Monday, 16 September 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Acting Prime Minister) —Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is currently in Papua New Guinea attending the tenth anniversary celebrations of that country. He will return to Australia later tonight and I will be acting as Prime Minister until his return. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is also in Papua New Guinea to attend the celebrations and will return with the Prime Minister later tonight. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) will be acting as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs until his return. Mr HUNT —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. Does the Minister support the beef and lamb promotional export campaign which is currently under way? Does he agree that the bans that have been imposed by the Transport Workers Union, singling out air freighted meat exports, are sabotaging the meat industry's campaign to increase our beef and lamb exports? Mr DAWKINS —Of course, I support any promotional campaign to expand the sales of Australian primary products overseas. As far as the industrial dispute is concerned, I am advised that this matter has now been notified to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Therefore, I assume that processes will be put in train so that perhaps the dispute can be settled. Mr GRIFFITHS —How does the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism respond to criticism that the Government is spending too much of this year's budget for sport on bureaucrats rather than athletes? Mr JOHN BROWN —My attention has been directed to some statements that have been made which have been promulgated by the retiring shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the honourable member for Higgins. I use the word `retiring' advisedly. I think he retired before he came here. I have been waiting for a number of months for him to ask a question but I have not yet been asked one. So he has retired without having asked his maiden question. My attention has been drawn to these absurd comments about too much of our sport budget being spent on bureaucrats rather than on sportsmen and women. I welcome the presence of the new shadow Minister; he has got to be better than the honourable member for Richmond. This Opposition is a worry. It did nothing about sport when it spent all its years in government; nothing at all, and that is known by everybody with a love of sport and everybody associated with sport. All we have had from the Opposition is a massive number of negative Press releases and statements that have amounted to nothing, and most of them have been ignored. But this one did receive a little currency in the Press, which is a pity; so I thought I should put the record straight. The Press release exhibits the Opposition's absolute inconsistency and total misunderstanding of the processes of government. The Opposition challenges me to get my act together. I would have thought the former shadow Minister would have got his act together before he started putting things around in this area. In fact, he has shown a total lack of capacity for understanding figures, a revelation some of his colleagues might be interested in now that he has been elevated, if I can use that term, to be shadow Minister for Social Security, where he will be looking at much larger figures than he was looking at in sport. If he can get these figures wrong, God alone knows what he will do when dealing with social security matters. He has attacked the Government on several points. First he says that salaries and administrative expenses in my portfolio have risen by 34 per cent. In fact, spread across the total portfolio there has been a decrease in this area of 8.6 per cent. He is about 400 per cent out there, so that is not a bad start. He cannot even lift figures accurately. He went to the Budget Papers and sought a few figures and claimed that the Australian Sports Commission has a total of $1.1m in administrative expenses. He is 50 per cent out there too, because the figure is $519,000. He also claimed that there had been a 16 per cent decrease in assistance provided by the Commission to national sporting authorities. In fact, there has been a 1.6 per cent increase. He has got his figures wrong. It was an increase not a decrease, and was 1.6 per cent not 16 per cent. It does not say much for his numeracy. The Opposition talked about an explosion in the sportsaucracy, to use its term, the bureaucracy of sport, and claimed that another 33 people are involved. If Opposition members had read the papers properly, they would realise that from the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services I have inherited the physical composition of the National Sports Centre. Some 33 people have been sent from that Department to my Department which will administer it. I would have thought that somebody, even of the small mental capacity of the former shadow Minister, would have been able to work that out, but he spends his time here grandstanding about what we have or have not done in sport. The simple fact is that we have done a magnificent job for sport that he could never have attempted. The biggest amounts of money the former Government ever gave to sportsmen were the sums of $6,000 that Government paid those concerned under the lap for not going to Moscow. The then Government could not even get that right, and left one out. I hope all Opposition members realise that this gentleman who has been upgraded from sport to social security has no idea of numeracy whatever. He cannot get even the simplest figures right. When he starts attacking the Minister for Social Security, we will look at his figures with a great deal of derision. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Minister for Primary Industry. Did the Commonwealth veterinary inspector at Mudginberri, when 450 tonnes of buffalo meat yet to be cleared for export was processed, receive his normal salary throughout that period, carry out normal inspection duties and report regularly to his superiors? If not, why not? If so, was that veterinary inspector satisfied that killing and handling met export standards, the meat having been also passed by Northern Territory inspectors for domestic consumption? Were an importing country to accept this inspection as adequate, would the Minister now issue an export licence? Mr KERIN —I shall answer the right honourable member's question in more detail once I have checked it for legal advice. Some discussions are going on at present between the Export Inspection Service and the Meat Inspectors Association with respect to the people who were affected by the strike for the time the picket was there. There was one person in that meat works throughout that time. I am not certain about the details of his payment. The inspection of meat during the time when the works killed, as I understand it, was done by two stock inspectors and a veterinarian from the Northern Territory Department of Primary Production. The people who were inspecting the meat, which was clearly for domestic purposes, were not Northern Territory Department of Primary Production inspectors. The situation is very confused and muddy indeed. The Commonwealth was taken to court by Mr Pendarvis, Mudginberri and the National Farmers Federation, and I am told that the decision has yet to be appealed against. I am sure that the honourable gentleman will understand that I am not in a position to provide all the details at present. Mr TICKNER —Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of French reports which suggest that French nuclear testing has riddled Mururoa Atoll with so many cracks and holes that it resembles Swiss cheese and that scientists have warned of the long term danger of highly toxic waste leaking into the Pacific Ocean from the atoll? Is the Minister further aware of reports that 3,000 workers at the Atoll refuse to drink local water and that the French are making preliminary arrangements to shift testing to another location in the Pacific? Can the Minister comment on the Australian Government's response to these claims and on what further action the Government proposes to take to oppose further continued French nuclear testing in the Pacific? Mr HAYDEN —These matters were addressed in a report which was given to the Australian Government in July last year. A team of experts from New Zealand and Australia participated in a review of conditions at Mururoa Atoll. The report would not substantiate those claims which have been appearing in the newspapers in recent times. I do not propose to go through all of the details of the report. However, I remind honourable members that a copy of it is available. Mr Coleman —Tell him to read the report. Mr HAYDEN —Oh, the honourable member is here-not all but nonetheless. The conclusions of the report observe that maximum annual doses in the Pacific Islands from radioactive fall-out from atmospheric tests have remained at less than one-tenth of the world average annual natural radiation exposure. Ambient radiation levels in the base accommodation area of Mururoa Atoll are generally lower than they are elsewhere in the world and traces of fall-out from atmospheric tests are detectable only at levels far below those of health significance. Radiation doses to the French Polynesian population from natural radiation and fall-out radioactivity are lower than world average levels. As I have said, I shall not discuss all the report. It points out that over the long term there may be some degradation in the geological structures causing leakages but it is an extremely long term, 300 years to 1,000 years, which is referred to. I cannot pick it up immediately in the conclusions of the report I have before me. Suffice it to say that the official report compiled by Australian and New Zealand scientists and made public last year does not uphold those statements which have been appearing in the newspapers in the last few days. Mr BEALE —I refer the Minister for Housing and Construction to a speech he made in this House on 21 August, the day after the Budget, that the Budget was good news for general interest rates and good news for housing interest rates. In the light of the record high level of real interest rates and as housing interest rates have increased since then, will he tell the Australian people when his good news Budget will result in falling interest rates? Mr WEST —At the outset let me say that I am very pleased that I did not have to wait nine months for a question from the new shadow Minister, as I did with the last one. The Opposition position on interest rates is very strange indeed. Opposition members have been continually complaining about high interest rates and at the same time urging even firmer monetary policy and the deregulation of housing interest rates. What a trilogy of inconsistencies there is in those policy statements. Let us get it straight. Opposition members really cannot understand the economics of interest rates. On the one hand, they are complaining that interest rates are too high and on the other hand they are advocating even higher housing interest rates, as they advocate the deregulation of housing interest rates and an even firmer monetary policy than this Government is implementing. Let us look at the facts and compare the records. The total number of loans, from all significant lenders, going to people who wish to buy their own home was 40 per cent higher in the last year, under this Government, than it was in 1982-83, the last year of the former Government. That is the sort of information that they cannot take and do not want to listen to. The number of loans by savings banks in 1984-85 was at an all time high-a record level. It was up 16 per cent on the 1983-84 level. Deposit growth for permanent building societies was up by 15.4 per cent in 1984-85 and savings banks deposit growth was up almost 8 per cent in 1984-85 on the figure for the previous year. Obviously, it would be wrong to deny that there has been a slight surge in housing interest rates over the last two months but the Government has made it perfectly clear that it will not be deregulating; it will not lift the ceiling on interest rates. The people of Australia who seek to buy their own home ought to know that the previous Government wants to lift the ceiling. The future of general interest rates, and indeed of housing interest rates, will depend on the outcome of a whole range of policies, including monetary and fiscal policy, and the future of the exchange rate. Let us not forget, as the Press pointed out this morning, that the domestic deficit is down to $1.4 billion and the total public borrowing sector requirements are down from $15m to $13m this year and the bond issue will be $5m instead of $7.5m. We now have an arrangement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to effect discounting for depreciation in the April quarter. All these factors will impact upon housing interest rates. So it is absolutely premature, as some of the banks have pointed out today, to say that interest rates will not fall in the intermediate term. Interest rates, and housing interest rates, will depend on the outcome of a whole range of policies. This Government is very confident of the result. We are confident about our economic policy and our wage policy and we are equally confident that in time there will be a fall in interest rates. Mr CLEELAND —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the statement issued by the non-party political National Farmers Federation on behalf of the Deputy Leader of the National Party, on a Cattle Council of Australia letterhead, advocating a flat tax of 23c or 24c in the dollar? What would be the implications of a flat tax for Australia's primary producers? Mr KERIN —Yes, I have seen the statement. As a matter of fact, I have it here. It is a beauty! It is about the equivalent of Bill Kelty writing a Press release for me on Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union letterhead. I think that would cause howls of anger from the Opposition. Statements by the National Party of Australia advocating a flat tax are duplicitous, dangerous and irresponsible. To state that there is a definite proposal whereby there could be a flat tax of 23c or 24c in the dollar smacks of the words of a snake oil salesman. There are two serious flat tax proposals advocated at present-one is by the Queensland Premier, who also believes you can run cars on water, and one by Professor Porter. The Queensland Premier advocates a 25 per cent flat rate tax, a tax free threshold of $4,600 phasing out to $27,600 and a variety of base-broadening measures to recoup the revenue lost, one of which is a phasing out arrangement for the dependent spouse rebate, which would increase further the marginal rate on middle income families. Professor Porter's proposal has varied over time but appears to be based on a 26 per cent flat tax and a tax free threshold of $3,000, phasing out at $11,000. Because both of these proposals involve a phasing out of the tax free threshold, lower income earners would be on a higher effective marginal tax rate than higher income earners-30 per cent on the Queensland Premier's proposal and 40 per cent on Professor Porter's proposal. In other words, it is a millionaires' tax. I think it will be a little hard for the Liberal Party of Australia-that part of the so-called coalition-to sell a package whereby our lowest income earners pay a marginal tax rate of 40 per cent while the millionaires pay 20 per cent. More importantly, for the National Party's information farmers would be paying much more tax at 23 to 24 per cent flat tax than at present. It ought to look into the tax statistics and look into the farm income estimates provided by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Everyone is hung up on marginal rates-quoting 46 and 60-instead of looking at the average rates. The farm taxation statistics include off-farm income, the Pitt Streeters and the tax shelters. What the National Party does not realise is that the average tax rate on average farm income has been about 16 per cent, at the highest, over recent years. The National Party should have been able to work out that this year, with very low estimates of farm cash operating surplus-and taxable income will be lower than that-a flat tax would mean that thousands of farmers would be taxed whereas, with the existing system, they will not be. In 1984-85, which was more of an average year than 1983-84, the farm income figures were estimated at $12,593. That would give an average tax of about 16 per cent. In 1984-85 farm income work per work year of family labour was $6,844-the figure that the National Party is running around the bush with-which would give an average tax of 6 per cent compared with 23 or 24 per cent flat as advocated by the Deputy Leader of the National Party. Honourable members can imagine what that would do to farm costs-it would add possibly as much as another $1,860 tax per farm. It is about time that the ordinary hard working farmers and graziers realised that the only farmers the National Party is representing and advocating a flat tax for are themselves and the very few wealthy farmers who happen to head up the farm organisations. Mr LLOYD —What action is the Minister for Aviation taking to ensure the credibility of the recommendations of the two airline policy review-that is, the independent review of economic regulation of domestic aviation-in view of the conflict of interest inherent in the fact that the sole reviewer, Mr May, is also chairman of a partly-owned subsidiary of Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd, which in turn is a part owner of Ansett Transport Industries? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. Mr May was appointed to chair the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry in September 1983. Mr Lloyd —He was one of three, of course. Mr PETER MORRIS —I am glad the honourable member can count. That is an improvement on his previous colleague. Mr May at that time notified his interests-and one of those was Ibis Haulage Pty Ltd, a company that carries cement, gravel and sand. There is a 50 per cent shareholding in it by TNT. The other 50 per cent is held by Australian and Kandos Cement Holdings Ltd. That in turn is owned 50 per cent by Pioneer Concrete and I think the other 50 per cent is held by CSR Ltd. So three major public corporations are involved. If one were to argue that there were some conflicts of interest in respect of TNT, one could argue conversely that such a conflict applied in respect of the other two public corporations-CSR and Pioneer Concrete. It is also my understanding that Mr May entered Ibis Haulage as the nominee of CSR. So I think it is drawing a very long bow to make the suggestion that has been raised by the honourable member. I think it suffices to say that the report of the inquiry into the road transport industry chaired by Mr May was one of objectivity, scrutiny and thoroughness. That is evidenced by the almost universal acclaim that that report has received, its recommendations and its acceptance by State governments, local government, industry and even the Opposition. To suggest that there is some tenuous kind of relationship in which TNT can influence Mr May in the performance of his duty I think is asking a little too much of the imagination. I have confidence in the work that he is performing. Mr May is a man of considerable public standing in his own right. His interests are all on the public record. He has played a major role as an executive in both the public sector and the private sector and to the best of my knowledge he is a man of public integrity. I have confidence in the task he is performing. I do not see any conflict of interest in the task that he is carrying out. Ms FATIN —Is the Minister for Defence aware of recent Press speculation that the United States Navy is seeking home ports for warships in Australia and that Jervis Bay and Cockburn Sound could be developed to meet United States needs? Has the Government received any such request and has it any plans to provide such facilities? Can the Government assure the House that any expansion of defence facilities at Jervis Bay or Cockburn Sound will be determined by Australian requirements? