnecke report of the Royal Commission into the Activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation, of which the Minister is aware, states: The conduct not only exceeds the bounds of industrial propriety but, in many instances, plainly transgresses the Criminal Law...The result has been to place the B.L.F. in a unique position-a position of being above the law. The Minister has come in here parading himself as being the upholder of good industrial peace and harmony in this country and has said: `We are going to get tough with the unions and deregister this mob of disruptive people in the Builders Labourers Federation'. What he is doing is trying to put a band-aid over an enormous wound in Australia. If the Minister were fair dinkum in his approach, not only to this disruptive union but also to other unions, he would not attempt such a passive measure as deregulation. He would ensure that the Australian Federal Police investigated all breaches of criminal and civil law that are prepetrated in the name of trade unionism. When have we heard of the Minister, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), or anybody else on the Government side, asking the Federal Police to investigate breaches of the law by the trade union movement? Not once. That is the real test of whether they are fair dinkum about bringing some sort of adherence to the law by the trade union movement. Members of the Government have come in here with a sop for the Australian people. They have said `We are getting tough with the union movement', when all they are doing is trying to build up their popularity polls. Government members know full well that deregistration of a union does not cause it to cease to exist. They know that the Builders Labourers Federation will still exist. What deregistration will do, in fact, is take away any discipline that is presently on that union to comply with some sort of industrial practice. All they will do is remove any constraints now on the union. They will not make the Builders Labourers Federation comply with the law until they are prepared to have the Federal Police investigate the breaches of criminal and civil law. That will be the test of whether they are fair dinkum. Mr Hodgman —Their membership went up last time they were deregistered. Mr BURR —As my colleague the honourable member for Denison says, BLF membership did go up in 1975-76 when it was deregistered. Exactly the same thing will happen again because deregistration does not cause a union to cease to exist as a legal body. That is exactly what will happen again, and the Minister knows that it will happen again. The union will be deregistered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, but it will still exist as a body and it will still use the same blackmail and criminal thuggery tactics as it is now without any constraint whatsoever. The constraint will come only if the Minister asks the Federal Police to investigate the union's activities and, if necessary, to press charges in the civil courts. That is where the test will be. The Minister came in here with all his spurious claims about what he will do to the Builders Labourers Federation and all its breaches, and tried to put across the idea that he is getting tough with the union movement. I cannot use the word `hypocrisy' in this place-I know it is unparliamentary-so I will use the word `inconsistency'. The Minister came in here and pointed out all these transgressions of the Builders Labourers Federation and said: `We are going to get tough; we will deregister them'. I agree that the Builders Labourers Federation has been a very disruptive influence on the trade union movement and on industrial harmony in Australia, but what has the Minister done with the meat workers union at Mudginberri? It committed the same breach of criminal law, yet he condoned that action. If the Minister is to be consistent if he chooses to act against one union for its unreasonable, distruptive tactics, why does he not act against another union? In both cases there have been clean breaches of civil and criminal law. Why does not the Minister ask the Federal Police to take action against both the meat workers union at Mudginberri and the Builders Labourers Federation, or any union that breaches civil and criminal law? That would be the test of whether the Minister is fair dinkum. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) pointed out this morning, not only will this union continue to exist as an organisation but also the likelihood is, as the honourable member for Denison said, that the union will increase its membership and its activity. There has not been a commitment by the Australian Workers Union or any other union to recruit the membership of the Builders Labourers Federation. The honourable member for Stirling should not look so stunned. He knows darned well that that is right. That is exactly what happened in 1975. The other unions will refuse to take the membership of the Builders Labourers Federation and its membership will increase. The honourable member knows that to be the case. Mr Leo McLeay —That is a lie! Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The honourable member for Grayndler will withdraw that comment and keep quiet. Mr Leo McLeay —I did not say that the honourable member for Lyons was a liar, I just said that what I heard was a lie. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Just withdraw, please. Mr Leo McLeay —I thought the ruling was that you are not allowed to call an individual a liar. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is unparliamentary to call out. Mr Leo McLeay —If it is offensive to the honourable member for Lyons, I am quite happy to withdraw it. Mr BURR —Thank you for protecting me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must say that I have been insulted by experts and I did not even feel that one. The real test of this Government, and indeed of industrial practices in Australia, is not whether a union is to be registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, not whether matters will be heard by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and not what agreements one might give or might not give to employers or to any other bodies. What is important is that all groups within society should live by the rules of society and those rules are laid down by our laws, passed through our parliaments. The trade union movement-as exemplified by the Builders Labourers Federation, but not restricted to that Federation-collectively assumes that it is above the law. One cannot in all seriousness have an ordered, progressive society while one has a major section of that society assuming a position of immunity from the provisions of the law. As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations identified in his second reading speech, we have a situation in which members of the BLF, in the name of a trade union, have practised thuggery, blackmail, intimidation and breaches of criminal law. However, in the name of the trade union they have assumed an immunity from the law. If any one of those individuals practised those same activities not in the name of the trade union movement, he would be prosecuted for criminal breaches. But because such people claim to be members of a trade union acting on legitimate trade union business, they assume that they are above the law and cannot be prosecuted. The real test in this case is not deregistration, that will not prove anything. If the Government and the Prime Minister are serious in trying to bring some sort of legitimate law and order to the trade union movement, the real test will be whether they are prepared to have the Commonwealth police investigate these breaches of criminal and civil law and to treat the unions in the same way as they would treat any other group or citizen in the community. The only effort that has been made to date to have unions comply with civil law in this country has been the provisions that were placed in the Trade Practices Act by the previous Fraser Government. These provisions are found in section 45D and E. What has been this Government's response to those requirements of the trade union movement to comply with rules that apply to every other citizen and organisation in the community? The Government wants to wipe them off the statue book. Why? Because it has been instructed to do so by the same resolution at the 1979 July conference in Adelaide as that to which I referred earlier. Another resolution from that same conference is that the unions should be exempted from the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. That resolution was passed at the July 1979 conference and has never been rescinded. It still stands. The Government's requirement to comply with that resolution has been shown several times by its attempts to remove sections 45D and E from the statute book. Just as this Government complies with instructions from its masters in the Australian Labor Party organisation to do that, so, too, does it comply with the same instructions to ensure that the union movement is free from government and judicial interference. I throw out the challenge to members of the Labor Party, to members of the Government, to the Minister and the Prime Minister: If they are fair dinkum about doing something constructive to stop the intimidation, thuggery and criminal activity that has been going on in the union movement-and not just in the BLF-they will ask the Commonwealth police to investigate and prosecute members of trade unions in exactly the same way as they would any other citizen in the country. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) 6.36)-I guess after hearing the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) one would immediately think that we had just heard from Mad Max 3. Members of the Opposition often fail to remember history when they talk on this Building Industry Bill and tell the Government what it should and should not do. If one asks what governments should and should not do, one could ask what the present Leader of the Opposition (MrPeacock) was doing between 3 November 1980 and 16 April 1981 when he was the Minister for Industrial Relations in the Fraser Government. If members of the Builders Labourers Federation were on the rampage then as they are now-and there is not doubt that they were-one would have thought that Opposition members who are beating their chests now and telling the Government all the things that it should and should not do, would have taken action when they had the chance. Unfortunately, when the rhetoric and the actions are added up one finds that the present Opposition in government was very long on rhetoric and extremely short on action. On the other hand, this Government has decided that it will do something. Honourable members should look at what the Building Industry Bill of 1985 is about because when one hears the honourable member for Lyons and some of the other Opposition speakers it is unclear what the Government is proposing. It is important that we should realise that the Bill will provide for a hearing before a Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission upon an application by the Minister at which the Commission will be required to consider whether the Builders Labourers Federation, or a prescribed person, has engaged in certain specified forms of industrial misconduct. If the Commission then decides that the BLF or any person has done so there are certain prescribed steps that can be taken. After he receives a report from the Commission, the Minister may direct the cancellation of the Federation's registration. He may order the termination or suspension of any of the rights, privileges or capacities of the Federation or its members. He may order that the rules of the Federation relating to the industry will cease to have effect. The Minister may also order that other unions registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act be given, with their consent, coverage of work in the industry in respect of which the Federation is or has been registered. Despite the ravings of the previous speaker, a number of unions recently have said that they would take over coverage of people in those industries. Where the Minister decides not to make such an order, he may enable the Commission to determine whether other registered unions should, with their consent, be given coverage of such work and, if so, make a declaration which will have that result. That is a method by which some sense can be brought into the industrial anarchy that has been caused by the BLF since 1974. It is not easy for a Labor government to make such a decision. There has to be a great deal of thought put into it as well as a lot of soul searching. After that agonising and soul searching the Government decided, on balance, that it had to look after the good of the majority of unionists rather than the principle of whether the BLF should be allowed to run riot in the building industry in Australia. When the Government was looking at the possibility of introducing this legislation it had to take account of the many thousands of good men and women who are members of the Builders Labourers Federation, who have had nothing to do with many of the industrial actions in which the BLF has been involved. They also must be protected. This Government is about protecting the rights or ordinary men and women to go about their business in an organised, unionised fashion. Unfortunately, over a period the BLF has placed itself outside the bounds of civilised trade unionism. The Government is very concerned that one small group of people in an large union could cause the building and construction industry to come to a standstill. This Government, which is committed to a significant increase in productivity in Australia and to a restructuring of the Australian economy so there can be more work for Australians, has picked the building industry as an area where it wants to see more employment created. It is important to remember that the building and construction industry contributes about 10 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product. The non-residential sector of the building industry currently employs 350,000 people. That is a lot of good people and a lot of jobs. The Government has encouraged the industry as a central force in its renewed economic expansion since 1983. The activity the Government would like to see in the building industry is being hampered in many areas by certain elements of the Builders Labourers Federation. Around Australia the Federation has about 35,000 members in the non-residential construction area, and in the States of New South Wales and Victoria and in the Australian Capital Territory it has about 24,000 members. But as I said earlier, the history of the BLF since the early 1970s is strewn with numerous examples of unbelievable industrial campaign practices, of broken undertakings to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, to its fellow unionists and to employers, and of understandings and co-operation from fellow unionists being ignored and trampled upon. I think it is important, in considering this legislation, to consider in depth some of the activities of some elements of the Builders Labourers Federation. I would particularly like to say some things about the view that people in the broader labour movement from my own State of New South Wales have about the activities of the BLF. In the last few months there have been some rather significant decisions taken by the labour movement in New South Wales, and I will name four of those as they relate to the BLF. In the last few weeks the administrative committee of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party unanimously condemned the BLF. That was not just one group of people in the Labor Party; people from the Left, the Right and the Centre were opposed to the BLF. The New South Wales Trades and Labour Council, at a recent meeting, nearly unanimously condemned the BLF. Two hundred delegates were present and a mere handful were willing to vote against the proposal. The Newcastle branch of the Labour Council, which is a left wing group, recently expelled the BLF. Even the South Coast branch of the Labour Council, which would probably be the farthest Left of any branch of the Labour Council in New South Wales, has been most critical of the way the BLF has held up economic expansion on the south coast of New South Wales. My colleague the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) was telling me earlier this evening about the difficulties people have had in that area, where there has been massive unemployment, being held to ransom by a small group of people. Merv Malcolm, the Secretary of the south coast branch of the Labour Council, who could not be called a right winger, has been most vocal in his condemnation of the actions of the Builders Labourers Federation in my State. It has been interesting to see the change in attitude of trade unionists and Labor Party activists against the members of the Federation in the last 11 years. In 1974, I was a delegate to the New South Wales Labour Council from the Federated Clerks Union of Australia. I was at a meeting one night when a number of members of the BLF who had been drinking in a pub across the road from the Labour Council building broke into the meeting and started systematically to assault other trade unionists who were there at the Thursday night meeting of the State Branch of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That was the beginning of the thuggery that has had people worried ever since. One of the most disgusting things I have ever seen done by one unionist to another occurred when Jack Ryan, who was an official of the Rubber Workers Union of Australia-an old man with only one leg-was knocked over and hit on the head with a chair by a person who purported to be a trade unionist, a member of the Builders Labourers Federation. In May 1974, after very bitter debate, the New South Wales Labour Council expelled the BLF for the first time. In October 1978 it was readmitted to the Labour Council on giving the undertaking that it would act as a responsible trade union. In March 1981, it was suspended again from the Labour Council of New South Wales after complaints from other unions of the BLF attempting to enrol members of the Australian Workers Union and the Building Workers Industrial Union. In July 1984 it was readmitted to the Labour Council after intervention by the ACTU. In October 1982, it was disaffiliated from the Victorian Trades Hall Council. In March 1984, the New South Wales Labour Council issued a statement calling for `an immediate end to the anarchy which has resurfaced in the building and construction industry at the instigation of the BLF'. The Labour Council called for the expulsion of the BLF from the ACTU to be considered if the BLF did not agree to have disputes solved in accordance with the ACTU's demarcation policy. In May 1984, the ACTU President said that the BLF had been given its last chance. In July 1984, 1,000 building workers participated in a demonstration at the Sydney Town Hall condemning the behaviour of the Builders Labourers Federation in intimidating other trade unionists. In August 1984 Transport Workers Union drivers were harassed and intimidated at the Sydney police centre site. In September 1984 Builders Labourers Federation members invaded the AWU offices in Melbourne. The police were called and arrests were made. In May 1985 the ACTU Executive condemned the BLF's recent behaviour at the police centre site and the Greater Union site in New South Wales-two of the biggest jobs in that city. In July of this year the New South Wales Labour Council passed an almost unanimous resolution calling on the Federal Government to deregister the union. In 11 years the BLF was expelled from the Labour Council of New South Wales on a number of occasions. The important thing to recall is that after all of those 11 years, the decision of the Council in May 1974 to expel the Federation was bitterly contested and was only narrowly