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable member for her question. Yes, I have seen speculation, most recently this morning, in that regard. I have also seen a considerable amount of speculation over the last few weeks. I can say to the honourable member that no such request has been placed before the Australian Government by the Government of the United States of America; nor do we anticipate that such a request will be placed before us. The United States Government is thoroughly aware of the policy of this Government on the permanent basing of warships at our facilities. It has no need for that permanent basing. It has not pressed us on those matters as it has no need to seek facilities in that regard. Opposition members interjecting- Mr BEAZLEY —Some of that speculation has been associated with what are alleged to be difficulties that the United States has in the Philippines. I think one of the honourable members opposite raised that with me just then. I think the position of the United States in that regard would be that it has confidence that it would be capable of renegotiating those facilities with the Philippines Government, as it has in the past, albeit in the context of the bargaining relationship that traditionally takes place. Furthermore, any casual examination of the military geography associated with the location of the Philippines and the functions that the facilities there perform for the United States would indicate that it would be virtually impossible to replicate those activities in Australia. So, from any outcome of that process years down the line, I would not anticipate that a request would emerge here. Certainly, absolutely nothing has emerged in the form of a request to the Government to date. It is important to take this a point further to dismiss those suggestions further. As this Government addresses the realities of defence self-reliance, the particular facilities which may come under consideration at Jervis Bay and at Cockburn Sound will likely be increasingly important to the operations of the Australian Navy. Over time there are likely to be developments at those facilities in association with the operations of the Royal Australian Navy. I think in particular of the facility at Cockburn Sound where we have, as I have indicated publicly before, a review under way at the moment as to whether the substantial proportion of the Australian submarine fleet ought to be shifted there as there would be very sound operational reasons for that being done. If it were to be the case that the report were to bring down a re- commendation along these lines and the Government were to accede to those suggestions, there would be a requirement for additional facilities at Cockburn Sound. Taking into account our environmental constraints, which are strict in regard to nuclear-powered warships and bipartisanly endorsed as they were under restrictions put in place by our predecessors, the United States has, from its point of view, perfectly adequate access to Australian ports. It requires no more. There is no requirement to do anything further in that regard. In conclusion, I reiterate that the facilities at those two installations will need, from time to time down the years, to be augmented as we address the Australian self-defence requirements. As we address them I do not want there to be any misinterpretation whatsoever as to our motives in doing so. Mr PORTER —Is the Minister for Health aware that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts report on medical fraud and overservicing at paragraph 2.40 states that `at present, and for at least the last three years legal remedies for fraud and overservicing in pathology and other areas of medicine have been and are still ineffectual, largely inoperative and wasteful of public resources devoted' to them? How does that square with the Minister's comments in this House on Friday that `nearly every measure taken in relation to fraud and overservicing has been taken by this Government'-meaning his Government? Dr BLEWETT —First of all I make a distinction between fraud and overservicing. Firstly as I pointed out in the same speech from which the honourable member quoted, this Government has been handicapped in its relations with the medical profession by the quite draconian legislation which we have inherited which, as I think I said then, has done more to damage an effective action against fraud than perhaps any other single act. However, after very long negotiations with the medical profession in relation to fraud we are now at the stage of preparing new legislation which will be introduced in this session of the Parliament. I hope that with the support of the Opposition we will be able to produce legislation which will effectively deal with the fraud problems and which will also gain widespread support from the medical profession. Indeed, until that is done I am prepared to say that there have been, and will be, real difficulties in handling fraud issues. Secondly, most of the actions in relation to overservicing have been taken by this Government. As the honourable member should recognise, this is an extremely difficult field. There is a real legitimate difference in medical opinion as to what constitutes overservicing. There is a legitimate realm for disagreement. Therefore, an effective supervisory system is very difficult to develop. What we have tried to do is to base our whole overservicing system on the involvement of the profession in forms of peer review. However, it is again true that that peer review system is in fact very slow. There is a serious backlog. I have asked the Health Insurance Commission, which has now been given the task of examining both fraud and overservicing, to advise the Government on a more effective and more streamlined method which will still involve the profession but which will move more quickly in the area of overservicing than does the present system. Mr BRUMBY —I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction: What is the Government's attitude towards privatisation of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation? Mr WEST —I make it clear to the people of Australia, including the home seekers of Australia, and this House that this Government has absolutely no intention of selling off the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. However, I also want to make it clear to the people of Australia that the HLIC is about No. 1 on the Opposition's hit list. One should ask the question: Why is it on the Opposition's hit list? The Opposition, when in government back in 1965, perceived a need in this area and actually established the Cor- poration. It did so because it was virtually impossible at that time for low and middle income earners to have their housing loans insured. The private sector did not meet the need at that time. The then Government invested only $200,000 of public money in the HLIC. Since then the Commonwealth has received $44m in profit. Thirty million dollars of that profit has been received since 1979 when it first started talking about selling it off. No wonder the Opposition is talking about selling the HLIC. I have just received advice, happily, that the 1984-85 book should show a record profit of about $6 1/2m. That is to be expected because the Corporation is regarded throughout the industry as being the most successful loans insurer in the business with approximately 60 per cent of the market. I make it perfectly clear to the Opposition that there is no support in the industry whatsoever for what it proposes; that is, to privatise-to use that ugly word; it means sell off-an organisation which, dollar for dollar, is probably the best run corporation, public or private, in the country. That is what the Opposition wants to do. It wants to sell the HLIC. The banks, the building societies and all of the industry employer organisations say to the Government: `Do not sell the HLIC'. Why does the Opposition want to sell the HLIC? Why does it want to deprive the lower and middle income earners of this country of the opportunity of owning their own home? One can only assume that it wants to sell off the Corporation for ideological reasons, not for administration reasons and not because it is economic for government to do so. Mr DOWNER —Is the Treasurer aware of the latest Lloyds Bank International Ltd economic report which argues that full wage indexation in the September national wage case `points to higher inflation which requires tight monetary policies and a continuation of high, if not higher, interest rates'? In light of these facts, why has the Government given greater priority to a wages deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions rather than to the need to bring down interest rates for home owners and businesses? Mr KEATING —The fact is that Lloyds Bank is wrong and so is the honourable member who asks this question. What the Government did two weeks ago in securing agreement with the ACTU on effective discounting through the centralised wage fixation system to two percentage points in the April 1986 case was to deal with the inflationary impact coming from the depreciation so that the underlying rate of inflation which this Government has been able to produce of around 5 per cent will be restored again so that, in other words, what was the price effect from the depreciation will remain the price effect and will not go into ongoing inflation. When my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and I announced the agreement, I said that the inflationary effect over the next 12 months and beyond of splitting the 2 per cent over the two cases was really to a decimal point; in other words, there was no advantage for the Government in discounting the September case as distinct from the 2 per cent off the April case, bearing in mind that the commitments given by unions under the two years wage fixing principles as brought down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in 1983 expire on 6 October. Therefore, it would have been possible for unions to have terminated the commitment, sought increases outside the system and re-established themselves under the new principle and still remain within the accord. The Government was cognisant of that fact. Because the inflationary influence of the 2 per cent discount in April, vis-a-vis one per cent and one per cent from September to April, was negligible in its impact, the sensible thing to do was to take 2 per cent off the April case and to marry that with the deferment of the productivity case from 1 July 1985 to 1 July 1986. I think because the impact of this statement and its understanding were diminished by the brouhaha which followed in the Liberal Party the day after it was announced, many people in private business have failed to comprehend the deflationary impact of the agreement. What it will mean is that inflation in this country will trend back to between 5 and 5 1/2 per cent in 1987-88. Therefore, the success of the Government's accord has been due to its flexibility which we have always said has been inherent. The accord has been able to accommodate a big exogenous shock such as the depreciation. This gives Australia one of the most successful incomes policies in the world-probably the most successful in the current period. We are securing wage outcomes, more effective wage restraint and lower inflation of a kind that the system envisaged by the Opposition-notwithstanding the incapacity of its chosen mechanism to deliver-could never hope to achieve. I think many people fail to comprehend that in this country we have never succeeded in accommodating high growth. High growth has always been stamped into the ground by an increase in prices or wages. That is why we had 18-month recoveries all through the 1970s and not a durable long term recovery. One can always talk about price restraint in a recession. One can call them what one likes-wage pauses or anything else. Wage restraint in a recession in fact is no restraint at all because the labour market's power has been broken. However, wage restraint in the face of strong growth of 5 per cent non-farm growth, is something that this country has rarely achieved and then for only short periods. What this agreement means in the context of the accord is that Australia will have a much longer run of strong economic growth which will deliver high employment growth of the kind we saw last week with 20,000 extra jobs for the month taking our total to 430,000 since the Government came to office. It will see strong economic growth and real increases in living standards. That is what the economic gain is all about; it is what economic management is all about. If one is serious about economic management one must be serious about inflation. If one must be serious about inflation, one has to be serious about wages. It has often been said by the current Leader of the Opposition that the Opposition in government never had a wages policy. It is admitted by the honourable member for Bennelong that this was the great weakness in the economic policy of the former Government. He now has no such wage policy which has any prospect of succeeding. So I do not think that we should worry too much about Lloyds Bank or any of the others. International banks, the cream of which will be here operating soon, look at this country as one of the few places in the world where investment is desirable. They believe that Australia has a long term economic future. If one looks at recent references from the New York Conference Board, the glowing editorial in the London Economist or any of the international publications such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development annual report and if one is fair minded and looks at Australia's performance by any objective analaysis one will see that we now have an anti-inflation performance which is the envy of the Western world. I would have thought that some honourable members opposite would start to wake up to the fact that after three years of this Government's policies-we are still moving into a period of high economic growth, with the accord accommodating inflation and a depreciation-we have the right policy mix and they have the wrong one. While they may be a little slow in coming to that conclusion, if their analysis breaks down, surely their comprehension of the hard statistical data must lead them to the conclusion that they led Australia into a very bad period of economic growth and that basically this Government has got it right. As I said the other day, when it comes to economic policy, it is game, set and match for the Government. Mr CAMPBELL —My question is directed to the Minister for Communications. I draw the Minister's attention to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled `Ringing in the Changes'. Are there any recommendations in the report which bear upon the issue of the cross-subsidy within Telecom Australia? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie for his question. The report of the Standing Committee on Expenditure was presented in this House in October 1984. That report contained the following recommendation: Recommendation 10: Telecom should continue to accept its responsibility for subsidising loss-making activities, e.g. rural services. Cross subsidisation is consistent with Telecom's social obligations to the community and should be maintained. The interesting aspect of the report, of course, is that it was signed unanimously and without reservation by Committee members. Some current members of the Opposition-in particular, the honourable member for Fairfax, the honourable member for Franklin, the honourable member for O'Connor and the honourable member for Sturt-all signed that report. They were saying in October 1984 that they supported the current Government's policy on cross-subsidisation. It will be interesting to see what will be the views in the future of the new look right wing Liberal Party of Australia that sits opposite. There is a more interesting aspect to this point. I quote from a statement of an honourable member opposite: It is essential that a national common carrier, particularly in a country as large as Australia, should be able to draw on its profitable services to subsidise other services that are costly to provide as a result of great distances involved. It would be very difficult for me to put it better myself. It is interesting that the author of that statement was none other than the honourable member for Menzies, the present Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, who is running around as dry as a dog's bone. Again, it may well be that people will have to ask: What has changed his view? The statement was contained in a Press release dated 9 February 1983. At that time the honourable member for Menzies was the Minister for Communications. There is no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition and his spokesman on Treasury matters have committed the coalition to introducing private operators into the high profit trunk routes in order to cream skim. Country people are waiting to receive an answer as to how much their telephone bills will go up under the coalition policy. Country people cannot give any credence to what has been said by the honourable member for Fairfax, the honourable member for Franklin, the honourable member for O'Connor, the honourable member for Sturt and, more particularly, the honourable member for Menzies, now that the right wing of the Liberal Party is calling the shots. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Primary Industry has sought my indulgence to add to an answer given during Question Time. I call the Minister. Mr KERIN —I would like to add two quick statements to what I said. There was a Commonwealth vet present at Mudginberri throughout the dispute, and he was paid. For the information of honourable members, I would add that his task was to ensure the security of properly inspected export meat in the cold stores themselves, not to supervise current slaughter of buffalo for domestic purposes. The Leader of the National Party asked about the capacity of the inspector to authorise that meat for export. It was not possible for him therefore to issue a form 8 health certificate under the Export Control Act on the basis of his presence simply to ensure the security of what would have already been killed properly. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission annual report for 1984. The report was posted to all members during the parliamentary break. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present a report by the Review Committee into the Quality of Education in Australia, together with a copy of a news release by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) relating to the report. This report also was posted to all members and senators during the parliamentary recess. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —In his final words the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), referring to an Expenditure Committee report to which I was a signatory, said that there could be no credence, I think was the word he used, to the statement I put my name to because of a commitment to privatisation. I have made numerous speeches over a period advising the community of numerous ways where privatisation of public utilities can be- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor must understand that it is not a matter of credibility but a matter of whether he has been personally misrepresented. If the honourable member corrects that misrepresentation, he may proceed. If he intends to extend the debate, I must ask him to resume his seat. I will give the honourable member the opportunity. Mr TUCKEY —I have considered your ruling very carefully, Mr Speaker. The point I make is that the word `credence' was used and there was a statement as to no credence. I wish to confirm my commitment to monopoly concerns or large concerns giving cross subsidy. I do not see that that requires government ownership. I point out that one can buy a car in any capital city at the same price, and that does not involve government. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Taxation: Private Health Insurance To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. 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 or benefits. That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that 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 Mrs Darling,Mr Dobie and Mr Hollis. 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 and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U. S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Blanchard and Mr Kent. To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate and 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. by Mr Ian Cameron and Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all, fulfilling employment, a sustainable society conserving natural resources and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Create an Australian Ministry for Peace specifically devoted to peace-building and the non-violent resolution of conflict; 2. Convene a national Summit for Survival to discuss the issues of world disarmament, security and national and international co-operation; 3. Support the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign by allocating the equivalent of at least 10 per cent of our military expenditure to fund peace activities; 4. Actively assist the International Year of Peace in 1986 by initiating programs for peace education, self help development and environmental repair; 5. Develop National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops to assist the greening of Australia; 6. Implement National Recycling Programs to reuse water and to compost all presently wasted domestic sewage-sludge and organic garbage with mineral-rich gravel dust, a by-product from rock quarries and mines, into hygienic humus, a natural fertiliser, for use in revitalising impoverished soils; 7. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie and Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all, full employment. This initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10 per cent of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs; (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging rural residents with regard to access to the 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 organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country areas, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That ethnic public broadcasters are not represented by the national organisations, The Public Broadcasting Association of Australia or the Special Broadcasting Service. 2. That public ethnic broadcasters nationally have formed an Interim National Committee to represent the interests of public ethnic broadcasting and that neither the special broadcasting service nor the government as represented by the Minister for Communications have, to date, been prepared to negotiate with the Committee. (Interim National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasting Committee). 3. That the main concern of this committee is the desire of ethnic broadcasters to maintain the Special Broadcasting Service as the funding authority, for the time being, as proposed in section 6.76 of the report of the ``Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service''. 4. That the Interim Committee which represents 90 per cent of all subsidised public ethnic broadcasting in Australia does not wish to see the authority for funding transferred to the public broadcasting foundation in which they have expressed no confidence. by Mr Cross. 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 we, being residents of Queensland, strongly condemn the situation that exists, where the Federal Government allows all pensioners to earn a certain amount a week or in an ``Earnings concession year'' to supplement their pension without affecting their entitlement to a full pension . . . . then the Queensland State Government takes the money back as increased rent for Queensland Housing Commission rental houses and units. And your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the House of Representatives calls on the Queensland Government to adjust rents to rectify the anomaly that exists through their depletion of pensioners' earnings by increased rents. 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 sheweth 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 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 enquiry 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 Mr Darling. 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 Honour- able 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia all members of Hornsby and District T.P.I, Social/Welfare Club respectfully showeth: That we the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any changes to the Repatriation Act which effects or removes existing benefits and or conditions to and or for any veteran. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled will see fit not to introduce any amendments to the Repatriation Act (as at Pre May 1985) that would reduce or eliminate existing benefits to any veteran. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The 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 the 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 citizens respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the pricing of petrol in this country; 2. That under a Labor Government petrol prices have continued to rise excessively, with recent Government decisions adding over 8c per litre to the price of petrol in some country areas; 3. The proposed consumption tax could lead to a further rise of 6c per litre; and 4. The high cost of petrol discriminates against country residents who rely on their cars for essential communication and transport. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government honour the commitment given by the Prime Minister during the 1983 election campaign to reduce petrol prices by 3c per litre. Further we strongly urge the Government to adopt a petrol pricing policy which does not cause unnecessary rises in the cost of petrol. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. The Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriatate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hollis. To the Hon. 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 the 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 fee. by Mr Hollis. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We are Australians who support nuclear disarmament. The world is closer to nuclear war than at any time, since world War II. This ultimate catastrophy can and must be avoided by ordinary people raising their voices and taking action against the threat of nuclear destruction. We identify with the massive worldwide movement for a nuclear-free future-for a `freeze' on all nuclear weapons testing, production and development, as an immediate first step towards complete disarmament. Australians are not remote from nuclear danger-we are very much involved and threatened. We can contribute to the growing global movement for a peaceful world by opposing Australian involvement in activities and strategies likely to lead to a nuclear holocaust. To achieve this, we can call on the Australian Government to: 1. Support actively the United Nations' World Disarmament Campaign and to commit itself never to introduce, or allow to be introduced, nuclear weapons into Australia. 2. Undertake not to update or expand existing nuclear related foreign military installations on Australian territory nor permit the establishment of any new ones. 3. Remove all nuclear related military installations since these contribute to the ability to conduct nuclear attacks and are likely targets in case of war. End all port-of-call and landing rights arrangements granted to foreign nuclear forces, including nuclear-armed or nuclear powered vessels and aircraft. 4. Support the establishment of nuclear free zones in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, including the banning of all nuclear testing and waste dumping. 5. End the mining and export of Australian uranium. by Mr Hollis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hollis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers, parents and students working in and for the interest of government schools and TAFE colleges showeth that: 1. We oppose the proposed cuts of 75 teaching and 40 ancilliary positions in ACT government schools and 28 teaching positions in ACT TAFE colleges. 2. We deplore the cuts to public education and the harm caused to the opportunities of thousands of Canberra's youth. 3. We call on the Commonwealth Government to honour its primary obligation to public education and its commitments to increase participation and equity in education by not implementing staffing cuts in ACT government schools and TAFE colleges. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We are concerned that the closure of the Enterprise Migrant Hostel will be detrimental to the long-term settlement prospects of migrants in Victoria as well as detrimental to Ethnic Communities who have settled in the Springvale area. In addition, the long-term development of commerce and industry in the area will be adversely affected. We urge the Government to reverse this decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned 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, 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 businesses finally sell the business are not `windfall gains' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; Your petitioners request that the members, 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 McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they are opposed to the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper for the reform of the Australian Tax System in so far as they relate to the imposition of further Capital Gains and Wealth Taxes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to reject any proposal to increase the burden of Capital Gains and Wealth Taxes on the Australian people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government, in Re-structuring the taxation system, upholds as fundamental the principle of an equitable distribution of wealth among the people of our nation, and 1. That the Government does not levy any form of broadly based indirect or consumption taxation, and 2. That the Government does levy gift and death duties, excluding the family home from the latter, and a substantial tax on realised capital gains and wealth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Mayer. To the Honourable the 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 tax 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 Ms Mayer. 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 Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of Australia. Respectfully showeth that the 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 Rocher. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christ- ian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. 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: The northern suburbs of Wollongong have a community of interest with Sydney as well as Wollongong. That at the present time the northern suburbs of Wollongong are officially located outside the Sydney Metropolitan television area. That at present time the area is unable to receive adequate television reception from the Sydney stations. Your petitioners therefore humble pray that the Australian Government act to include the northern suburbs of Wollongong within the Sydney Television Area. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia showeth that: Without any warning and at the worst possible moment, the Federal Government has abandoned the pensioner patients in South Australia's Nursing Homes. These people are suffering undeserving hardship and trauma as a result of the Federal Government's decision to freeze the nursing home benefit levels in South Australia. The pensioner patients and those on fixed incomes now cannot expect any relief from recent significant fee increases approved by the Department of Community Services and which have coincided with the decision to freeze benefits. 80-85% of nursing home patients are pensioners and the majority are now required to pay in excess of their pension for their nursing care for the very first time. Some are paying over $5 per day on top of their pension. Many are looking for cheaper nursing care that doesn't exist. We request that the Federal Government: 1. alleviate the distress of South Australia's nursing home patients and their families by effective restoration of the principle that pensioner patients should not have to pay more than their pension for nursing home care 2. restore the review of the benefit rates in November 1985 3. resolve its concerns over health care costs with the South Australian Government rather than inflicting unnecessary suffering on nursing home patients. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer. The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Cowper respectfully showeth- That the introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties would not be economically beneficial for Australia, as any introduction of such taxes would: Firstly, adversely affect small and medium sized businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; Secondly, disadvantage the Australian economy by stifling employment in particular, which is heavily reliant on growth in small and medium sized businesses; Thirdly, any capital gains that might result when owners of small and medium sized businesses finally sell the business are not ``windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; and Finally, the owners of small and medium sized businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives oppose any attempt to introduce any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties, which would be to the detriment of the economic well-being of the nation, and repeal any existing capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties, which are to the economic disadvantage of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The devastating effect on small business and job creation of the Government's proposed capital gains and business expense taxes. 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 CARLTON(Mackellar)(2.59) —The Opposition raises the following matter of public importance: The devastating effect on small business and job creation of the Government's proposed capital gains and business expense taxes. This morning's news is very bad news for small business. I am talking about the 700,000 firms or unincorporated enterprises in Australia which represent over 50 per cent of private employment. Mr Hand —You would not know what it meant to be poor. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member may as well listen to this. If the Victorian State President of the Australian Labor Party is not interested in the future of small business, the House ought to know about it. Over 50 per cent of private employment in Australia is in the 700,000 firms that the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) is attacking. Around 40 per cent of industry value added is provided by these small firms. In manufacturing, 95 per cent of all enterprises have fewer than 100 employees. They employ 30 per cent of the manufacturing work force. Over the decade of the 1970s the number of large firms declined but the number of small firms increased. They provided jobs. In the service industries, over 95 per cent of all firms providing service are small firms. They employ some 50 to 65 per cent of all those working in service industries. Small enterprises provide most of the new private sector employment in Australia. As they grow, they create new jobs. We must rely on the people in them if the terrible rates of unemployment, in particular youth unemployment, are to be reduced. They provide a flexible and efficient response to consumer wants. If they do not do that, they go broke. They fill in the nooks and crannies of our industry and provide creative approaches to serving the market place. If they do not do this, they go out of business. About 80 per cent of small businesses are unincorporated enterprises. Often they are family enterprises whose members work for a return which is far less, in many cases, than award rates, to provide cheap services or cheap goods for people who are on awards. How many people are able to buy cheap sandwiches for their lunch, cheap meals at small restaurants, and to get cheap services from small unincorporated family businesses? They do so because the people who work in those businesses are prepared to work for a very low return compared with award earning unionists or people in the organised areas of the community. Why do they do it? They do it because they get some additional satisfaction and monetary reward other than through wages. These sorts of people are prepared to take risks. This country needs new investment and new ideas and to be shaken out of old practices. Small business people are prepared to take the risks and they will soak up the opportunities available in the new areas of creation, such as technology. These people have a sense of personal freedom and a desire for independence. They also hope for some reward for that extra work-they work longer than award hours-and expect a future capital reward. It is only fair, when they are prepared to forgo a great deal of their personal leisure time and immediate reward in the form of high wages, that they should be able to see something for themselves and their children in the capital accumulation of the business. Under Liberal-National governments these people have been able to achieve that reward. It is also fair that reasonable business expense deductions including, perhaps, a motor car-already subject to the application of the law and the careful Australian Taxation Office's scrutiny-should be available to these people. Because they are prepared to accept smaller week-by-week returns, they should be able to expect a reasonable reward from the rest of the community by way of capital gain on their retirement, or to pass on to their children, and reasonable business expense deductions. Heaven forbid, there has been enough scrutiny of these deductions for small business people until now to ensure that they are not excessive. Let me make it quite clear. In no way does the Opposition condone rip-offs on expenses. We know that in all sorts of businesses, large and small, deductions may be claimed fraudulently or schemes may be used to try to exact an unfair benefit. We are not talking about that. We are talking about the vast majority of the 700,000 small businesses-80 per cent of which are unincorporated enterprises-which consists of fair-dealing, hard working people providing the backbone of new creative effort in this country. Even before reading this morning's newspaper, small business was not very happy. Small business has not been happy with the excessive regulation imposed by three levels of government. There has been excessive regulation by local government with its planning approval and various other licences. At a State government level it has been affected not only by licences for various business enterprises, but also by interference by State departments of labour and industry backing up trade union interference, and by various other forms of State regulations adding to costs. In addition, there are Federal government regulations, the worst of which are imposed by the conciliation and arbitration frame work which applies awards that are designed for industrial circumstances far removed from the small business in which people actually talk to each other-where the manager and the workers are in exactly the same place-and in which they are quite capable of working out productive arrangements which will increase profits, wages and productivity for Australia. Yet, as we have seen, particularly in the case of Mudginberri, small business people have been interfered with at the Federal government level, making it impossible to achieve these deals for productivity. Excessive regulation is a major concern of small business and small business is fed up already because of the existence of overregulation. Another major concern of small businesses is the cost of doing business when they borrow money. In the last election, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), assisted and egged on by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), said that interest rates were going to fall during 1985. As recently as April of this year the Prime Minister and the Treasurer repeated that promise. However, small businesses borrowing very small amounts of money-under $100,000-find that interest rates have gone up from 13 1/2 per cent to 16 1/4 per cent. That is only up to $100,000, which is not a very big loan for a small business. If the loan is over that, the general rates of interest with banks apply, which are around the 18 per cent mark. If a small business cannot obtain a loan from a bank, the rate of interest will be over 20 per cent somewhere else. These people are really hurting at the moment. Excessive regulation, high costs, wages going up, wages indexed to the consumer price index regardless of individual capacity to pay, and in addition a major increase in costs through interest rate rises which the Treasurer and the Prime Minister promised these people they would not have to suffer-that is where we are. In most cases hundreds of dollars of interests costs have been loaded upon small businesses despite those promises of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. What news did small business face this morning? We seem to be at the sort of afterbirth of the great tax reform. For a long time now we have had promises from the Treasurer and from the Prime Minister that we were going to see the most extraordinary transformation of the tax system in Australia's history. I am not exaggerating-those are their words. They promised the most comprehensive review in the whole of Australia's history. They said that nobody previously had had the guts to do it. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is accused by the Treasurer of not having had the guts to do it in the previous Government. The Treasurer said that the previous Government was not able to face up to it, but here David was going to face Goliath, the Treasurer was going to face up to Caucus and the Australian Council of Trade Unions and he was going to go into Cabinet and tell the Prime Minister what to do, and initially, of course, the Prime Minister backed him. They were great mates because, after all, it was the Treasurer who helped the present Prime Minister to stab the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in the back, who helped him climb over his predecessor and who assisted him very strongly in the first couple of years of his Prime Ministership. He had every right to assume that he would be fully backed by the Prime Minister when he embarked upon the most massive taxation reform in Australia's history. The whole of small business was waiting for something to happen because in the 1983 election campaign small business had a solemn undertaking from the Prime Minister. What did he say? In his policy speech, under the heading of small business, he said: And here let me make one point so that even our opponents can understand it; and let me make it beyond all their powers of misrepresentation and distortion. There will be no new capital gains tax. One cannot misrepresent or distort that. We are not trying to misrepresent it or distort it. We are taking him at his word. The Prime Minister went on to say: But we will not be deterred-and no Australian Government worthy of the name should ever have been deterred-from upholding and using the existing laws of the Commonwealth of Australia, interpreted in the spirit on which those laws are now being interpreted by the High Court, to tax speculative gains and prevent tax evasion and tax avoidance. In fact, what the Prime Minister was saying was that he would follow what the previous Treasurer had done. The present Leader of the Opposition did exactly that. He introduced a lot of laws to catch tax avoiders and evaders. The Prime Minister in his policy speech confirmed what the previous Treasurer had already done. He said that all that was needed was a government with the will and determination to apply the law. That, presumably, was the existing law. But what did we have? We had in the following election campaign evasion about the Government's taxation intentions. Despite continual prodding by the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer dodged the issue. For seven weeks they were in trouble on the issue, until in Western Australia, talking on a radio talk-back program, the Prime Minister suddenly accepted the suggestion that there should be a tax summit. Out of that arose this magnificient and glor- ious plan to carry out the biggest tax transformation in Australia's history. What is it coming out as? It is coming out as a series of backdowns to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Left. How the Treasurer will be able to come into this House with a straight face later in this week and announce the miserable measures that he has left in his little bag, after what he said before, I simply do not know. It is an absolutely incredible backdown. I must repeat one or two of the things that he said and remind honourable members of the great determination that he has. He said: If we don't as a nation adopt this proposal, then you won't see significant reform in this country in taxation for the balance of this century. He said that on 14 August 1985. Mr N. A. Brown —Who was that? Mr CARLTON —That was the Treasurer. We almost thought that we would lose him from politics. He said: If this sort of proposal doesn't get up, one has to decide if there's much point in someone like me worrying about the Australian institutional process, and in Australian institutions, very much longer. That is what the Treasurer said. What has he been doing? He took a tiny bit of business bashing leftovers from the summit into a Cabinet meeting on Saturday which was supposed to wrap the whole thing up before lunch. But the Cabinet had to meet for the whole of Saturday. It had to bring in the full Ministry. The Cabinet could not make the decision; it had to bring in even the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), who is sitting on the back bench. But the Ministry could not even do it on Saturday, so it had to come in again on Sunday. The Prime Minister had to go off to Papua New Guinea. He had to leave the meeting in the incapable hands of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). The Ministry spent the whole of Sunday on the matter and had to come back again this morning. What did it come back with? We find in the Australian Financial Review that the Government is going to bring in a capital gains tax at the top marginal rate, and that the top marginal rate will be at least 55 per cent. So, all the savings that people in small businesses have been working towards will be ripped away at the top marginal rate, which will be higher than any the Government had previously mentioned. Their business expenses will be reduced and their expense allowances to employees will be further taxed. People will lose money out of their pockets, small business will go broke, jobs will be lost and the Government will be even further discredited. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.13) —We were promised that the new dry Liberal Party would weigh and consider the things the Government did and, if it believed they were good, it would say so, and it would attack the bad things the Government did. It was not to be in the business of the scaremongering and the opportunism of the last two and a half years. It promised to abandon that. It was going to abandon the opportunism of the leadership of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and adopt a rational basis of assessment. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in his Press conference said: `If we think the Government has done something good, we will say so. If it has done something bad, we will propose a better solution'. What we have seen today is just another piece of rancid opportunism, an attack on measures that the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) does not even know exist. He has had no opportunity for any rational analysis of them. He has not seen them. He is just in here for a bit of good old-fashioned tax blackmail. So, honourable members opposite should not give us the line that anything has changed. Nothing has changed. The Opposition comprises the same group, the same people who have always opposed any change in this country. They are the people who will give us a knee-jerk reaction to any change in policy on this side of the House. What we will see from the new dry Liberal Party is more opportunism, not less, than we saw in the time of the honourable member for Kooyong. This sort of comment is coming in particular from the honourable member for Mackellar, who after one week of waffle the media have decided is just not up to the job he has been given. Following the dismal performance of the honourable member for Mackellar last week in regard to interest rates, when the honourable member cried crocodile tears over interest rates while saying that they ought to be determined in the market place, he is in here today having proposed opportunistically yet another matter of public importance for discussion. This time it is the Government's supposed tax package. His matter of public importance reads: The devastating effect on small business and job creation of the Government's proposed capital gains and business expenses taxes. He has no idea at all what the Government proposes. He has not seen the Government's measures but is prepared to attack them here simply on the basis that it may advantage him and his Party to attack the measures which the Government may announce later in the week. That is scaremongering and sloganeering at its worst. It is scaremongering and sloganeering even before the measures have been produced. All any interested observers waiting to see the performance of the new look Liberal Party and rational Opposition will see is the same tawdry old mob which has been here in the past and which has engaged in this sort of practice in times gone by. What this whole habit is about is simply trying to scare the opposing party away from doing anything about tax policy. The Opposition cries about small business, suggesting that small business has been weighed down by regulation and high costs. What a lot of muck! The Opposition sent hundreds of thousands of small businesses into bankruptcy during its last period of office. Have a look at the gross operating surplus of unincorporated business for the last two years to see what has happened to the profits of small business; they have had the best two years of back to back wage restraint they can remember. Small business thrives not on large commodities but on the dynamics of demand in the economy. It is a case of no demand, no business. Small business, more than any other category of business, needs a dynamic economy, lower inflation and lower cost. This Government has given small businesses the lowest wage costs and the highest pick-up profits they can remember. The Opposition talks about excessive regulation. Does the Opposition call the setting of interest rates in the market excessive regulation? Does the Opposition call the floating of the exchange rate to protect the domestic economy excessive regulation? Where does this sort of language come from? What it boils down to is that the Opposition, in its terms, is taking the expression `excessive regulation' back to the current wage fixing principles. It says that the prices and incomes accord and a centralised wage fixing system involve excessive regulation. Of course, the Opposition fails to indicate that this so-called excessive regulation has provided our lowest cost structure in years. We saw a 5.5 per cent incease in award wages last year compared with a 17 per cent increase, under the Opposition's system, in the last year of the Liberal Government. What the Opposition really is about is changing the wage fixing principles back to a market determined system of wage fixation which, in the first instance, will sool unions on to businesses which are incapable of resisting them. What the Opposition is doing is making small businesses the laboratory mice of the Howard wage experiment. That is what it is about. The Opposition knows it. Because a few people in small business lobbies send Opposition members a complimentary telex or two in support of their particular brand of drivel that does not in any way represent the hundreds of thousands of small businesses flourishing in this economy. They are not mugs. These business people understand when there is a bit of growth and profit around. They know that their future is tied inexorably to the capacity of a government to produce growth, prosperity and employment. Why do honourable members opposite think that their arid program has any appeal to them? The Opposition has lost big business because big business has woken up to the fact that the Opposition cannot control wages and that it has no policy for inflation, other than a policy of restraining growth to restrain inflation. But when it restrains growth it restrains profits of big business. Big business would have to have the Liberal Party ticket buried very deep in the pocket and really feel a warm inner glow to move back to that lot opposite in terms of economic management. I know that many people in business would like these policies, these outcomes, from the Liberal Party, but they cannot get these policies and outcomes from the Liberal Party. I am afraid that these policies and outcomes come from the Australian Labor Party. While some people might not like that, they will live with it. Do not let Opposition jokers think that they will go back to them because they are supposedly the people of business. The Opposition had plenty of years to demonstrate that. It inherited an economy in 1976 with the biggest mandate in history. It did not know what to do with it. There was an enormous period of growth coming off the mining sector because Japan wanted to switch to an oil replacement. Yet the Opposition still ran Australia into recession. The Opposition could not manage an economy in a fit. People in business well and truly understand that. The Opposition's proposition refers to the impact on small business of the Government's proposed business expense tax. The new dry Liberal Party is saying that it is prepared to have an efficient tax system but it is also saying: `Hands off rorts. All the rorts which exist in the business expense system ought to stay there'. Those opposite put them there, so why not defend the rorts for the people whom they truly represent; that is, some members of the middle management brigade who want a free lunch with a bottle of red wine? They believe in the concept: `You buy my lunch one day and I will buy yours the next'. Those are the sorts of tax policies in which the Opposition believes. The fact of the matter is that the Opposition well knows that fringe benefits pose an enormous problem in this country and that, once an employer pays a wage of over $35,000, he gets around the high marginal tax rate which applies at that step by offering fringe benefits which wind up in cars, hostess allowances, school fees, rent allowances and all the other subterfuges to get around the tax system. Apparently the Opposition thinks that that is okay and it will defend it. Mr Spender —Yes, yes, yes! Mr KEATING —I am glad to hear the honourable member for North Sydney confirming that that is what he believes. Many Australians believe in the need for a fair tax system. The time has long since passed when the tax system ought to be cleaned up. The free lunch is over and there has to be a decent tax system. It may suit honourable members opposite to deride me in terms of the tax reform package. They will eat their words when they see the size of the package later this week and its ramifications. While it may not be as big as option C, it will be the biggest tax reform, and the most important, in this country's history. Members of the Opposition will see to their chagrin that many people in business, with fairer minds than them, will support the impact of these proposals. The fact is that for the first time in a long time Australians will have a fair taxation system whereby people will not be punitively taxed but whereby all people will pay their fair share of tax and will not able to avoid doing so by sheltering income into other avenues which honourable members opposite systematically and methodically put into the tax system in their cowardice over the years by not being able to resist demands from particular interest groups. They are the people who made a swill of the tax system for 30 years. They have left us the dirty job of cleaning it up. We will clean it up. On the basis of what they indicated today, we will have to put up with their opportunism on the way through. The Opposition's proposition indicates that, while we are cleaning up the tax system, we will have to wear the Opposition as well. If that is the way it is, I suppose that is the way it will have to be. The fact of the matter is that- Mr Carlton —We are not as bad as the ACTU Left. Mr KEATING —Do not talk about the Australian Council of Trade Unions. There is more principle in the ACTU than there will ever be in the Liberal Party. Do not deride the ACTU. The game of politics is not going to change; the Opposition will be no more rational, no more decent, than it has always been; that is, indecent and irrational. What the Opposition has indicated today is just a foretaste of things to come. When we announce the tax reform package the Opposition will attack it and will make the best of it. Australians have to understand that the hard decisions have to be taken and that the hard decisions can be taken only by a government with some courage, a government that is prepared to say what is right and what is wrong and to wear the political cost of making that statement. Let Australians be the judge over time whether they want this sort of government and these sorts of policies or the kinds of attitudes which are prevalent in the terms of the motion we are discussing today. I am surprised that the honourable member for Mackellar, who has been one and a half weeks in his new responsibility as shadow Treasurer, devoted last week to attacking the Government on the question of interest rates when the Opposition says that it believes in a market determined system of interest rate fixation. Today, the same people who believe that we ought to have a rational debate about major policy changes are making statements before the changes are even announced. I will let the public of this country make its judgments about the capacity and sincerity of the honourable member for Mackellar and his leader. We will see, when the Government's tax statement is brought down, whether Australians want a party that believes in tax minimisation, cheating and all of the other ramps which have been systematically funnelled into the tax system by the Liberal Party or whether they believe in a fair go for most Australians with a clean tax system and more reasonable rates of taxation for the great majority of Australians. We will see whether they believe that those kinds of policies and that sort of tax system will lead to a more dynamic country, with higher employment growth, less unemployment and less poverty than that which existed during the 1970s. The people have a very clear choice to make at the next election-to have a party in government with some decency and guts or the blackguards on the front bench of the Opposition. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(3.27) —We have just heard the typical speech that we get from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on these occasions. The only thing that is very clear to me is that he does not know anything about small business. Opposition members interjecting- Mr TUCKEY —I know that he is a clock maker and a clock watcher. I know that he is in the clock business. However, that is the only bit of small business he knows. If one wants evidence of that, one need look only at his claim that small business people go out for a friendly little lunch each day at which they say: `You buy me a bottle and I will buy you a bottle'. Small business people do not have that much time. When they go out to lunch with somebody they do so to attract business so that they can keep their work force employed. The Treasurer should try to understand the position rather than make blase statements about taxing fringe benefits and rorts. I thought it was interesting that the Treasurer had to mention the word `cheat' in the final words of his speech. We had a very interesting example last week about a cheat. How can Government members who voted me out of this place say that they have any concern about tax cheats when they harbour one in their midst and support him at every opportunity? They know whom I am talking about. Even new Government members came into the House and voted for that person, so do not let us talk about cheats and all of the other words that were used by the Treasurer. I have another question which the next speaker in this debate might answer. There is now a worry about keeping the lid on and regulating home interest rates. We are told day after day that if we take off the lid home interest rates will go up. Is that the situation? Is that what the Government has decided is going to happen? Will interest rates go up if the lid is taken off? Is the message for Australian business still one of higher interest rates? That is what the Treasurer is telling us. He is saying: `I have to keep the lid on them because I do not have faith in the marketplace to keep those interest rates down'. The Treasurer is terrified of the markeplace because he knows that interest rates have not stopped going up yet. He knows that the cause is all of the things that he did last year that he is now trying to correct, such as getting the Reserve Bank of Australia to buy up half of the Budget deficit. The honourable member who will probably follow me might try to explain his way out of that. He might give us the reason for the printing of $3.9 billion last year. The Government is desperate to correct this situation now that it can see what is happening in respect of inflation. Let us have a look at the level of interest rates around the world that small business must tolerate. The United States prime rate on 2 August this year was 9.5 per cent. The United Kingdom prime rate-and it was fairly high-was 12.5 per cent. What was the figure in Australia at that time? It was 17.75 per cent. That was the figure in August. The figure for the prime rate is now higher than that. That is not the rate available to the average borrower. That is the rate given to the very best customers that a bank might have. Government members are terrified. That is why they keep telling us that housing interest rates must be controlled. That is what members of Caucus keep telling the Treasurer, because they know that interest rates are on the way up and that they are a burden, of course, for small business. Those burdens are included in the tax package that the Government is bringing forward at the moment. The Treasurer has been telling us all about taxation and how it will work. Let us look at the message he has been getting from the small business community. The petition from which I will now quote has not been mentioned once in this House. I refer to page 334 of the Hansard for 22 August. The petition states: 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, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; . . . . any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not `windfall gains' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries when they eventually sell their business 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. That is the message that small business has sent to the Government. The petition has thousands and thousands of signatures. But the Treasurer says that he knows what small business is telling Australia. Small business is telling the Government what it thinks by way of petitions lodged in this place. I bet that if I checked the record, I would find that some of those petitions have been lodged by Labor members who in the Caucus meeting tomorrow will vote these people out of existence. How will they do that? They will do it by imposing capital gains taxes, even though they have received the message about that. It is a fact that owners of small businesses rely on the sale of the business to secure their eventual retirement. They cannot even get a reasonable superannuation arrangement. Mr Cleeland —Why not? Mr TUCKEY —They are not given the same tax deductibility as wage and salary earners are given. They are given about half the amount that others are given, or even less. Anyway, that is not what small business people want. They want to invest their money in their business so that their business can be their superannuation. Why should they not be allowed to do that? The Government's plans are to tax them. It is not long ago that it made an announcement about negative gearing. Government members are upset about negative gearing because they say that that is an occasion when someone benefits from a capital gain by paying interest in excess of the income that that investment would create. Having done that to the small business community, and small business people having been hurt by that, the Government wants to impose a capital gains tax as well. So it will deny them the right to deduct their interest and then, because there is a capital gain involved in the end, anyway, the Government will tax that gain as well. How does that work out? That is double-dipping on the part of the Government. Mr O'Keefe —What about your policies? Mr TUCKEY —Let me paint a scenario. I am giving good advice to Government members which they should remember when they attend the Caucus meeting tomorrow, because small business people in every community are the great communicators. Government members might not get their votes, but they should think back to other times when the small business community has turned on a government. They talk to their customers and they are respected in the community. So honourable members should take my advice and remember when they attend the Caucus meeting tomorrow that I might be doing them a favour. What about negative gearing and massively increasing interest rates, in the case of a small businessman who borrowed money a year ago? His interest charge is taking him past the point of the income he receives in regard to that investment. Is that negative gearing? I think it is. I think that he is trapped. He is trapped by interest rates that he never wanted, because of the Government's foolish policies espoused by the Treasurer. The Treasurer is the only bloke in Australia who thinks he is any good. I do not think that people could judge him in any other way. That is the sort of situation that confronts the Government. It will create a negative gearing situation whereby people can be forced not to be able to deduct the interest payments that they never wanted, anyway. Mr N. A. Brown —There is also the control of rents. Mr TUCKEY —Yes. Rents will be controlled at the same time. With interest rates at 17.25 per cent, the Government tells us about wages and implies that the only problem in regard to wages came from our political strategies. The Government is telling us that if one leaves the window latch undone and a burglar gets in, the person who left the latch undone should be charged with the crime. The burglar was the Australian Council of Trade Unions, led by Hawke and his cronies at that time. They are the ones who forced their way through the window and demanded wage increases. That is where they came from. Government members should not give me that sort of rubbish. Small business knows that it was the Government, when in opposition, which screamed for wages to be put up. Let us look at the question of fringe benefits. I know quite a lot about the restaurant trade. I have been involved in it. I tell honourable members that any sensible restaurateur will spend at least 30 per cent of his turnover in wages. It is the old 30-30 rule-30 per cent for food and 30 per cent for wages. That is pretty high. That is labour intensive in this day and age. The Government is not going to worry about the bloke who buys advertising space in the newspaper or on television. That is high technology these days. It is not labour intensive; it is capital intensive. The Government will allow that person to deduct that figure. But a fellow who owns a little furniture factory who takes a big retailer to lunch, and during that lunch makes substantial sales that will keep all of his factory workers in jobs, will not be able to claim a deduction for that lunch. The Government will say: `No, go into the low labour intensive areas of high technology. You should advertise in that area. We refuse you the right to advertise in a restaurant'. The point that Government members must make during the Caucus meeting tomorrow is: What is a perk? Certainly there are perks and certainly members from this side of the House have said that we accept that they can be taxed. Of course, we are a bit worried how the Government will deal with union workers. Unions do not pay tax. Will the Government tax their perks? Will the union subs be increased? That is a pretty simple thing to do these days. One just offers to hit someone around the head if that person does not pay the extra amount. Those are the sorts of situations confronting the Government. It has received the message from small business. Small business says that it does not want these taxes. I think that is the message which we must get through. We will be responsible, as our Leader has promised. But we will fight the Government tooth and nail in regard to taxes that small businesses do not want, do not need and which will destroy their business. The Government should think about the cost of inflation in regard to items on their shelves. That is the area in which they are losing money. Last year's profit is sitting on the shelf. They cannot enjoy it. It is sitting on the shelf because the cost of their goods has gone up. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(3.37) —I am pleased to have this opportunity to support the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his response to this matter of public importance. The Treasurer, probably more than anyone else in recent political history in Australia, has shown himself to be a great innovator and a great initiator with regard to taxation reform. The present Treasurer, probably more than anyone else in recent years, has exposed the inefficiency, the inequity, the injustice and the confusion of our present tax system, which has reached the point of collapse. I do not know whether members of the Opposition are as concerned about their credibility as they should be. I have the impression that they are not concerned about it at all. They pick up this morning's Australian Financial Review and read a front page article written, apparently, by someone who necessarily is not privy to the discussions that have taken place within the Treasurer's office, the Cabinet room or in a meeting of the full Ministry. They read an article and take it as gospel. They come into this place at 3 o'clock in the afternoon and shoot from the hip. They will get a few headlines tomorrow and, I suppose, a few comments will be written in newspapers. But let me assure them that tomorrow, those people who read what they said today will in a few days time have the opportunity to hear from the Treasurer details of the final taxation package which the Government will adopt. That will not do anything for the credibility of honourable members opposite. It indicates the fairly low level that they place on their own credibility and on their own standing as far as members of the community are concerned. They will know in a very short period that members of the Opposition were ill-equipped, insufficiently informed and shot from the hip in connection with this matter of public importance. Honourable members opposite masquerade and parade as the great protectors and the great guardians of small business. During those seven disastrous years of the Fraser Government they were neither the guardians nor the protectors of small business. They were the betrayers of small business and the destroyers of small business. Mr O'Keefe —Record bankruptcies. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As my colleague says, they were responsible for a record number of bankruptcies. Let me give the House some figures in regard to these guardians and protectors of small business. Never once during the years of the Great Depression in the 1930s did the number of bankruptcies exceed 2,000 in any one year. In 1980-81-and these great economic managers and protectors and guardians of small business who sit opposite can take credit for this-the number of bankruptcies in Australia was 5,154. I am not including liquidations of small businesses, which were devastated by those hopeless economic managers who now sit on the Opposition benches. The Treasurer and I in this chamber have passed judgment on them today. The Australian people, the electors, will pass judgment on them tomorrow, the day after that and the day after that. That judgment will be exactly the same as the judgment that was passed on 1 December last year and in March 1983. All the people represented by those small businesses that were destroyed, devastated during those seven disastrous years, remember who was responsible. They remember the background to those events. It is all very well for the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton)-I think I am quoting him fairly accurately-to say that small businesses must be flexible, innovative and competent, otherwise they go broke. That might be true. There was another reason they go broke. They went broke during those seven years because members of the present Opposition were then responsible for this country's economic management. It is an offence for the Opposition now to suggest if a small business is flexible, innovative and competent it will not go broke. Tens of thousands of small businesses during those seven disastrous years were run by people with great vision and aspirations. They put their talents, time and energy into developing those small businesses, but the then coalition government devastated them. That Government did not devastate those businesses in tens or hundreds or thousands, but in tens of thousands. That went on year after year as those people were sent to the wall. The matter of public importance refers not only to the devastating effect on small business but also to job creation. Opposition members are experts on job destruction. It is well known now that the Hawke Government, through its economic policies and its Treasurer (Mr Keating), who has been the chief architect of those economic policies, has been responsible for creating in Australia 431,000 new jobs in less than three years. The previous Government in seven years created only 320,000 jobs. Mr Cleeland —What did they lose? Mr ROBERT BROWN —My colleague the honourable member for McEwen suggests I refer to the jobs that the previous Government lost. In one year alone, during the last year of office of that Government the number of people unemployed in Australia grew by 250,000. I have said before, and I repeat, that during that last year, when Australia found itself on the brink of disaster, with the great managers opposite as architects, every day-day after day, week after week, month after month, for 12 months, on average-700 people were thrown on the employment scrapheap. It is members of the Opposition who now say they are so concerned about job creation. They are the masters of job destruction, unemployment, bankruptcies and liquidations and have laid to waste great tracts of the Australian economy, many of which are occupied by small businessmen. Unemployment grew from 278,400 when the Fraser Government came to office to over 730,000. How can Opposition members ever excuse that? That affected some three quarters of a million people. We have hauled it back. Mr N. A. Brown —What is it now? Mr ROBERT BROWN —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asks what we have done. I do not need to indicate what we have done. The Australian people know what we have done. Some 430,000 people who have jobs today would not be in employment had it not been for the farsighted, competent economic management of this Government. Those people know what this Government has been able to do. We have hauled back the unemployment rate from 10 1/2 per cent to 8 1/2 per cent, and, as I have said, we have increased the number of jobs by 431,000. We have hauled back the number of people unemployed from over 750,000 to about 600,000. I could go on and on, but the record speaks for itself. Neither I nor the Treasurer need to convince anyone on this score. The Australian people from their own experience know the great and remarkable improvement and the recovery that has been brought about by this Government. Today the Australian people rejoice in the great achievements that have been made. That was why on 1 December last year they reaffirmed the great decision they made in March 1983, and they will reaffirm that decision at the next available opportunity. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The time for the debate has expired. Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(3.47) —At the outset, I welcome the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous). When I spoke the other day he was in the chamber taking an economics lesson, and I welcome him back for chapter two. I hope that he will see fit to stay through the whole speech, so that he can learn something about economics. The States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill seeks to obtain the approval of the Parliament for arrangements agreed at the May 1985 Loan Council meeting by the Commonwealth and States. These arrangements chiefly involve first the payment of interest free capital grants to the States as part of State Government Loan Council programs; and secondly the payment of amounts that States may nominate from their Loan Council programs for the purpose of public housing under the terms and conditions of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The Bill provides for grants of $558m and a substantially higher sum represented under the loan programs. There is also authorisation for payment of advances for capital grants in the first six months of the next financial year. Over the past dozen years general revenue funds made available to the States by the Commonwealth have shown a consistently steady rise in terms of their relation to gross domestic product. They have risen from substantially below 4 per cent of gross domestic product to over 5 per cent, and this is despite the drought, the world recession and the bipartisan acknowledgement of the need to reduce government debt. Further, State and local government sector outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product have risen over the past decade from 20.6 per cent to almost 23 per cent. In the same time total public sector outlays have risen to more than 44 per cent of gross domestic product. As I have pointed out previously, that means that every Australian wage and salary earner works from 1 January every calendar year until nearly the middle of June just to pay the bills of government. I wonder how the present Government will react when we hammer that home to the Australian people in the next election campaign. It is also interesting to note that over the past decade the net borrowing requirement of State and local government bodies has risen by more than 600 per cent. This Bill deals with States' works and housing assistance, which makes it pertinent to remark that payments to the States for capital purposes have declined appreciably over recent years as a percentage of total grants and payments. In the modern world that does not seem to be a very sensible way to operate. General purpose revenue funds for the States have risen steeply and specific purpose payments for recurrent purposes have increased while payments for capital purposes have been on the decline. This is not the way to go in the late twentieth century when investment in capital works is so enormously important to keep up with technological developments and to keep Australia internationally competitive. I hope the Government will keep that in mind when it is in its next set of financial negotiations with the Premiers. Capital spending is on the slide while consumption spending is on the swings. This unhealthy situation must be reversed as soon as possible if we are to regain our international economic competitiveness in the rough, tough world of international trade. One of the objects of this Bill is to provide an incentive to the States and the Northern Territory to increase the funds they direct towards housing. It is ironic that current Government policies are now positively discriminating against housing by virtue of high interest rates, action on the phenomenon that is known as negative gearing and the proposed capital gains tax. While we are addressing ourselves to this Bill which will assist States housing, interest rates are on the move all over the country. I refer to the headlines in the weekend's National Times, which blared: `Soaring interest rates upstage tax plan'. The sub-headline ran on `Geoff Kitney explains Labor's worst headache', namely, interest rates. how can one propose to help housing when interest rates are blasting through the roof? Our major banks have now lifted their housing loan interest rates to the highest permissible level. The Executive Director of the Federation of Housing Societies of Victoria, Mr Cameron Algie, stated last week- Dr Theophanous —What are you going to do about it? Mr BEALE —I will tell the honourable member what we will do. Just be patient. Madam Deputy SPEAKER (Mrs Child)-Order! The honourable member for Calwell will cease interjecting. Mr BEALE —Please be patient. Last week Mr Cameron Algie stated: Increasing housing interest rates not only threaten the housing industry but spell disaster for the low income families of Australia. The Executive Director of the Federation of Housing Societies went on to state: Low income families would be best advised to go out and purchase tents in order to avoid disappointment. Many home buyers have a second mortgage and second mortgage interest rates have gone right out the window. This manifests in some of the statistics that are now appearing. The Australian Bureau of Statistics referring to housing finance for owner occupation for June states: Secured housing finance commitmentd to individuals made by significant lenders in June 1985 total $1,076.6 million . . . (21.1%) less than May 1985. Furthermore, it stated: First mortgage (or equivalent) finance was provided for 23,920 dwelling units . . . (23.4%) less than May 1985. I trust the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), who is in the House at this time, will take note of the figures. What does the Government say about interest rates? Mr West —What would you do? Mr BEALE —I will come to that. Please be patient. What does the Government say? On 5 November 1984 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: . . . because inflation is coming down and inflationary expectations are down interest rates will come down too. The day before the Treasurer (Mr Keating) had not quite been as bullish as that. He stated: Look, I don't give any commitments on interest rates. Having said that, he went on to say: Now the fact is there is scope, I believe, for further falls in interest rates. We know what the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said on 22 August 1985. He stated: We are bringing inflation down . . . This budget will bring interest rates down. In the same speech in this House he further stated: That will bring interest rates down. Even today the Minister for Housing and Construction, in answer to a question, said that housing rates depend on a whole range of matters. He continued: `I am equally confident that there will be a fall in interest rates'. Mr Carlton —It is on record. Mr BEALE —It is on the record. Although the Treasurer said that Lloyds economic report, which was referred to by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) in Question Time today, is wrong- Mr Carlton —Where is he? Mr BEALE —I guess the Treasurer is hiding. I should quote what the economic report states. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The House could do without the little asides between the speaker and those on the benches. Mr BEALE —The report states: Economic fundamentals continue to point to pressures on short-term interest rates through the remainder of calendar 1985. No wonder the Minister thinks it is wrong. He and his other Ministers are saying exactly the opposite and the market-place is telling us that those Ministers are wrong. On 26 February the Treasurer stated: I am quite prepared to stand by what I said in the election campaign . . . that there was a further interest rate fall ahead of us . . . I stand by that. Although the November statements were no doubt dollied up for the election to be held a week or so later, the Ministers at that time and the present Ministers have made a monumental misjudgment. A corporate manager in the private sector who behaved in such a way would be looking up the jobs vacant columns. Mr Tim Fischer —Forthwith. Mr BEALE —Forthwith, as my colleague said. The fact is, and it is obvious to anyone who has a modicum of economic policy knowledge, that there are forces which are continuing to drive our interest rates upwards. The Prime Minister, in an interview with Max Walsh on Thursday, 12 September, which was only a few days ago, in answer to a question which in part read that is it government policy to `run a firm monetary policy which means in other words keeping interest rates high', stated: I think that's not an unfair broad analysis. One would assume that he thinks that that analysis is fair. Our inflation rate is significantly higher that that of our major trading partners and this is crucial-is expected by the markets and the commmenators to rise further. Inflationary expectations feed straight into the bond rate and surely that is understood by the Prime Minister and his Minister. I regret that the honourable member for Calwell is no longer in the chamber. I can understand him- Mr Carlton —I can't understand him. Mr BEALE —I can understand the honourable member for Calwell not understanding because that concept is not in the collected works of Karl Marx. But I find it difficult to believe that the leaders of the Government do not know the relationship between inflationary expectations and interest rates. Despite the fact that they know that our inflation rate is nearly double that of our trading partners and is likely to go higher, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have backed those aspects of the so-called accord which they know will fuel inflation and cause price rises. There is strong competition in the financial market place for the funds that go to that market place. A process is going on-again I regret the absence of the honourable member for Calwell-called disintermediation. In the financial market place banks and other financial institutions borrow and lend but the sophisticated investors these days go where they can get the highest interest rate. They now go, in addition to corporation debentures and cash management trusts, to other banking institutions. They find difficulty lending money to the group that is described as the old trading banks-those in operation before the deregulation of the financial market, initiated by the coalition Government, took place. It is interesting that 40 per cent of the assets of those old trading banks are in housing. Because housing rates are being held down those banks are being squeezed. As are all participants in the financial market place, banks are paying substantially higher rates for their deposits and they are simply not in the business of providing loss-making loans. If the housing ceiling is left intact, the savings banks will cease offering new mortgage advances and customers for housing finance will be forced to turn to sources of more expensive mortgage finance. Up will go their interest rates. Another point that needs to be made about interest rates and inflation is that they will rise because the Government will not use the arms of economic policy potentially at its disposal. Now that our exchange rate has been freed up there are basically three arms of policy for the Government to use: Fiscal policy, wage and salary policy, and monetary policy. The last Budget threw fiscal policy out the window. The Budget produced record public sector outlays, record Commonwealth Government tax revenues and record Commonwealth Government receipts. This Government is still by far the biggest taxing, biggest spending government in our peacetime history. The Budget deficit and Government debt are still far too high. No amount of smooth talk from the Treasurer can get away from these facts. Fiscal policy has failed because of the inability of the Government to reduce the rate of growth of government spending. If it cannot do it in its first Budget of a parliamentary term it certainly cannot do it in later Budgets. So we are stuck with an ongoing and indifferent fiscal performance from this Government. Wages policy has also failed because of the terms of the accord and the power of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Despite the comments of the honourable member for Calwell about unemployment, unemployment in Australia last month actually rose. Perhaps we should call the ACTU the Australian council for teeming unemployment. It positively discriminates against those who do not have jobs. No matter how much the Government ducks the issue, the fact is that wages, salaries and on-costs will rise at double the rate of those of our trading partners. Government staff economists and advisers know this. Treasury and the Department of Finance know this. All the pressure then goes on the remaining arm-monetary policy. Consequently, there is further upward pressure on interest rates and enormous financial pressures are placed on Australian families paying off a house. The situtation becomes even worse for those trying to buy a house. On 20 June 1985 the Commonwealth Bank in its Economic Newsletter is reported to have said: Real interest rates being experienced in Australia are now at the highest level for at least a century. A year ago in September 1984 housing interest rates were at 12 per cent and they are now at 13.5 per cent. In addition, a charge for servicing housing interest loan is applied by the Commonwealth Bank to its customers. For the Government's benefit I will come back to that in a minute. This 1.5 per cent increase in housing interest rate means that families with an average mortgage of about $40,000 are now paying $600 a year more than they were a year ago. Mr Robert Brown —They have also got a job. Mr BEALE —Unemployment rose last month. Families on average weekly earnings, are about 4 per cent worse off than a year ago. What an indictment of the Government it is that in just one year, as a result of this sharp increase in housing interest rates, the average family should be 4 per cent worse off. I quote from a letter from a constitutent who presumably, has borrowed from the Commonwealth Bank- Mr Robert Brown —You wrote it yourself. Mr BEALE —For the benefit of the honourable member I will identify the constituent. He is Mr Keith Hainsworth of 11 Explorers Circuit, Vermont South. He said: `My inquiries at the bank show some 250,000 Commonwealth Bank customers around Australia are affected'-by this additional slug put on to customers from the Commonwealth Bank of $70 annually. So the Commonwealth Bank, alleged by the Government to be the guardian of the people's interest, this being its justification for not allowing us to consider selling it to private interests, is as yet the only bank that has this $70 surcharge in order to try to be more competitive because of the Government's failure to deal effectively with its fiscal and wages policy. So what the Treasurer calls this `great institution in Australia' is clearly not doing what the Government would intend. It makes us in opposition even more persuaded that in government we should examine closely the possibility of transferring the Commonwealth Bank from it cumbersome bureaucracy to the vital private sector. No wonder it is a candidate for privatisation. The Treasurer in his second reading speech stated: This will assist the Commonwealth in further reducing the public sector borrowing requirement in 1985-86. The speech states that the public sector borrowing requirement is going down. Let me give some figures. The public sector borrowing requirement in Australia is 6 per cent, in the United States it is 4 per cent and in the United Kingdom it is 2.7 per cent. Our rate is nearly twice that of any other developed country and the crowding out effect that this has in the financial markets means that interest rates will be under pressure to go still higher. The housing industry will also be hit by the Government's recent decision on what is known as negative gearing. The effect of the Government's policy on negative gearing will be to remove the benefits that encourage housing construction. People will take their investment funds elsewhere. I have already quoted the figures for June this year which indicate a sharp drop in housing construction. This move is yet another tilt against the business community and, more particularly, against small business. The proposed capital gains tax will also discriminate against housing. Laurie Oakes today reports, and I quote: Capital gains will be imposed at the marginal rate. The Treasurer has been rolled again. By now he must be getting pretty used to it. He was rolled at the tax summit. He was rolled on indirect tax and now he has been rolled again on capital gains tax. All of the advice that the Government was getting was that capital gains tax would hinder investment. Let me quote an article on 5 August this year: The Australian Chamber of Commerce has told the Treasurer, Mr Keating, that introduction of the planned capital gains tax would raise little revenue and could result in net reductions in public-sector revenue and upward pressure on interest rates. They are compelling words. The article continues: In its Budget submission to the Federal Government, the chamber says a capital gains tax or an extension of the wealth tax will have ``a severe adverse effect'' on capital formation and use. It seems incredible that against all the advice that the Government has been getting, it should now be planning to introduce a capital gains tax. This capital gains tax will reduce investment, depress initiative and act against the interests of the housing sector. It is, if I may say so again, yet another indication of how anti the private sector this Government is, how it wishes to depress initiative in the private sector and how it does not understand that it is the private sector that creates prosperity for all Australians. That is what is so absurd about this Bill. The Government is about to pass legislation in this Bill to help the housing industry while all its major policy decisions ensure that interest rates will be too high for people to buy houses. It is inconceivable that the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and other Government Ministers cannot see this. They are not dills; they are otherwise intelligent men. The unfortunate fact is that they are caught in a bind. They have given way on exchange rate policy, but fiscal policy is not in their control because their parliamentary party will not let them reduce both outlays and receipts and the Australian Council of Trade Unions will not let them put downward pressures on wage costs and on-costs or let them allow employers and employees to enter into worthwhile productivity arrangements. So, inflationary pressures mount and interest rates rise to absurdly record levels. Small businesses will be severely hurt and some will be forced out of business because they cannot borrow to survive. Big business will curtail its investment plans because of the high cost of money. Consumer credit costs will rise and demand will fall, hurting manufacturers and shopkeepers. This Government must now address itself to those other arms of government policy. It must focus on fiscal policy and wages policy. It must get its spending under control, get its deficit down and ensure that the effects of the currency devaluation are passed on earlier than in the current deal with the ACTU. The industry most seriously injured by these policy failures will be the housing industry and the people most seriously hurt will be the young home buyers of Australia. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(4.15) —I have been fascinated by the offering of the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) on the matter before us. After spending much of the first half of his speech berating the Federal Government for not encouraging enough capital spending, he went off on another tack during the second half of his speech and actually condemned the Government for spending too much. No wonder the Opposition is split. It has had plenty of practice in walking in two different directions at the same time. However, I address myself to the matter at hand. The principle underlying the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill I believe is representative of all the principles of economic and social policy for which this Government stands. The changes introduced in this Bill reflect a sustained and effective commitment to the dual objective of responsible economic management and long term welfare assistance to low and middle income earners. Since the Hawke Government came to office in 1983 Australia has enjoyed sustained economic growth and a significant reduction in inflation and unemployment. This has been achieved despite the fact that the economy we inherited from our predecessors was in a state of recession far worse than expected by either ourselves or the electorate. National economic recovery has therefore been achieved in a context of rigid budgetary restraint, necessitated by the economic mismanagement of the previous Government. Despite the difficulties of controlling a vastly overblown Budget deficit, this Government has achieved real economic growth and in doing so has introduced a number of successful initiatives. I mention this because one cannot divorce areas of social planning, such as public housing, from the econmic performance. Social policy relies on the wherewithal to implement it. The accord, in this context, is important. It is the cornerstone of this Government's economic policy and it has achieved broad consensus between the Government and trade unions on the future economic direction of this country. The accord has provided this country with the lowest level of industrial disputes for 17 years and it will continue to maintain living standards and promote long term employment for all Australians. The economic summit is important. Through the summit the Government has been able to negotiate with all sections of the community to determine nationally a future economic strategy that will guarantee growth and recovery. Then we had the tax summit, a consensus-based approach to one of the most serious shortcomings of our economic system. The ensuing tax changes constitute an attempt to share more equitably the burden of taxation, to relieve low and middle income earners and to redirect taxation to those who are more able to pay. The Hawke Government is the only government in our time to face willingly the political and electoral consequences of reforming the tax system in Australia. The Bill now before the House reflects the same principles of innovative policy, responsible economic management and the traditional Labor commitment to the welfare needs of this country. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the payment in 1985-86 of interest free capital grants to the States of $558m as part of the State governments Loan Council program, and the payment in 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 of amounts States may nominate from their loan council programs for the purpose of public housing. The second part of the proposed legislation allows for the provision of concessional loans for public housing by the States and the Northern Territory to a nominated amount which must be matched under the conditions of the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Act 1984. However, at the 1985 Loan Council meeting the Government decided that the 4.5 per cent interest for public housing concessional loans would apply only to 30 per cent of Loan Council programs for the three financial years. The intentions behind this change are clear and relate to what I said earlier about this Government's commitment to addressing both the need for economic recovery and the need for improved welfare. One of the most important elements of economic recovery is the need to reduce the Budget deficit. This Government, far more than our predecessors, has recognised this and has acted effectively to reduce the level of the deficit in public expenditure that can freely accomodate cut-backs while ensuring that those in need are catered for in the short term. If all Australians are to benefit in the long term and national economic recovery is to become a reality, the level of public sector borrowing is one area of public expenditure which must be controlled. By limiting the proportion of Loan Council loan programs for State public housing, the level of State public sector borrowings, which make up roughly half of the total public sector borrowing requirements, will be controlled and numerous benefits will flow on to the economy and to the people of this country. By reducing the size of the public sector borrowing, pressure will be taken off financial markets leading, as predicted by Ministers in this House, to a potential fall in interest rates, a reduction in the Budget deficit and the maintenance of the economic trilogy which this Government has set for successful economic recovery. But while public sector borrowings will be reduced, the Federal Government will be providing more money to the States and the Northern Territory under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. In fact, the funding for 1985-86 of $654.4m represents an increase of 5 per cent over funding for 1984-85. It is important here to note that in 1984-85 and again in 1985-86 all the Federal funds provided under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement will be grants. This country is well on the way to recovery and, as evidenced by the changes proposed in this Bill, the Government has recognised that private sector growth plays an important role in achieving that recovery. The States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill essentially reflects this notion. Under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement the States and the Northern Territory are also required to raise funds from their own sources, including surpluses and revolving funds accruing as a result of previous investment in public housing programs. In 1985-86, the States and the Northern Territory will be required to match on a dollar for dollar basis the $517.6m provided by the Federal Government in untied funds. The $22.7m provided for mortgage and rent relief scheme must also be matched on a dollar for dollar basis. When one considers that three of the States covered by the Bill-New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland-have never committed more than 25 per cent of their capital works funds to public housing, one sees that opposition to the proposed change has little strength. The honourable member for Deakin stressed the importance of capital spending. I point out that this Government is concerned not to eliminate capital spending but to see that such spending is not ad hoc but planned to meet the needs of the Australian electorate. It is important when one considers the long list of people waiting 18 months to two years for public housing in my home State of Queensland that the Queensland Government be induced to attract a full complement of Commonwealth funding for that purpose. The Queensland Government has reneged on its responsibility to Queenslanders by underspending in the area of public housing and missing out on the Federal dollar that it could have to relieve the situation. Instead, it pays for public relations exercises, in the form of expensive full page advertisements like the one which I now show to the House in the Courier-Mail in May of this year, trying to cover up its own inadequacies. This funding is a matter of priorities. Those States that have allocated the full amount of the loan portion of their programs for public housing in 1984-85 will be allowed to do so again in 1985-86. These States-Western Australia and South Australia-will not be adversely affected by the change, as the Federal Government has made special provisions for the new arrangements to be introduced progressively in those States. Therefore, in South Australia and Western Australia, the proportion of the nominated amount will fall to 60 per cent in 1986-87 and finally to 30 per cent in 1987-88. This Bill therefore is not an indiscriminate and ineffectual public sector cost-cutting exercise as those attempted in the 7 1/2 years of the Fraser Government were. It is a well-considered approach to an important aspect of the national economic strategy. In addition the Bill provides for a seven per cent increase in direct interest-free capital grants to the States for their 1985-86 Loan Council programs. These increased capital grants will help relieve the States of outstanding charges and will therefore free funds for other spending purposes. The Bill therefore proposes a more accurate representation of the financial support needs of the States, and will be of considerable benefit to the economic growth initiated by this Government. However, what distinguishes this Government even more than its economic performance is its ability to reconcile sound fiscal management with a long standing commitment to social welfare policy, something which Opposition members were unable to do when in government. They are now resorting to attack based on the words `fiscal management' without understanding how that may be achieved without hurting people. Nothing more ably demonstrated this dual commitment than public housing. If one looks at the performance of this Government in the provision of Government support for housing, one sees an outlay of about $2 billion in 1985-86, which is not bad in these hard times. Within this outlay there are a number of significant achievements, including the first home owner's scheme, which has given more than 82,000 Australians help in gaining their first home whilst stimulating the housing industry and creating jobs. Also included is the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, which will provide a record level of over $650m to the States for rental and home purchase for people in need. Within this agreement are a number of vital programs which will attack housing-related poverty and help those on the waiting list for public housing to gain assistance. These include the Aboriginal rental housing program which will recieve $53.3m in 1985-86; the pensioner rental program under which $36.6m has been put aside, representing an increase of 45 per cent over the funding for 1984-85; the mortgage and rent relief scheme, which will provide $22.7m to help low income earners gain accommodation; the crisis accommodation program under which $13.2m will be provided to give short term emergency accommodation to those in need of help; and the local government community and housing program which will provide $10m to help community groups find housing for low income earners. Within my own electorate of Lilley, the Wooloowin, Albion and Windsor community and housing self-help group is a prime example of how this scheme works in co-ordinating the efforts of people who cannot afford their own home and in putting a government dollar with effort from the community to achieve housing for people on low incomes. One can see the high priority given to public housing by this Government. The renegotiating of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement through the Housing Assistance Act 1984 provides a 10-year agreement between the Federal Government and the States and the Northern Territory to provide home purchase and rental assistance for low and middle income earners. This represents a long term assault on housing-related poverty. This year's allocation under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement is more than $390m higher than in the last full year of the Fraser Government. I repeat that the Hawke Government, whilst managing to trim back the deficit and practise restraint in overall spending, because of its correct priorities, has managed to channel over $390m more towards houses for those living in poverty than was managed in the last full year of the Fraser Government. The Australian Labor Party has always regarded public housing as a major priority and, since the election of the Hawke Government, funding for public housing has continued to grow and diversify. The great Australian dream of home ownership is turning sour while so many people do not have their own home in this land of otherwise comparative plenty. I feel certain that the trend which this Bill is supporting and which this Government has set towards more funding to assist low income people to rent and to own their own homes will continue under this Government. All Australians will enjoy the enormous social and community benefits of public housing in a secure economic future. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(4.30) —It is common for the Commonwealth Government, in times of high interest rates, to increase funds available to State governments to keep a supply of housing available in the community. It is typical that when fewer people can buy homes from their own resources Federal government comes to the aid of the community by providing to the States more funds for people on lower incomes. In that way some balance is maintained in the flow and supply of housing in the nation. That is exactly what we are seeing today. We are seeing burgeoning interest rates dampening down demand from private home buyers and home builders. This is supported by a government carefree with the taxpayers' dollar. One has to refer only to the current Budget to see the way in which taxpayers' contributions have been massively increased somehow to offset the geat damping effect of high interest rates. I refer the House to page 166 of Budget Statement No. 1 where it is shown that assistance for public housing to the States and Northern Territory this year has increased by a substantial 21 per cent. Also there are smaller increases for pensioner housing, Aboriginal housing and other areas of housing welfare. These are laudable objectives. However, economy and the figures are wrong. On the one hand the Government is seeking to grab money from the taxpayer. The biggest spending, highest taxing Government in Australia's history is grabbing more money from taxpayers and seeking to do for taxpayers what taxpayers would be better doing for themselves. This process has meant higher interest rates with fewer people capable of covering the demand of those higher interest rates and of purchasing their own homes. They are being locked out of the home purchasing market and the Government is supplementing funds available for housing from the taxpayers' pocket. There are other detrimental features added to this which are having a disastrous effect on the building industry in Australia. In this House we talk of the building industry. We should indeed be talking about opportunities for people to purchase or to establish homes of their own. However, it is difficult to tap the wishes of home builders or home buyers as a group, we therefore tend to talk about the building industry. If we look at the welfare of those people seeking to buy or rent we can be certain that the Government is completely against opportunities in the private sector for either home building or home purchase. One has only to refer to the announcement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on negative gearing and the proposed capital gains tax to see where that will put investors in the future. We can see that investors will shy away from investment in accommodation thus reducing wider opportunities for people to rent or purchase homes. Mr Robert Brown —What about the depreciation allowance for tax? Mr CADMAN —Goodness gracious me, that is a depreciation allowance of only 4 per cent. We cannot really count that as an offset. I refer the honourable member to statements of Mr Eric Risstrom of the Taxpayers Association of Australia in which he cans the Government. He completely slates the Government for making such an amazing decision. For the honourable member's benefit I will quote from that statement by Mr Risstrom because he is probably unaware of what Mr Risstrom has been saying about negative gearing and the paltry 4 per cent offset for depreciation. Mr Risstrom said: We think it's amazing they continue to talk about cracking down on `Negative Gearing' and yet they produce a scheme which could disallow ALL interest. Those are some of the factors about which Mr Risstrom is concerned. He is concerned that investors might be so involved that they will be hard hit by the negative gearing tax proposals of this Government. Mr Risstrom further continued: The methods used make it more of an out-of-control Wealth tax. As a tax shelter control it is an overeaction. That is a comment by Mr Risstrom of the Taxpayers Association of Australia. In fact, that little bulletin which comes out monthly and which is received by most members of the House is headlined `Treasurer Keating announced an unfair plan and must change ``negative gearing'' controls'. That is the view of the Taxpayers Association. That Association does not speak for wealthy people. It speaks for the average, small investor. The Association very clearly enunciated the difficulties of negative gearing in the building and investment areas of the building industry. I have a pamphlet, in which I have some self-interest, I admit, produced by the Real Estate Institute of Australia. It comments on capital gains taxes. In fact, capital gains taxes do not affect real estate agents but affect people who own property. Of course, real estate agents have an interest in turnover. That is the way they make their money. They do not have a direct interest in a capital gains tax. This pamphlet has a great headline which states: `There will be no new capital gains tax'. That is a quote from the Prime Minister R. J. L. Hawke on 16 February 1983. The Real Estate Institute says in that pamphlet that already $30m is raised each year by means of capital gains taxes. It says that it is now the proposal of the Government to extend this capital gains tax, to increase it by ten-fold to $350m. That is a massive amount. I do not know where that sort of tax will take incentive in the country. The Treasurer is out of touch with the average citizen. He lives in a world of big business and big unions and does not understand that the small investor is the person who must be safeguarded as being precious for the future of the country. We must give them confidence and the ability to go out and make decisions which are for the benefit of others. That is the approach that this nation needs. It is not getting that approach from the current Government. Ten times more money will be raised by the capital gains taxes currently being considered by the Government. This tax is causing great difficulties and rift within the Australian Labor Party. While we are on that topic I will conclude my remarks on capital gains taxes, because they are relevant to the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill, by reading from the editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald of 21 May 1985 which stated: While Mr Keating and the ALP Right are said to have little enthusiasm for a capital gains tax, the Centre-Left regards it as essential. Of course, the Centre-Left has also been arguing for the reintroduction of death and gift duties. It will be interesting to see how their enthusiasm for all three taxes stands up to the inevitably hostile reaction to Mr Keating's capital gains tax proposals. We have been through that. Look what has occurred and what we have been through in those few months since that May 1985 editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald! Who would have thought that during that period Mr Keating's proposal would have been completely shattered at the National Taxation Summit. Obviously, he has been forced against his will to pick up all the less attractive taxing proposals foisted on the Government by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I think that that represents a sad day for the future of Australia. I refer in detail to the Bill and the Government's proposed expenditure this year in loan assistance and grants to public housing. In fact, the increase in grants to the public sector for local government and community housing is in the order of 42.9 per cent. That is only a small amount of money because it represents only about a $300,000 increase in that area. One really must refer to the loan assistance proposals for 1985-86 in which there has been an increase of $86.3m in grants to the States and Territories. Commonwealth-States housing grant legislation will be considered later this year by the Parliament to decide the precise level of funding in that area. The grant we are debating today is to provide scope for the payment of concessional housing loans for the first six months of 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) set out the details clearly in his second reading speech, brief though the speech was. He said: 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. That is for six months. The Premiers Conference went rather badly for the States if they were interested in an increase in funding for welfare housing. The Commonwealth gave no real increase to State governments. There was a substantial percentage increase but no real increase. The Commonwealth offer to the States under this legislation is based on an inflationary factor of 7 per cent for the forthcoming year. However, it looks as though that will be blown. In 1983 the States were offered a 4 per cent growth in real terms beyond the growth in inflation. The States picked up an additional 4 per cent for welfare housing. In 1984 they were offered a real increase of 2 per cent. The political climate has changed. The Government is determined, in its wisdom, to launch into a program which it claims will produce tax cuts for the Australian community. Part of that process involves keeping the State governments quiet and ensuring that they do not demand funds. There has been a substantial increase in the Commonwealth's Budget. There has been a tax grab from the pay as you earn taxpayers which will account for 51 per cent of the total revenue raised in the Budget this year. The average working man, the person who pays his tax each week or fortnight, will pay more than half of what the Government gathers this year. He will be asked to fund the Government's welfare programs. If the Government were to bend its mind to decreasing interest rates, as an alternative, it would achieve the same objective. One of the reasons I am particularly opposed to this process of filling up State coffers and allowing State governments to spend taxpayers' money in this way without a proper accountability process is based on information that comes to me in my electorate and the circumstances under which State governments and their housing and land commissions spend taxpayers' money. State governments do not have to go out on the hustings and say that they will be increasing taxes for housing. The Commonwealth is allowed to do that and then the State governments spend those funds. I have been disturbed about the process of the sale of Commonwealth land and some of the conditions under which the Housing Commission of New South Wales and the Land Commission of New South Wales operate. I draw to the attention of the House a bid for Commonwealth land that was received by the Department of