passed. In July 1985, the New South Wales Labour Council was nearly unanimous in its decision to condemn the Builders Labourers Federation. The Federation had lost the support of ordinary trade unionists. In its activities on building sites it has shown that it is willing to use all sorts of tactics in the pursuit of what it has called legitimate industrial activities. Its practice of stopping concrete pours and of putting other unionists out of work is legend. In some instances it has used jackhammers to break up concrete that has been poured by members of the AWU. It has interrupted the concrete pours on State government and private enterprise buildings. At a time when the Government in Canberra tried to do its best, in co-operation with the Victorian Government, to provide hospitals and colleges of technical and further education in Victoria, the Builders Labourers Federation is preventing work being done on those sites. In many of its activities on building sites the Federation has often put at risk the health and safety of other unionists. The unfortunate thing is that it is only a small group of people within the BLF who are doing this. It is not the 35,000 members; it is just a small clique who are running the organisation, a small clique who like the power involved and a small clique who have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the industrial aspirations of other trade unionists. I think we also should remember, in dealing with the BLF, the number of agreements it has entered into with governments and the way it has pulled out of them. It makes promises and it breaks them. In fact, one could say that the BLF and Malcolm Fraser have had a lot in common. A promise or an understanding lasts only until it is cancelled shortly after being made or reached. The Federation has given re-registration undertakings to the Industrial Registrar, it has given undertakings to the Government, it has given undertakings to its own trade union colleagues and it has given undertakings to the labour councils and to the ACTU. All those undertakings have been breached at the end of the BLF's achieving its aim. Notwithstanding all that, the present Government is not proposing in the legislation today to deregister the BLF. The Government is going to ask the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to conduct a hearing and properly investigate the matter. In my view, the BLF has shown itself to be an organisation that has scant regard for the rights of ordinary working men and women. It has brought the union movement into disrepute, and strong action needs to be taken. I think that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his speech in the House earlier today summed up the view of all members on this side and, I should think, members on the other side when he said: I know of no sense in which the trade union movement can regard the industrial thuggery practised by the BLF with anything but profound disquiet. The BLF consistently now has put itself out of line with the mainstream of what legitimate trade unionism is about. I think that should sum up the attitude of all of us to this legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(6.51) —Two important precedents have been created for the socialists in Australia by their Government's pursuit of this legislation. The Building Industry Bill does much to destroy two great Australian Labor Party myths. The first of those fairy tales is that legislation is to be eschewed by democratically elected governments in countering malpractices of or by irresponsible unions and unionists. The second myth to go by the board today is that which seeks to justify international treaties and conventions becoming a legitimate and binding basis for Australian law. Dealing with the second myth first, we should be particularly mindful of the International Labour Organisation conventions, some of which have been ratified by successive Australian governments. It has long been argued by those opposite and their predecessors that international conventions assume something like the standing of holy writ, albeit that, if selectively applied, they put into a form of words only those doctrines of the ALP that it holds at a particular time. ILO conventions seem to be particularly sacrosanct to the ALP although the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the listing of Australian real estate by the World Heritage Commission seem also to loom large in the thinking of both those opposite and minority groups from time to time. Because ILO conventions and deliberations are so important to some opposite, they will know that this Bill is contrary to ILO Convention No. 87 which deals with protection of the right to organise. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Australia has also ratified, of course, in Article 20, clause 1, stipulates: Everyone has the right to freedom of association. It seems to many that this Bill will very much offend against the spirit and the letter of international undertakings of the type I have just instanced. That will put us in the same court as those other great examples of countries which have ratified ILO Convention No. 87 and have subsequently flouted its provisions. We are about to be numbered along with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the German Democratic Republic as countries which, despite ratification, will deny the right of certain workers to organise. Let me say at once that I agree with the Government's stated intentions to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation, even though I doubt its sincerity. However, we cannot as a country have it both ways. We cannot on one hand expect to claim that ratified ILO conventions are inviolate while legislating for the opposite. It has to be one thing or the other. Given the bipartisan support for this Bill, there is only one real choice-that is, that the conventions against which the legislation offends must be disowned. Australia must, if it values its reputation for honest dealings, tell the ILO that it no longer accepts the dictum of Convention No. 87 as something we can abide by, and that its ratification is to be removed. If the Government does not do that, we will be seen to be no better than the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the German Democratic Republic, countries which unashamedly flout that ILO convention. Many times in this Parliament and outside the coalition parties have been chastised because they sought to legislate or amend legislation to control the mindless excesses of the trade unions. Almost as many times we have been told that legislation is not the answer to even general, let alone particular, union misbehaviour. Perhaps we will see an end to that sort of specious insincerity in future. At last the Australian Labor Party or some members of it seem to have reached the inescapable conclusion that, unless there is an unfettered right among Australian working men and women to true freedom of association, governments have to regulate their affairs. The union movement would do well to remember that. So it is that we see an end to a couple of the ALP's sacred cows. No longer can it be said that international conventions should dictate how elected governments in Australia will legislate in the interests of its electors. No longer will the claim that governments should not make laws to control recalcitrant unions be sustainable. This morning we experienced the unusual and, might I say, rare participation of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in general debate. No doubt he felt it necessary to end his self-imposed exile from parliamentary proceedings. Perhaps his masters insisted upon it, perhaps he needed to reassert himself for ALP factional reasons. But what about the Prime Minister's contribution to the debate? He quoted something that Mr Steve Black of the New South Wales Builders Labourers Federation said in 1979 which illustrated the lawlessness of the union. Who was President of the ACTU in 1979? He cited the words of a Mr Dalton in 1979. Who was still the President of the ACTU in 1979? The Prime Minister offered as justification of his support for the Bill words spoken by Mr Norman Gallagher, again in 1979. Who was President of the ACTU then? The Prime Minister also referred to events over the period 1976 to 1982 in a way which was intended to leave us with the impression that those events warrant the measure before the House. Who was in turn President of the ACTU and spokesman on industrial relations for the parliamentary Labor Party over the years 1976 to 1982? The same goes for the report by Mr Justice Winnecke, which was published in 1982. At all material times the present Prime Minister was either President of the ACTU or parliamentary spokesman for his party on industrial relations. Did he, in either capacity, publicly condemn in a way which could be taken seriously the examples he now cites? He did not. When in a position to show leadership before and soon after he came into this place, he failed to condemn, discipline or otherwise disown the BLF for its wanton irresponsibility and in many cases its illegal behaviour. The Prime Minister this morning even said that he was considering ways and means of in future making contractors on government contracts adhere to government policies on industrial behaviour. What was the same Prime Minister doing earlier this year following a decision by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which denied the BLF an increase of 2.6 per cent arising out of a national wage case decision? Not long after Mr Justice Alley's correct decision, the 2.6 per cent was-as it still is-being paid to BLF members on the new Parliament House site. Mr Cadman —It can't be. You are joking! Mr ROCHER —I am not joking. This is under this Prime Minister. The Government is already paying and condoning payment of sums to BLF members in contravention of a decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. How can that circumstance be matched with the Prime Minister's rhetoric? It just does not gel. There is a huge credibility gap. The doubts expressed by the coalition about the sincerity of the Government or its firm resolve to take the necessary tough action must be viewed in the light of these inconsistencies in its argument. The Prime Minister also said that the powers this Bill promises will not be used indiscriminately or capriciously. The great doubt that some have that the powers will not be used at all is the doubt which is exercising our minds tonight. With the word `may' attached to the powers to be given to the Minister, and given the Government's history over the past two and a half years, no one can be supremely confident that this Bill is anything but a big stick to wave without actually administering the punishment. The first hurdle to be overcome before the deregistration process can even start is the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission itself. The Prime Minister tells us that offending behaviour by the BLF must be proved. The standard of proof required is not all that clear but, whatever it is, getting employers to give evidence not knowing what the Minister may ultimately do-`may' ultimately do-will not be as straightforward as it may seem at first glance. For instance, evidence by a national builder may attract retribution from the BLF in States other that New South Wales and Victoria. Such builders will be extremely reluctant to give evidence of problems in those latter States. Some employers will think more than twice because of the treatment they have received at the hands of the BLF, coupled with the lack of certainty that the Minister will exercise his discretionary powers. Not many will have much confidence in the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to act with courage given his record since he attained his present office. On the face of it, this Bill deserves the support the coalition will give to it. On closer examination, however, despite the claims the Minister and his Government make for what could be thought to be a panacea for the industrial mayhem created by the BLF, the proposed legislation is unlikely to match the expectations of the public. Over recent weeks, and after all the rhetoric from the ALP and sources within the ALP in Canberra, New South Wales and Victoria, it seemed that an almost universal sigh could be heard around Australia-at last something was to be done about the unreasoned lawlessness of the BLF. Anyone who thinks so is almost certainly bound to be disappointed. That prediction may seem to be unduly pessimistic, but the reasons for making it can be gleaned from only a superficial look at some recent relevant history. It may have been forgotten that when this Government came to office, deregistration of the BLF was already in prospect in proceedings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. With not a little confidence- building persuasion, the Fraser Government, with advice or with active leadership from the now Leader of the Opposition, had encouraged building employers to come out of the woodwork and present detailed and well documented arguments before the Commission. The process of deregistration was well under way in 1983. Enter the Hawke Government and what happened? The Australian Council of Trade Unions said that that little exercise was not on. Nothing has happened since 1983 when the socialists came to power that has not happened before through the behaviour of the BLF. There are now more examples of the BLF's outrageous anti-social behaviour because of the passage of time, because of the elapsing of another couple of years. The union has not changed and, in fairness to it, it never seriously pretended that it would change. Other things changed, though. The employers changed. The behaviour of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations had more than something to do with the change of heart by employers. The Minister actively, albeit behind the scences, made sure that the resolve of employers in 1983-84 to pursue deregistration was weakened. It might even be said that when that uncharacteristic determination was weakened sufficiently the Minister made both the BLF and the building industry employers an offer they could not refuse, in the best traditions of the American Mafia. Before the offer was made by the Minister, however, as might be expected in dealings of this kind, the real heavies of the trade union movement had obviously made a similar undeniable offer to the Minister. The ACTU made it clear that deregistration of a union whose secretary was the sole representative of the building unions on the ACTU Executive was simply not on. That is a pretty powerful constraint on a socialist government. In 1983 a Minister and a Prime Minister whose powers depended mightily on the ACTU were not about to upset those in the ACTU who were, mistakenly, as subsequent developments clearly show, thought to be powerful but sympathetic friends of the Labor Government in Canberra and Labor Governments around Australia. Whether under pressure or instructions from the ACTU is not clear, but the Minister wasted no time in planning an end to the 1983 deregistration. To do so he had first to secure a pay increase denied to the building unions by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. A series of devices and schemes behind the scenes saw both new words and new concepts in industrial relations. One of the strange animals which were created in this atmosphere was the building industry recovery procedures allowance. Unfortunately for the Minister, the Commission saw the building industry recovery procedures allowance for what it was-a device to get around the findings of an anomalies bench of the Commission. The Commission knocked it back. While all this conniving by the Minister to get around his own Government's wage guidelines was going on industrial disruption by the BLF and by other building unions continued unabated. The Government was funding and nominally supporting that deregistration action brought by employers back in 1982-83. It is of little more than incidental interest to note that the Minister finally got around the Commission's decision not to grant the pay increase to BLF members which would have been outside the guidelines. He did that by promoting a building industry superannuation scheme without precedent in Australia. Furthermore, he continues to sponsor the same thing for the whole of Australian industry. It is in these events and others that we find the genesis of what is a belated and what promises to be a half-hearted attempt at disciplining the BLF. The offer that could not be refused which the Minister made to adversaries in the 1983 deregistration action came in two parts. Part one was in essence that the Government would no longer support the case mounted by building employers. Part two was the clincher: The Hawke Government would pick up the tab for the costs incurred by the parties in mounting and defending the case, which I think was $600,000 to $800,000. Discouraged by the equivocation of the Minister and his Government, the employers could not wait to take the money and run. Those are the things that are exercising the minds of members of the Opposition. Many of the points I have raised give rise in turn to doubts which we have expressed about the firm resolve and future intentions of the Government and in particular the Minister once this Bill becomes law. I hope that the Minister will take some of our remarks on board. I hope that he will be conditioned by the very real doubts-they are not without good reason-which we have expressed. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(7.10) —in reply-In summing up this debate I firstly thank the Opposition for facilitating the progress of the Building Industry Bill through the House. This debate has come on the day after the Bill was introduced and I thank the Opposition for its co-operation in allowing that to happen. I wish to refer to two or three things said and a number of questions raised during the debate. One matter that the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) referred to as being of some importance concerned the allegation that the Government had given major priority to deactivating the deregistration proceedings which were in place when it came to office and that this was somehow evidence of heinous activity on its part. It is true that we did give priority to that, because we did not regard those proceedings as being likely to lead to any satisfactory resolution of the industrial relations nightmare which existed in the building industry. We believed that that was so because it was our opinion that the conditions for effective deregistration were not in place, nor were they likely to be in place. Those conditions certainly involve a substantial degree of trade union preparedness to take over the work of builders' labourers. I believed that there was absolutely no chance of that being achieved in the course of proceedings before the Federal Court of Australia at that time. There was total trade union opposition to those deregistration proceedings and it was highly unlikely that that attitude would have changed. It was also the fact that the time involved in reaching any deregistration would have been extraordinary. The proceedings had already continued for well over a year and there was every expectation on the part of the parties involved that the proceedings would roll on for some indeterminate number of years. It seemed to us that this was a rather absurd process, that in those circumstances it was best to terminate the proceedings and attempt to achieve a resolution which involved an industry agreement, as I outlined in some detail in my second reading speech, and that if that approach did not result in a satisfactory outcome the Government should seek to take effective action of another kind. That was the course that we proceeded on, and the end result is that we have reached the point where we have had to take that effective action. It was also said by the Opposition spokesman that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and I personally guaranteed Builders Labourers Federation adherence to the building industry agreement-a guarantee which he said was worthless. It is not true to say that we guaranteed Builders Labourers Federation adherence to the building industry agreement; we were not in a position to do that. The Government did guarantee building industry employers that if the Builders Labourers Federation did not abide by that agreement the Government would take effective action to ensure that the industrial relations situation in the industry was corrected and that we would take effective action against the Federation. The legislation now before the House gives effect to that promise. The third point that I mention as a result of the debate concerns the serious matter raised by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher). He suggested that the Bill breaches International Labour Organisation Convention No. 87 as well as the International Covenant on Human Rights. I disagree with his assertions in that regard. I do not believe that this legislation does breach International Labour Organisation Convention No. 87 and I would be concerned if that were the case. The situation is that Convention No. 87, which deals with freedom of association, has regard to the right of people to join associations. Action by governments to terminate the existence of associations such as trade unions probably would be regarded by the International Labour Organisation as a breach. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Willis-Mr Speaker, I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(7.16) —Mr Speaker, as I was saying, the ILO would probably regard action by government to terminate a union's existence as a breech of convention No. 87. What we are doing with this legislation is not terminating the existance of a trade union. What we would do if the option of total deregistration were taken would be to put that union outside the Federal system of conciliation and arbitration. It would still not be against the law to be a member of an association which was unregistered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act but known as the Builders Labourers Federation. So I disagree with the honourable member's assertion that it is a breach of the ILO convention. There are also other reasons which support that point which I will not go into. I would like to refer to a few questions which were raised by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Tangney, in relation to the legislation. The honourable member said that the words `prescribed person' in the legislation were limited to officers of the BLF. He pointed out that this was a very narrow definition and would limit the effectiveness of the Bill. In fact the definition of `prescribed person' is in similar terms to the deeming provision of section 188 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which was inserted by the Fraser Government. I draw to the shadow Minister's attention the fact that under clause 4(3) the Federation is also responsible for the actions of its members. So it seems to us that the responsibility of the Federation under the legislation cannot be said to be in the narrow terms suggested by the shadow Minister. Indeed, if he looks at the Bill he will see that it refers not only to officers but also to employees, agents and even a member of the Federation. So it has a very wide coverage. Indeed, in our view it would have a wider coverage than that contained in section 143 of the Act to which he referred. The honourable member also raised the point that he could not see how it could be proved that the Federation was responsible for the actions of members under clause 4(3). It seems to us that his assertion of a very narrow coverage is not true. Sub-clause (3) not only makes the BLF liable for the actions of its members where it is proved that it instigated or encouraged the relevant action, but also it makes the Federation responsible for those actions if it does not prove to the contrary; that is, the Federation has to prove that it was not responsible for the actions of the members. So I do not think there is any need for the honourable member to be concerned on that score. The honourable member asked whether clause 4(5) has a provision which is designed to facilitate the presentation to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of evidence that is already available or that has already been presented to it and other tribunals. It is not a provision which excludes the production of other evidence. It is merely designed to facilitate the proceedings. The honourable member also asked why the word `may' is used instead of `shall' in relation to the powers of the Minister. That occurs in clauses 5, 8 and 9. The simple answer to that is that `may' is used so that the Government will have alternatives at its disposal. There is no lack of resolve by the Government to take whatever action is appropriate under the legislation. The honourable member also said that there should be national deregistration of the BLF and no alternatives. I think that assertion shows a failure to understand the wide ranging and rather subtle nature of the Bill which gives the Government flexibility of approach which we think is highly important. Indeed, I notice that in the contributions made from the other side, the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) seemed to indicate some understanding of the need for flexibility in approach. That is the case. I made the point, I think quite clearly in my second reading speech, that there is a great diversity of action by the BLF around Australia, that in some areas and some States the actions of the organisation have been rather outrageous in the way that we have spelled out. In other States and, in particular, in the State of Queensland, it could be said that that action has been nowhere near as outrageous. With that diversity we believe that it is important to have a flexible approach. I indicated in my second reading speech that it would be the Government's intention to use the flexible provisions of taking selective action and that we would be looking to confining action in the initial stages and perhaps only at any stage to Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. Another question raised by the honourable member for Tangney was how long proceedings would take before the Federation was deregistered. I have already said that there may be action other than straight out deregistration. It is very difficult to lay down any timeframe in relation to this matter, mainly because what will happen is not entirely within the control of the Government; that is, there are proceedings before an independent tribunal and parties are able to put their cases to that tribunal in the way that is appropriate. There is also the possibility of the parties involved resorting to rights under the law. It may well be the case that there is more than action simply before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Those matters make it impossible for the Government to give any time estimate, but I point out that the Government will proceed with all appropriate expedition under clause 4 (6). The Commission is required to proceed with expedition. It is our intention, as soon as this legislation goes through the House, to get this matter before the Commission and to have the matter of a declaration achieved as soon as possible. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Willis) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr SHACK(Tangey)(7.23) —Briefly, I wanted to thank the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) for answering my questions and to say that we are pleased to have his answers on the record. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Motion (by Mr Willis) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.24) —It is my painful duty tonight, on behalf of the Opposition, to raise the question of the deliberate misleading of the home owners and the public of Australia by the man who occupies the position of Treasurer of the Commonwealth, the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), on the question of interest rates. I have notified the Treasurer's office that, painful though it is, the Opposition would be shirking its public responsibilities if it did not bring to the attention of this Parliament the fact that the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia, over an extended period, consistently and deliberately misled home owners and, in particular, prospective home purchasers in Australia on the question of interest rates. The conclusion is inescapable. Last year, with malice aforethought, the Treasurer set about conveying the impression that there would be a drop in home interest rates in 1985. On the evidence it is inescapable that wilful misrepresentation took place in a succession of public statements made by the Treasurer on this very important issue and, in particular, in the period leading up to the Federal election. Let me remind the House of the Treasurer's appearance on the national television program Sunday on 4 November 1984, when he categorically stated his views in relation to interest rates. Let me quote just two of the comments he made. These comments were heard by thousands and thousands of decent Australians, particularly young Australians who were contemplating purchasing their first homes. He said: We have a further interest rate step fall ahead of us . . . He said also: I am sure that there are further declines in housing interest rates ahead of us. He was aided and abetted by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the then Minister for Housing and Construction, all of whom conspired to repeat that home interest rates would drop in 1985. Now we have a situation in which whenever anybody tries to ask the Treasurer a question, either inside or outside this Parliament, about interest rates he goes scurrying down his hole like a ferret and will not answer the question. Today the Treasurer was asked categorically as to when home interest rates would drop in 1985. He did not say that they would drop. He did not say that they would not drop. He did not say that the fall had been postponed until 1986. He just said that the matter was out of his hands. If the people of Australia had known that without any conviction in what he was saying and without any evidence to support his contentions, his claims, the Prime Minister's claims and the claims of the then Minister for Housing and Construction that home interest rates would drop in 1985 were false, a tissue of falsehoods, a pack of lies, I suggest that many Australians would have voted completely differently in December of last year. The plain fact is-painful though it is for the Opposition to expose it-that the Hawke socialist Government, through the agencies of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the then Minister for Housing and Construction promised the people of Australia that interest rates would fall in 1985. As we all know, they have gone up. As recently as January of this year the Treasurer continued to say that home interest rates would drop. Yet at the very time he made that statement prime interest rates went up. Housing interest rates have gone up and will continue to go up. They will not peak for another six months. The plain fact is that the Treasurer of this country is now publicly exposed as a deceiver and misrepresenter whose credibility on interest rates is now totally and absolutely destroyed. Shame on him. The home owners of Australia will well remember the Keating-Hawke-Hurford promises of 1984 and the way in which they were totally dishonoured in 1985. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Before calling the honourable member for Lowe, I remind honourable members about the standing order with regard to imputations of improper motives. While this clearly resides in imputing improper motives as far as the House is concerned, the standing order is worded so as to cause some concern regarding whether similar allegations are made about misleading other groups. I ask honourable members to give that some consideration when making their speeches. Mr Hodgman —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did advert to this question. Can I simply say that I note your ruling and accept it? I am quite prepared to repeat outside the chamber every word of what I have said tonight. I challenge Keating, Hawke and Hurford to sue me. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. I gave a warning to honourable members because I have a feeling that the sense of the standing order is as I mentioned it to honourable members. I did not interrupt the honourable member, but I think I should remind honourable members. I call the honourable member for Lowe. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(7.29) —I raise a matter tonight which relates to my electorate of Lowe in Sydney. It involves the establishment of new non-government schools. In 1984 there were three systemic schools which were part of the Catholic education system, but this year one of them went into the private sector voluntarily. These schools, two for girls and one for boys, end at year 10. The children, the parents, the teachers and the principals, in response to the Government's participation and equity program, and with all the emphasis on staying at school and perhaps family expectations, applied for the schools to offer year 11 in 1986 and then year 12 in 1987. The Government, quite sensibly, has introduced tests on the granting of recurrent funding to non-government schools because it is essential that, if a new school opens in a town, suburb or an old established area, such as the electorate of Lowe, there is no damage to a neighbouring school, be it a government, catholic or private school. If a new school opens and a large number of pupils transfer to that school it is quite easy to see how courses which had been advertised would not be available at the original school. There has to be a minimum number of pupils in order to offer a number of courses. There could be real harm to an existing school by the opening of a new school nearby, or on the same bus route. There could also be a waste of funds because classrooms and facilities would be unused. In answer to a question on notice that I asked, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) informed the House that there will be a decision in September on new school recurrent funding for 1986. The problem arose today when we were told by a delegation of administrators from St Mary's College, Rosebank, at Five Dock, one of the schools involved, that the decision might be delayed, not due to any problems in Canberra but due to problems in various States where priorities for new school funding had to be worked out. There is a fear, particularly with the people at Rosebank, that the decision might not come down until October, which would create great chaos and mayhem for the parents of children who are trying to send their children on to year 11 in 1986. The school in question, St Mary's College, Rosebank, has an enrolment of nearly 70 per cent of pupils from families in which English is a second language. They are essentially middle or low income earners because the school has been graded in group 11. When one thinks that all the parish and systemic catholic schools in Sydney were put in groups 10, which is one group higher, this school was put in group 11. The schools in New South Wales in group 11 and group 12 are often Aboriginal schools or schools run by ethnic groups. They have a lack of facilities and are in great need of maximum government funding. The problem is that if children cannot get into a school to study for year 11 many of them will go on the dole. Many of the parents and teachers have told me that and the principal told me that today. The brightest children will have no problem. They can get into other non-government schools. Some children will go to State schools, to Catholic schools and some to Catholic private schools. Children in the medium range of intelligence will have trouble getting into a school because the percentage of Catholics in the inner western suburbs of Sydney, with migration since the war, has doubled. It is 45 per cent in some of the subdivisions in Lowe. There is a real demand for places in Catholic secondary schools. The proposal in 1986 is for an amalgamation of the Christian Brothers High School at Burwood, and St Mary's College, Rosebank, for year 11. I raise this matter tonight because these schools are needy. They have no facilities such as halls or swimming pools. This Christian Brothers High School does not even have a decent playground. I hope that the Minister can ensure that the decision, as promised, is made in September because any further delay will produce great difficulty for the parents who are not well versed in dealing with educational systems and may have trouble with written English, forms, et cetera. If their children cannot go to the proposed new school next year my fear is many will have trouble getting into any other non-government school because all the schools in the Catholic system and the private Catholic schools in Lowe and nearby suburbs are now fully committed in student places for 1986. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.35) —Mr Speaker, I return to the theme of truth and honesty in politics. I am conscious of your ruling but I want to put some matters on the record tonight so that they will be there and at some time we will get an answer to them. On behalf of hundreds of thousands of Australian Home owners I ask: Did the Treasurer (Mr Keating) appear on the national television program Sunday on 4 November last year? In the course of that appearance I ask whether the Treasurer of Australia made this categoric statement in relation to interest rates: We have a further interest rate step fall ahead of us. I ask further whether the Treasurer of Australia on that Sunday program on 4 November 1984 said: I am sure that there are further declines in housing interest rates ahead of us. That is the first point. Did the Treasurer appear on the television program? Was he seen by millions of viewers and did he make those statements? The second question has to be: Did he believe those statements when he made them? Did he believe that they were true? If he did so believe, I publicly challenge the Treasurer to bring into this Parliament the material upon which that belief was formed. If the Treasurer did not believe those statements when they were made, on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Australian first home purchasers I believe I am entitled to demand-not ask, but demand-that the Treasurer come into this Parliament and admit that the statements he made on that television program, Sunday, on 4 November 1984 were not in fact true. It is a very serious matter. I have had correspondence sent to my electorate office in Hobart and here to Parliament House. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) and other honourable members in this chamber who deal with ordinary people know that many young people entered into contracts to purchase houses towards the end of last year on two clear commitments. The first was a promise by the Treasurer of Australia that home interest rates would drop in 1985. As I have pointed out, they have in fact gone up. I say in passing: Does the Treasurer stick by his prediction? If he does, when in 1985 will they drop? We are running out of time. Has the promise been deferred to 1986 or 1987, or is the promise now non-enforceable? Mr Cadman —Like his tax cuts. Mr HODGMAN —Exactly, he is a great man for breaching promises. The second promise, upon which many thousands of young Australians were enticed into entering into contracts to purchase homes, was the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at the official opening of the Australian Labor Party campaign seeking the re-election of the Hawke socialist Government. What did he say? He spoke in glowing terms, as the honourable member for Mitchell has referred to in earlier speeches in this Parliament, about the success of the first home owners scheme. Let us be quite blunt: It has been an outstanding success. What did the Prime Minister say to the people of Australia? He said: `We intend to keep it as it is'. So we have the Treasurer saying that interest rates will come down and the Prime Minister saying about the first home owners scheme: `We intend to keep it as it is'. That second promise of the Prime Minister will be entered in the Guinness Book of Records as the first election promise dishonoured by this Government within 16 weeks of its election. The first home owners scheme has been slashed. It has been chopped and the chops have fallen hardest on those least capable of affording them. On behalf of the home owners of Australia, old and new, I say that it is about time the Prime Minister came into this Parliament and admitted that he broke a solemn election promise. It is about time the Treasurer, who dives into his hole like a ferret every time he is asked about interest rates, comes forward and admits whether he was telling the truth on 4 November when he told the people of Australia clearly and categorically that home interest rates would drop in 1985. That statement has now been proven to be untrue. That promise has now been dishonoured like a bad cheque. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer stand condemned in the eyes of decent Australians who believed them and who will never believe them again on these issues. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(7.40) —I rise, more in sorrow than in anger, to draw the attention of the House and of people in South Australia to a regrettable appointment that has been made in my electorate of Kingston and which, in my view, leads to a very serious conflict of interest. I refer to the appointment of Mr Grant Chapman, in the sense of a Mr Grant Chapman and company, to carry out a survey into the needs of industry in the southern area of Adelaide, which I represent. That appointment was announced recently. Mr Chapman's appointment is being financed by a community employment program grant of $17,220 and a regional community development program grant of $19,000, plus a contribution from the Southern Region of Councils, adding up to a total of some $41,000 to carry out the survey. The conflict of interest arises because, at the same time as this appointment is being made, Mr Chapman, who was the defeated Liberal candidate for Kingston in 1983, is also the Liberal State candidate for-- Mr Downer —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I do not believe that it is consistent with the Standing Orders for an honourable member to attack a former member of this House on a personal basis, as is currently happening. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr BILNEY —Mr Chapman is also the Liberal State candidate for the seat of Fisher. Let me say first that I believe the project is excellent. It is a project that I have supported. I had the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), who is responsible for the regional community development program, come to my electorate to talk to the Region of Councils. I wrote to Mr Uren supporting the project. I was very pleased that this grant was obtained. However, I must say that it would confuse anybody if Mr Chapman came to his door wearing his hat as the conductor of this survey. That person might ask him: `But are you not the Liberal candidate for Fisher?' I believe that the conflict of interest into which Mr Chapman has got himself may well prejudice the success of a very worthwhile program which is intended to attract industry to the south, an area which certainly needs it. The means by which Mr Chapman was appointed to this position are amazing. Let us ask who appointed him. Unfortunately, the person who recommended him for appointment is a person whom I regarded until now as operating under the highest conditions of morality. That person is Mr Bruce Lindsay. Mr Lindsay, who is now the Executive Director of the Southern Region of Councils, was previously on the staff of Mr Dean Brown, the Liberal member for Davenport. Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. In the spirit of the ruling you delivered to me earlier this evening, which I accept, I submit that the honourable member has now reached the imputation stage. He used the words: `up until now'. That is the clearest signal to you, Mr Speaker, that he is now going to make an imputation of impropriety against Mr Lindsay, whom I do not know- Mr Ronald Edwards —This is wasting time. Mr Hodgman —No, it is not. It is a very important point. The honourable member should raise the matter by means of a substantive motion. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr BILNEY —As I say, I am very concerned that this appointment will prejudice the success of this project. I would be far more supportive of this appointment if Mr Chapman were a local resident. However, he is not. He is a resident of an area a long way from the area in question. I would be much more happy if he had more experience in this field, but I am not aware that he has. I have written to Mr Lindsay to ask how this appointment came to be made, by whom it was recommended, and who approved the appointment. If Mr Chapman were a proper recipient of a CEP grant, which grants are intended for the long-term unemployed-although I suppose there is a sense in which Mr Chapman is one of the long-term unemployed-it would be a different matter. However, the fact is that this program, which has been very successful, is intended for people other than those who retire on a lump sum superannuation benefit of nearly $200,000. On the whole, this is a regrettable appointment. I am sorry that Mr Chapman has got himself into this position. I am sorry that the appointment was made. I am sorry that it was made in the way it has been. I believe that there are some very serious questions to be answered as to why this appointment was made and the degree to which it has brought this project into disrepute. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(7.45) —It is slightly ironical that the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) should make such smutty allegations about a former member of this House when he spent $10,000 of taxpayers' money on telegrams to his cronies. The honourable member for Kingston, as the House will remember, is known nowadays as `Ten Grand Gordon'. The comments he has made about Grant Chapman, the former member for Kingston and the Liberal candidate for Fisher, are extremely improper in my view. Grant Chapman is a highly regarded man throughout the South Australian community and a man of great integrity. Let me address specifically the points that the honourable member for Kingston has made. First of all, the work in which Grant Chapman is involved, to which the honourable member for Kingston has referred, is a joint venture consultancy with a firm of accountants called Touche Ross and Co. The value of this consultancy arrangement is $11,500, of which Mr Chapman stands to gain approximately half and Touche Ross the other half. The original proposal for this consultancy to be established came from discussions with the executive officer of the Southern Region of Councils, a Mr Bruce Lindsay, to whom the honourable member for Kingston referred. But those discussions took place in October 1984, well before Mr Chapman became, or even contemplated becoming, the candidate for Fisher. The consultancy was subsequently put out to tender following those discussions and, in an open competition conducted by the Southern Region of Councils, Mr Chapman and Touche Ross together were successful in winning the consultancy. It was an open competition, not a closed arrangement which involved some sort of relationship, as the honourable member for Kingston suggested, between Bruce Lindsay and Grant Chapman. I very much resent the smutty allegations that the honourable member for Kingston has made in saying those things. In doing so, he not only attacked the integrity of Mr Chapman and Bruce Lindsay but also attacked the integrity of all the people who granted the tender, the executive of the Southern Region of Councils-locally elected local government officials. Ironically, many come from the electorate that the honourable member for Kingston represents. Mr Bilney —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have said that I support the project in its entirety. It is not the Southern Region of Councils that I attacked. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will come to his point of order. Mr Bilney —There is a gross inaccuracy here on the part of the honourable member. Mr SPEAKER —That is not a point of order. Mr DOWNER —I am sorry that the honourable member has to resort to frivolous points of order. Let me go on to explain what the project is. It is a survey of 50 firms in the southern region, 50 in Sydney and 50 in Melbourne to determine industrial location factors. In other words, the aim of the project is to develop a promotional package to attract industry to the southern region, which includes, of course, part of the electorate of Kingston. Mr Chapman himself designed the questionnaire for these firms. He will analyse the results, prepare a report and make recommendations. He is in no way involved in any kind of survey himself and this is where the community employment program grant comes in. The survey is being conducted by an employee of the Southern Region of Councils, an employee of the councils themselves and not by anybody in any way associated with Mr Chapman. This all contrasts quite dramatically with the actions of the Australian Labor Party's candidate in Fisher who is behaving with impropriety. He is an employee of the State Minister of Transport. He is using the taxpayers' money to campaign in Fisher. He is doing so because he campaigns during working hours when he is in receipt of a salary from the taxpayers. That is impropriety. What Mr Chapman has done is not improper. He is a man of integrity and is highly regarded not only in the State electorate of Fisher but also in the Federal electorate of Kingston. He is very much missed as the member for Kingston, because, unlike the present honourable member for Kingston, he spent a great deal of time in his electorate. He lived in the electorate and he spent a great deal of energy there. As I understand it, the present honourable member for Kingston spends most of his time in the Australian Capital Territory. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr Bilney —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I claim to have been misrepresented- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to your statement this morning relating to frivolous points of order during Question Time. We have just had a perfect example from the honourable member for Kingston. I think that should be dealt with appropriately. Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for O'Connor had been here for all of the adjournment debate, he would have known that some other points of order were raised that were not points of order. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(8.51) —I rise to comment on a matter that was raised by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) during Question Time in this place today. He asked a question which really alluded to the new economic philosophy of honourable members on the other side of the House. It concerned the privatisation theory that the Opposition purports to support. I noted with interest, too, the comments made earlier in this debate by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) in relation to the first home buyers scheme and interest rates. At the heart of what I have to say is a comment I made in my first speech in this place, when I spoke on the economic philosophy and expertise of honourable members on the other side of the House. At the time I said that members of the Opposition were `bereft'-bereft of expertise, bereft of a philosophy and bereft of policies. What we have heard tonight from honourable members opposite simply reinforces that view. My complaint in respect of the privatisation principle that the Opposition is now espousing is that it is irresponsible. It is irresponsible in that our economy is just recovering from a recessionary period that honourable members opposite created through economic mismanagement. There are very few people, particularly from the other side of the House, who understand the depths to which our economy degenerated during that recessionary period. The skill and expertise that was necessary in the resurrection of that economy has been shown. Put in the most simple terms, those who mucked it up would implement a new policy on privatisation, which would muck it up again. Let us have a look at some of the points that honourable members opposite espouse. They believe that by selling off government enterprises-they are talking about successful government enterprises only-they would in some way save government costs. That misses the whole point of the issue of recurrent costs versus the ownership of assets and capital expenditure. It comes as no surprise that those who espouse this approach do continually miss that point. Another interesting aspect is the question of taxes. The Opposition is putting forward a theory that if those enterprises were to be owned by the private sector they would make more profits and, therefore, would pay more taxes. Looking at Budget estimates and past financial results, it is quite evident that the company sector is not the sector that pays a substantial proportion of government taxes; it is the pay as you earn wage and salary earner who pays those taxes. In fact, over a considerable period the Opposition has devoted much of its efforts to providing a tax avoidance industry with the mechanism to minimise the payment of tax by the private sector. So the theory of `let us hand government enterprises over to the private sector so that they can become more profitable and pay more taxes' is laid to rest by the fact that the Opposition has put its energy into helping its mates to minimise the amount of tax they pay, creating the burden that this economy and ordinary wage and salary earners have had to bear. Every time the Opposition introduces in this House the fable about increased tax revenue we will continually point to the fact that its mates are the ones who do not carry their share of the tax burden; their mates are the ones they are trying to assist with these sorts of proposals. I refer to the time when the private sector espoused these sorts of philosophies and made an offer to buy an operation such as Vic Rail in Victoria which, of course, is a railway enterprise completely funded by the public sector and which is run at an enormous loss because of establishment over a long period- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REITH(Flinders)(7.56) —I rise tonight to relate to honourable members the plight of veterans in the electorate of Flinders. Today we have the first adjournment debate this session, and what is brought up by government backbenchers yet again? It is some more muck raking whilst veterans in my electorate are suffering the brunt of the Australian Labor Party's assets test and its general attack on the elderly in my electorate. Mr Cunningham —Oh, come on. Prove it. Mr REITH —I will come to the honourable member for McMillan in a moment. One of the great lies that has been perpetrated in the last 12 or 18 months is that only 2.6 per cent of all pensioners have been affected by the iniquitous assets test. That is not the situation in my electorate and I believe that that is not the situation in many other parts of Australia. Such is the sensitivity of the Government that when these figures were released by me not so long ago I put them to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt). He wanted to argue about the analysis of the figures so I said to him-I had the consent of Bruce Ruxton of the Returned Services League in Victoria-`If you do not like these figures why don't you face the people who are suffering from your assets test and answer them face to face'. What was his response? He was too busy but he said that he would send me a departmental officer. That was very big of the Government and typical of its response to some of these problems. Let me get to a few of the facts because when it all boils down it is the facts that hit honour-able members on the other side really hard. My word they are sensitive as their responses tonight show. Let us take some of the rural areas, areas that were formerly the responsibility of the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham). I refer to them because they are typical of many parts of rural Australia. Take an area such as Loch Krowera. It may not be known to honourable members but I can describe it as typical Australian rural countryside and an area where not only are people suffering under this assets test but also they are suffering from a downturn in the dairy industry. The percentage of veterans affected by the assets test in Loch Krowera is not 2.6 per cent but 41.93 per cent. Four out of every 10 veterans in that region have been affected by the assets test. I think that is an absolute disgrace. We have people who are prepared to face death on behalf of their country in order to maintain the democratic institution that we have in this country, yet this is the sort of treatment handed out by the parties on the other side. I say `parties' because it is an increasing fact of political life of this country that we no longer have factions on the other side but parties within parties. However this problem is not just in Loch Krowera. I take Clyde, another area on the northern part of my electorate where 20 per cent of veterans are affected by the assets test. Take another area, Poowong-great dairy country-where 25 per cent of veterans are affected. On the Mornington Peninsula up to 57 per cent of veterans are affected by the Labor Party's assets test. When the Herald ran a campaign earlier this year on Anzac Day it ran a case of Wilma Hattiy, the widow of a Gallipoli veteran. The honourable member for McMillan was quick on the telephone asking `what can I do to help?'. About two weeks later, these backbenchers on the other side, who were worried about their seats, came to Canberra to face an opportunity- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 8 p.m. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 8.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 8.00 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Scholes to move- That in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 20 August 1985, namely: the construction of additional administrative accommodation at the Australian National Gallery. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Restoration of facade, General Post Office, Martin Place, Sydney. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act relating to the guarantee of the repayment of money borrowed for the purposes of the Northern Prawn Fishery Voluntary Adjustment Scheme. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 21 August 1985: Christmas Island Act-Ordinance-1985-No. 5-Endangered Species (Repeal). Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act Ordinance 1985-No. 11985-No. 1-Endangered Species (Repeal). Coral Sea Islands Act-Ordinance-1985-No. 1-Endangered Species (Repeal). Fisheries Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 194. Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 192. Overseas Telecommunications Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 193. Public Service Act-Parliamentary Presiding Officers' Determination-1985-No. 4. Radiocommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 195. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances-1985-No. 33-House of Assembly (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 36-Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) (Amendment).