Administrative Services in September 1983. The bid was $2,650,000. A very good home builder-he builds low cost homes for first home owners which are of excellent quality-became aware of the Government's intention to sell land at this price. The New South Wales Minister, Frank Walker, was made aware of the circumstances, as was the then Commonwealth Minister for Administrative Services. In a letter to the Minister dated 7 September 1983 the principal of Barina Pastoral Co. (Dural) Pty Ltd Investments, Mr Len Hoyle, said that within 12 months of purchasing land for low income buyers he had built 150-odd homes. Three years later, the State Housing Commission and the Lands Commission had still not completely built out the land that they purchased at the same time. Mr Hoyle tried to purchase land from the Commonwealth. He put in a bid of $4m for land which the Commonwealth eventually sold to the State Government for $3.5m. It is unbelievable that a Commonwealth Minister could sell land for half a million dollars less than was offered to him on the open market. I think that is a most regrettable situation. Not only did the Commonwealth receive less money for the land which it had for sale but also the taxpayer had to foot the bill and home buyers will have to wait for up to three years to get into houses built on this land. It would not have concerned me so greatly if that circumstances had not recurred recently at Castle Hill in my electorate. The same process was gone through by the State and Commonwealth Ministers and land was underpriced. The Minister had in his hand an offer to purchase land for $4.6m. In fact, he sold it to the State Government for $4.2m. That represented a loss of $400,000. In the two cases which I have outlined the Commonwealth lost nearly $1m through the old mate system of selling land. I wrote to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who said that he thought the land was sold at current market value. That is not true. The Minister said that there was no evidence to suggest that an increased price could have been obtained. I have given him the examples of how that could have been done. The Minister who made the sale had the offers for higher prices in his hand at the time. The Auditor-General is investigating the matter. All in all, it is a sad account of the way in which State governments can mismanage their affairs when they allow their corporations, which have no control, to go into high cost areas. For instance, the blocks of land at Castle Hill were priced at $60,000 each. I do not believe that any first home buyer can afford that sort of price for a block of land. I do not believe the scheme is being monitored in the way it should be. There should be proper accountability by State governments as to how they use taxpayers' funds. That has not occurred. The Land Commission of New South Wales is making available land which only the wealthy can afford. That is not its charter. The September figures indicate that a similar situation applies to land which is for sale in the Penrith, Campbelltown and Fairfield areas. In Penrith there is a price difference of only $100 between a block of land offered for sale by the Land Commission and a block offered for sale privately. The cost of Land Commission land is $26,300 and the cost of private land is $26,400. The Land Commission is selling land in Campbelltown for $600 above the price being offered by private land owners who have developed the land without the benefit of taxpayers' money. In fairfield, which is a similar area, the situation is even worse. Private land is available for $700 a block less. If there were any indictment of State governments for the way in which they operate and the poor administration of this Government, that must be it. They have taken taxpayers' money to fund something which is expensive and does not work. People are not able to buy houses in the way they should. Instead of coping with the real issues of the day-the real issues being interest rates and the affordability of housing-the Government is pouring more money into projects that are crazy and mismanaged. The State Government of New South Wales has had to redirect and readjust the activities of some of its public housing corporations and semi-governmental organisations. That will not solve the problem. The real way in which this problem can and should be solved is for the Federal Government to get off these crazy notions, which the Treasurer does not agree with, of closing in on negative gearing investment by renters, to get away from capital gains taxes and those sorts of crazy things which only hurt small people-people who are not wealthy-and to get back to a situation where positive incentive is given to people to prepare for their time in a home by allowing them to purchase land privately and freely at prices which are equivalent to or less than those being offered by State authorities, where there is no taxpayers' input and no contribution from those people who will effectively meet 51 per cent of this year's Budget. That is criminal. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(4.50) —I think no area of Government policy and action better distinguishes the Government and the Opposition than does housing. Also, no other area of policy provokes the degree of concern in the community about the Opposition's intention. No area of policy leaves it floundering so much as the application of its new-found ideology called privatisation. In this sense, I suppose, we have to recognise that the Opposition is having great difficulty determining whether it wishes to be absolutely non-interventionist and stay right out of housing, which is a major issue in the community, or whether it is going to be interventionist. I think it will have to address this important issue. The previous two speakers from the Opposition side did not clarify their position at all. They used a lot of words and talked about increased government activity. However, the real crunch question is what the Opposition would do about housing. For example, would it get rid of the first home owners scheme? Would it get rid of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, which provides an average level of activity for mortgage insurance? The area of housing really identifies where Opposition members stand. Of course, we have not been able to determine where they stand in this debate this afternoon. The Opposition is facing just the sort of dilemma that one imagines that it would face. The Opposition is attempting to apply an ideology in a fixed way and as a result it is in great difficulty. What happens if the world does not fit the Oppostion's view. What happens if the Oppostion says: `The world must be in this fashion'? That is exactly what the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) are saying. They are saying: `We will set about privatising; that is, we will sell off government activities and we will reduce levels of government activity in the economy'. The housing area provides a major problem because when government involvement is reduced problems in the community are increased. I will elucidate those problems in a minute. This debate also brings to mind the inconsistency of the Opposition. The Opposition is talking about deregulation. Yet if we were to apply deregulation to housing interest rates we would be looking at the moment at an increase of in excess of 2 per cent. I wonder whether the Opposition is prepared to countenance a housing loan interest rate increase of in excess of 2 per cent? I wish the Opposition would just give us an answer on this real dilemma that it has to face. The honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) asked whether the Oppostion was prepared to load that sort of burden on the community. Is the Opposition prepared to follow that path or is it prepared to give housing a high priority? The Government's position is clear. We support that view, as does the Master Builders Federation of Australia. I draw to the attention of the House a recent release by the Federation in which its chief economist, Gavan Forster, said that deregulation will not help home buyers. We are clear on this side that deregulation will not help home buyers and we hope that the Oppostion can clarify its position. I am also concerned that the Opposition in government might get rid of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, which seeks to provide at effective rates mortgage insurance for the housing industry. The Corporation sets the pattern and the tone for the market. The Government is concerned that if the Corporation is sold off the levels of mortgage insurance would be left to the whims of the market. We are not prepared to have our home buyers subject to randomness in that sense because housing is an important social and economic goal. Unfortunately-one does not have to go back very far in history to see this-the performance and the attitude of the Opposition on housing are very poor indeed. I will cover that in just a moment. We also have to bear in mind the fundamental issue that the Opposition has generally shown itself to be incompetent in terms of housing and economic policy. It has demonstrated this incompetence. In fact, the Opposition when in government managed to achieve the lowest housing commencement rate for 20 years. That really took quite a lot of doing. It managed to pull the rug out from under the building industry, the home buyers and the Australian community. It did this very effectively, so much so that when we came to office people were living in caravans. Very shortly after we introduced the first home owners scheme these people were able to qualify for a housing loan. I can give an instance in my electorate of Stirling in Western Australia of a married couple with two children living in a caravan who had no prospect of getting into their own home under the previous arrangments. These people are now living in a three-bedroom brick and tile home. They have been able to do so as a result of the first home owners scheme. Because we have regenerated employment, people such as this couple have been able to get jobs and service a loan. Also, the general trend of economic management has been such that people have been willing to take the risk of getting a loan. One does not go out and get a loan if one thinks that tomorrow one might lose one's job, because that is a great risk to take. One can be sure that one has a secure employment future only if there is a pattern of economic growth. Our performance in economic growth since 1983 when we gained office is quite marked in contrast with the performance of the Opposition. We have had average economic growth rates in excess of 5 per cent. The Opposition, during its seven years in government, had average economic growth rates of around 2.1 per cent. The Australian community has to recognise that if an economy is in decline, as it was during 1982-83, there is a great negative effect on people in the community taking the risk of getting a housing loan. The strongest note of caution that we in this place and the community generally should observe in terms of the Opposition's new-found ideology is that the economic policies that were pursued prior to the Hawke Government coming to office brought about high rates of inflation, high rates of unemployment and substantially reduced housing activity-as I indicated before, with the lowest level of commencements for 20 years. When that is combined with declining economic growth one gets the worst of all worlds, the condition of stagflation. That is exactly what we had. We have managed to reverse that. Let us not get too preoccupied with ideology, as I think is happening with some members of the Opposition. Let us not get too enthusiastic about Thatcherism and so on. I am concerned that some members of the Opposition are pursuing that line with great rigidity. I believe that some honourable members opposite have the good grace and judgment to know which policies will work and which policies will not work. But I am very concerned about their new-found enthusiasm for the ideology of privatisation. If the Opposition gets into government this ideology will destroy the economic growth and performance in certain industries that we regard as being important. What would the Opposition do with the first home owners scheme? Would it abandon it? Clearly, that is just not just a per- ipheral issue; it is a central issue. The first home owners scheme is central in getting people into houses and it is central in terms of social policy. The scheme achieves a great number of objectives. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), who is at the table, was the Minister for Housing and Construction when the first home owners scheme was introduced. He was witness, along with the Australian community, to the success of that scheme. Let me give some figures on the position in my electorate of Stirling. As at 30 June 1985 2,219 applications had been received for the first home owners scheme. Of that number 1,713 applications had been approved. The amount approved-and this is interesting in terms of the investment multiplier-was $8.457m and some $5.454m has been paid. If we were to use the most pessimistic investment multiplier of around two, we would be talking in terms of at least some $17m being injected in the economy in my electorate of Stirling. That is on the most modest calculation. If we were to take an investment multiplier of something like five we would be looking at a very much improved rate of economic performance. We would be talking about something around $45m being injected into the housing area in one electorate. That is a substantial turnaround and it is something that we in this place and the Government have to recognise. I say to those opposite that when they get very enthusiastic about getting rid of government activity and adopting a policy of privatisation the majority of people in the community at this stage recognise that some government policies are not only valuable but essential to the good conduct of economic activity. The first home owners scheme is one of those policies. It is up to the Opposition to clarify what it would do to that scheme. Obviously, there is still a great deal of confusion in the Opposition's ranks about how ideology should be applied. There has been a lot of running around among the Opposition benches to see how Liberal Party and National Party members will sort out their ideology and apply it rigidly. Members of the Opposition also have a strange enthusiasm for punishing parts of the Australian community. It has been fashionable for the Opposition, when in government, to punish trade unionists, the poor, the homeless and those who depend to some extent upon the public sector. I guess we will have to wait and see, when by some process of osmosis their policies rise to the surface, whether such policies as the first home owners scheme remain policies that it would pursue. The Opposition should be very cautious about rigidly applying its ideological notions. The problem it will face, and it is really a substantial problem, is this: What happens if the world does not fit in with its ideological view? Sadly, I must say that the world does not fit in with ideologies. The world happens to be a very human place. We on this side recognise that the most skilful thing one can do when in government is to begin the process of consultation, of bargaining and of resolving problems, and not creating problems by applying a very fixed view. I say to all those who will be talking about privatisation: Let us begin with something which we think is important, the first home owners scheme. Would the Opposition continue the scheme or not? The Government's policy is clear. We will continue it because we believe it to be a substantially valuable policy. I believe that it is important in this debate to look at the statistics in terms of the performance of this Government compared with that of the previous Government. The figures for dwelling commencements substantially reveal the paucity of the Opposition's position. In regard to commencements in the private sector, I will cite figures which have been provided by the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry, taken from the figures compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The figures for 1982-83 show that there were 92,340 private dwelling commencements in 1982-83. We lifted that figure in 1983-84 to 122,160, in 1984-85 to 136,000 and the forecast for 1985-86 is 124,200. There has been a substantial lift in the number of private dwelling commencements, from the low figure of 92,340 to the figure of 136,000 for the recently completed financial year, and a projected figure of 124,200 for the next financial year. Those figures contrast in a nutshell the level of economic performance under this Government with the level of economic performance under the previous Government, which was abysmal. The figure of 92,000 was a 20-year low, and something for which, I believe, the Opposition will stand condemned for some time. People who were forced to live in substandard accommodation will not forget that they were forced to live under those conditions because of the previous Government's economic management. Also, they will not forget that some Opposition members who have recently become what one might call born again have said that people in Australia would have to learn to live without housing. They would reverse the long term trend of our social policy goal of getting as many people as possible into housing. That is our goal and it has been achieved fairly well during our first 2 1/2 years in government. I will cite some further figures in regard to Western Australia. In 1981-82 there were 14,610 dwelling commencements. In 1982-83-and this was the disastrous year just before the former Government was defeated-commencements in Western Australia fell to 10,760. The figure for 1983-84 was lifted to 14,900. The figure for 1984-85 was 17,500 and the forecast for 1985-86 is 15,700 commencements. That is the contrast in regard to dwelling commencement levels. In 1982-83 the figure was 10,760. I know that the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) who will also contribute to this debate, is worried about another area of concern that I believe we on this side share-that is, the performance of government in regard to public housing. We were not satisfied with the performance in regard to public housing. The Opposition must address the fact that under privatisation-if we were, again, to apply its ideology-it would sell the stock of public housing. We saw that happen in Victoria during many years of Liberal Government. We find that in Western Australia the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hassell, is thumping around and saying: `We will sell off public housing'. Nothing so reduces the standard of living for low income earners than the selling of public housing. What we must do-and it is a major national goal-is try to increase the level of public housing. We have set about doing so. The Commonwealth- State Housing Agreement pays attention to that point. I know that we on this side wish to continue to apply pressure in debates to obtain a substantial level of public housing. In this context I pay credit to the State Minister for Housing in Western Australia, the Honourable Keith Wilson, who has achieved some remarkable performances in terms of public housing, and to the Burke Government which has made substantial commitments to this area. There was an increase in its last Budget, an increase of 100 per cent funding for public housing and for low interest housing, for those on low incomes who qualify for terminating building society loans. The provision of funds in that area has been very good. One of the things that the State Government is attempting to do to alleviate some of the pressures on people-this follows from the model set in New South Wales under its housing arrangements-is to remove stamp duty on transactions for those people who qualify under the first home owners scheme. That is another area in which we in government can provide a substantial lift in the standard of living for ordinary Australians. When honourable members opposite talk about their ideologies-they seem to be hammering those ideologies at the moment-I hope that at the end of all that talk they have in their minds that our first commitment must be to the welfare of all Australians and that we cannot afford to ignore those who are less well off. We must have concern for and commitment to those who are less well off. I pay particular tribute to what I believe is a very effective housing sector in Western Australia. The building companies, the trade union movement and the Western Australian Government, along with the Federal Government, have been very successful in getting the housing industry operating so that it is the most cost effective housing industry in Australia. People who can qualify for the first home owners scheme because of their income levels can move into three bedreeom, brick and tile homes close to the centre of the city and are able to service the mortgage quite adequately. Before the Opposition talks about privatisation being a strict ideological objective-I say this to the shadow Minister at the table, the honourable member for Mackellar, who is applying his mind to the question of privatisation-it should be very cautious about applying the ideology that it is hammering. If it applies that ideology, what would it do in regard to certain areas in which we believe there are important social goals? What would it do about the first home owners scheme? What would it do about the provision of mortgage insurance and the setting of appropriate rates for mortgage insurance? What would it do about funding, under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, for low interest loans? Again, that concerns public sector involvement. We do not retreat from that. In fact, our concern is to make sure that there is adequate provision. I believe that the Opposition has a major task in working out which side it will move to in respect of that issue. In summing up, I think it is important to say that, when we talk about housing, what must be understood is that historically we have had a long commitment in this country to the provision of both private and public housing. Some state governments have fallen short in their provision of public housing. The current Victorian State Government must repair a lot of damage in respect of the sale of the stock of public housing in that State. In contrast, there has been bipartisan support for public housing in South Australia. In that State there is a very adequate infrastructure for public housing. This means that the average person in South Australia is in much better circumstances than the average person in Victoria, where there has been a rundown in the stock of public housing. I say to those members of the Opposition who will be speaking in the debate that, when they are being admonished by some of their leaders about how rigidly they must apply this new-found enthusiasm, they should remember that the objectives of economic and social policy are to provide an appropriate infrastructure and environment so that people can lead healthy, active and productive lives. We on this side have no doubt that housing is central to this issue. Our policy suggests that not only should we regard it in that way but also that we should put our concerns into practice, as is borne out by the statistics. I have pleasure in this debate in supporting my colleagues and this Bill. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.10) —It gives me great pleasure to commence my remarks in this debate on the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill by paying two compliments. Though I do not always agree with the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), he is to be complimented on his excellent address. Mr Ronald Edwards —Thank you. Mr HODGMAN —Occasionally a compliment should be paid across party lines in this Parliament when it is well and truly earned. Mr Goodluck —Nobody pays me any compliments. Mr HODGMAN —They do. The honourable member for Franklin will receive a very big compliment later. I would also like to compliment and to congratulate the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) who has been appointed shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, an appointment I applaud and to which he is already applying himself with great enthusiasm and commitment. It has been my great pleasure over the past few days to take the honourable member to meet the National Executive Director of the Housing Industry Association and others. His appointment has been well received in the industry. I have no doubt that, judging by the way he is applying himself to the shadow portfolio-which is his first-he will display the same distinction in that position as his late and great father displayed as a Minister in the Menzies Government. It should never be forgotten that the late Sir Howard Beale was a great Minister in difficult times, whose standing in the community and in this Parliament was universally recognised and applauded. Having dispensed with those pleasantries, it is my duty to make the point-and I note the presence in the chamber of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) and I thank him for his courtesy in being present for my remarks-that the housing policies of the Hawke socialist Government are in absolute and total disarray. It has to be said that almost every promise made to the industry by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has now been dishonoured. I remind my fellow members and fellow Australians that it was the Prime Minister of Australia who last year over and over again faithfully promised that housing interest rates would go down in 1985. In that, Mr Deputy Speaker-and I am delighted that you are not involved-he was supported, aided and abetted by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and by the then Minister for Housing and Construction, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). I excuse the present Minister for Housing and Construction because, so far as I am aware, he did not publicly join with those others in repeatedly telling the home owners of Australia that interest rates would go down in 1985. As I have said on an earlier occasion, it was a massive confidence trick that deceived many thousands of decent Australians into voting for the Hawke socialist Government on 1 December last year. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, always pay great attention to detail, and you are entitled, rhetorically, to ask me what is the proof of the case I put. I want to talk about some of the statements made by the Treasurer and put them on the record here and now, so that he will not be able to wriggle away like a ferret when these matters are drawn to his attention. I remind the House that the Treasurer appeared on the national television program Sunday on 4 November last year and said: We have a further interest rate step fall ahead of us. He went on: We saw declines in housing interest rates of one per cent earlier this year and I am sure that there are further declines in housing interest rates ahead of us. Coming to 1985, on 26 February the Treasurer made a further statement. He said that he was quite prepared to stand precisely by what he said in the election campaign, namely that there was a further interest rate step fall ahead of us. When the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the then Minister for Housing and Construction all tell home owners that interest rates will drop in 1985, that surely is a profound and a substantial statement made to thousands and thousands of decent Australian home owners. Mr Goodluck —They have gone up. Mr HODGMAN —As the honourable member for Franklin says-and he has been most acutely involved in housing in his electorate, assisting those who wish to enter public housing and private housing-rather than interest rates going down, as the people of Australia were promised, they have risen. The plain fact is that in January of this year the prime interest rate went up across the board by one per cent. That was followed some six weeks later with the National Australia Bank announcing an increase of half of one per cent in its housing interest rates. Just a few days later the ANZ Bank followed the National Australia Bank by lifting its base home rate by 0.5 per cent to 12 per cent. We thought that was bad enough then, but look at the rates now. Housing interest rates have hit the top. They are the highest in real terms that housing interest rates have been since the Great Depression. So when the world's greatest Treasurer stands in this House and says what a marvellous job he has done, I remind him en passant that his gold medal will be repossessed very quickly indeed. Mr Goodluck —It is tarnished. Mr HODGMAN —It is tarnished; I agree. He has presided over the highest interest rate in real terms since before Mr Deputy Speaker was born-the highest since the Great Depression. In fact, I doubt that there is a member of this Parliament or anybody in the public gallery who has been around when interest rates have been higher. Yet the honourable member for Blaxland, the world's greatest Treasurer, says: `You have never had it so good', or, as he said on radio in Tasmania during the election campaign when a lady rang up and asked him a question on the economy: `Listen, I am the hottest thing you will ever talk to'. Mr Goodluck —He is still smoking! Mr HODGMAN —He is still smoking; and the home owners of Australia are still smoking. How on earth will they be able to pay their interest rates and meet their mortgage repayments? Tragically, we have now reached the situation in this country under this Government where a family that does not have two incomes cannot contemplate purchasing its own home. Unless a family has two incomes, it cannot meet its mortgage commitments. I do not want to be a preacher of doom, but we have seen it before and, sadly, we shall see it again. Decent young people in the western suburbs of Sydney have to walk away from their homes because they cannot meet the bills. The first and fundamental promise that was dishonoured by the Hawke socialist Government was that interest rates will come down in 1985. In fact, they have gone up and will continue to go up. No matter how much the Government tries to wriggle out of it, the shadow Treasurer was quite correct to press the Treasurer on this matter in the House today. The Government is trying to keep the lid on the pressure pot. There is no point trying to blame the Opposition. Labor has been in office since March 1983-admittedly, its last term of government-but it should not try to put the blame on us. The present Government promised that interest rates would come down, but in fact they have gone up. What was the second major breach of promise? The Treasurer is fast attracting a record for himself as one of the greatest breachers of promises we have ever seen in this Parliament. He seems to be an almost habitual breacher of promises. This was the second promise that was made by the Prime Minister. In his policy speech in November last year he praised the first home owners scheme-the greatest thing since sliced bread, he could have said. The first home owners scheme has done a lot of good. There is no doubt about that. What did the Prime Minister say to the people of Australia? He said that it was going so well we will `leave it as it is'. What happened? Within just 16 weeks of the Government's conning itself back into power for a further term the axe was taken to the first home owners scheme-the scheme which the Government said would be left as it is. This infant scheme suddenly found that it was chopped. As I have proved before, the chops occurred in the areas where those who are least able to afford them had to receive them-the poor, the needy, and the young employed women. What has the Government got against young, employed women? The plain fact is that they virtually cannot now qualify for assistance under the Government's scheme. That breach of promise has by now been forwarded to the Guinness Book of Records as the first promise broken in record time by the Hawke socialist Government following its re-election to office. I now come to the third promise which has been broken and torn up. The Prime Minister faithfully promised the people of Australia that his Government would maintain the number of new housing commencements in 1985-86 at least at what they were in 1984-85. It is in black and white. The Government said: `We will maintain the number of new housing commencements in 1985-86 at at least the same level as in 1984-85'. The honourable member for Stirling talked with pride about new housing commencements for 1984-85. Let us analyse the figures because they are now out. They show that for new housing commencements disaster is ahead of us. In 1984-85 the Hawke socialist Government achieved 151,000 new housing commencements. That means that 151,000 new houses were commenced in the financial year 1984-85. What did the Prime Minister promise? He promised that in 1985-86 that level would at least be maintained. He said to the people of Australia: `In 1985-86 you can expect that there will be at least 151,000 new houses commenced in Australia'. But what is the truth? Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be shattered to know that the Indicative Planning Council, under the very distinguished Australian Professor Fred Gruen, has told the Government that at best there will be only 140,000 new housing commencements in 1985-86. What do we have? We have the case of the disappearing 11,000 houses which should have been built in 1985-86 but which will not now be built. Mr Goodluck —They cannot afford to pay the interest rates. Mr HODGMAN —That is right. My friend says that they cannot afford to pay the interest rate but what I am pointing out is that 11,000 Australian families will not now be getting their new house in 1985-86. Mr Deputy Speaker, you represent a very important area of rural Australia. It will be rural Australia and the outlying areas of the States which most of all will feel the crunch of the missing 11,000 houses. I am particularly delighted that the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), is in the chamber because I will now mention something which I am sure he will be interested to follow up. This is not Hodgman propaganda; it is an estimate, based on economic assessment, from one of the major building industry unions in Australia today. Whatever one might think of the politics of the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia, the plain fact is that it has been pretty spot on with some of its economic predictions in relation to the building and housing industries. The New South Wales section of the BWIU has some very competent people. What has the BWIU told this Government? The BWIU has told the Government that its policies are such that the BWIU predicts 41,000 retrenchments in the building industry this year. This is not right wing Liberal propaganda, this is a statement from a union which is directly involved in the industry. It can see that as a result of the Government's policies, with interest rates up, with deposits for home purchase lending drying up by the minute, as has been pointed out by the Opposition in this chamber, and with the shortfall which Professor Gruen and the IPC have predicted-41,000 jobs will be lost in the building industry this year. What is the Government's answer? Perhaps when the Minister for Housing and Construction replies he will tell me whether he agrees or disagrees with the BWIU estimate. The Minister has never been short to say a few words but I have not heard him utter a squeak on the BWIU prediction. When others in the industry have told the Government-I and the new shadow Minister know they have told the Government-that it can expect at least 25,000 retrenchments in the building industry this year, I ask: `What are you doing about it?'. I am delighted to see the shadow Minister in the chamber. The Government is failing fundamentally to tackle what privatisation could do for the housing industry in this country and what it could do to the rights of Australians to own their own homes. Do not sneer at privatisation; give it a chance; give it a choice. Ask an Australian: `Would you rather be an owner or a tenant?'. Nine hundred and ninety-nine times out of 1,000, people would say that they want to be an owner. That is why we applaud the decision of the progressive and economically responsible Tasmanian Liberal Government, under Robin Gray, which has brought in a plan whereby those who are tenants can become home owners. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) will know for a fact that there are people in his electorate, in mine, in Franklin, Lyons and Braddon who are taking up this offer. What is so wrong with home ownership? Is the Government living in the past, remembering the words of the late Mr Dedman who talked about the home owners of Australia as a bunch of little capitalists? Does the Government want them to be prisoners, tenants, never to have the right to own their own home? The Minister should look outside Australia at the amazing success of this form of privatisation. To give someone the option to purchase his or her own home is the most privatised form of privatisation that one can think of. Stories that this will mean a short fall in the stocks of public housing in Australia are absolute codswallop. The Minister should look at the figures of the Housing Industry Association on housing commencement predictions and at what will happen to this country in just a few years time when we approach the twentieth anniversary of the introduction of the pill. Do not laugh. The introduction of the pill in Australia will have a dynamic effect on the number of houses required in this country from about the next four years onwards. The number will peak in three years. As we go into the 1990s we will find that fewer houses will be required in this country. It has nothing to do with politicans and nothing to do with political theory. It is all because of a thing called the pill. We have stopped producing babies who grow up, become Australians, marry and produce children. The little thing, the pill, will cause a very severe shortfall in the number of houses required in Australia from 1989 onwards. Let us look at some other areas of privatisation where the Government is wrongly trying to put the fear of God into people who would benefit from it. The Minister is no fool on economic matters but, unfortunately, every time he tries to speak in the Cabinet room, as we recently read in the Press, the Prime Minister, who is an economic pygmy, thumps the nulla-nulla on the Minister and says: `Unless you agree with me we will have a spill of all ministry positions'. That is absolute blackmail and a shocking thing to do to the Minister. It is a terrible thing to do. Tell me, is it better to pour out $1,000m in public capital and put it into the housing financial market or to put out a lesser amount to subsidise interest rate payments? Where would the money go further? It would go further if we could say to the building societies and the banks: `In particular cases we will let you utilise your funds but we will give the prospective home purchaser a little help'. It is with very great pride that I again congratulate the honourable member for Deakin, as the new shadow Minister for Housing. I wish him every success against the Minister. I believe that this is a major issue which will lead to the defeat of the Hawke socialist Government at the next election. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(5.31) —As indicated previously by my colleague the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), I address my comments to that part of the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill which provides for payment in 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 of the amounts States may nominate from their Loan Council programs as being for the purpose of public housing and payable under the concessional loan terms and conditions of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Many Australians rely on the provision of rented accommodation to meet their housing needs. Contrary to the popular myth that people who rent do so only temporarily until they can afford to buy their own home, the fact is that at least 20 per cent of Australians will be life long renters. These people suffer acutely from the shortage of rental housing. The housing crisis is at its worst in Sydney. Sydney's private rental market remains Australia's tightest with vacancy rates falling below one per cent, when 3 per cent is normally considered desirable to adequately meet the demand for private rental housing. Even in Manhattan, one of the tightest rental markets on earth, the average vacancy rate is about 2 per cent. Considering that these rates are calculated across the spectrum of rental housing it is hardly surprising that in some areas of Sydney, at the lower end of the price scale, vacancy rates are as low as 0.5 per cent. What do these figures mean in human terms? In a tight rental market, tenants and prospective tenants are subject to abuses, or at least insensitive practices, by landlords. Rents are escalating to ridiculous levels. Even traditional, although largely unacceptable alternatives for low income earners, such as caravan parks and cottages on the edge of the city, are disappearing. In the first half of this year, the median weekly rent for a three-bedroom house in Sydney rose by 23 per cent, to $160 a week. Reports are not isolated of substandard garden flats, otherwise known as hastily converted garages or chicken sheds, being rented by desperate families for $50 or $60 a week. Nor are the reports isolated of rental gazumping, which further disadvantages low income earners who cannot afford to compete with wealthier prospective tenants. This adds to the general rise of rental costs, although the NSW Government is currently implementing measures to eliminate this practice. Despite the high demand for rental housing, only 12 per cent of Sydney real estate agents were able to meet rental demand in the last financial year, compared with 35 per cent in the previous year. One in 20 Australian families is currently on a waiting list for public housing-twice the number on waiting lists five years ago. Nobody with any care or compassion for the needs and dignity of all Australians could possibly disagree that this is a crisis which governments and the community at large must take very seriously. Housing costs are a major contributory factor to poverty in this country, where many families pay more than half their incomes on rent alone. For those on pensions, benefits and other low incomes, the situation is even worse. We have a responsibility to ensure that the basic housing needs of the community are met. Those needs certainly will not be met by leaving them totally to the whim of the so-called free market-because in that market, lower income earners compete on grossly unequal terms. Honourable members will recall that in 1984 our Government renegotiated the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, under which Federal and State funds are used by the States to provide public rental housing and home purchase assistance. The renegotiation involved consultations with the States, local government authorities and a wide range of community organisations. The primary aim of the Agreement is to ensure that every person in Australia has access to adequate affordable housing, by seeking to alleviate housing related poverty and by providing housing assistance to both renters and home buyers as fairly as possible. In the past, the housing policies of successive governments were directed towards subsidising home buyers, rather than looking at renters' needs. We have a long way to go to redress the inequities that resulted from this bias. This Bill provides for the implementation of a vital part of the CSHA, that being the provision of an incentive to the States and the Northern Territory to increase the amounts they direct to public housing. To be eligible to nominate amounts, a State or the Northern Territory must first be able to meet its matching requirements under the Housing Assistance Act 1984. The Government recognises the considerable contribution made by such arrangements in the past to the financing of public housing in the States and the encouragement given to the States to increase their housing expenditure. The government has already announced that in 1985-86 $654.4m will be directly granted to the States for housing. A further $492m is available to be nominated under the provisions of this Bill as loans on concessional terms and conditions. So long as every State uses its nominated funds to the available limit, $1,660m will be available for public housing in 1985-86. Of course, the States may also add funds over and above this level. It is up to the States to meet the Federal Government's commitment to funding public housing-and the 30 per cent limit exceeds the amounts allocated by most State governments. The need in the community is obvious, as it is internationally, in all Western home-owning societies. It is also up to local government to take advantage of assistance available through the CSHA. In my electorate of Phillip, the most densely populated electorate in Australia, housing is an issue of pressing concern. Until recently, Waverley Municipal Council, one council in my electorate, led the way in local government housing initiatives. That is, of course, until the Liberal Party took control of the Council in late 1983 and literally set about destroying the Council's housing program. This makes a mockery of everything those opposite say about caring about the housing problem. Not only has Waverley Council ignored the availability of Federal funds to local government, it has also demolished homes available to many low income earners in our area. Under Liberal domination, Waverley Council has actually returned to the Commonwealth $1.1m that was granted to the Council by the Fraser Government. The Council demolished a boarding house which the previous Labor Council had renovated. It sold existing new accommodation of eight flats on the private market and it is now about to sell a block of land which was designed by the previous Council to have a block of 30 units for low income earners. That is what the Liberals think of housing in Australia for those on low incomes. At the same time, the State member for Waverley, Ernie Page, and I, regularly see constituents with terrible housing problems. I am pleased to say that Phillip is well served by the Eastern Suburbs Rental Housing Association which operates in the Waverley and Randwick municipalities under the State Government's community tenancy scheme, providing cheap quality housing for low income earners, where possible. One other point is relevant to the rental housing crisis and should concern us all. Since the Government first raised the issue of tax reform and the need to overhaul the taxation system to remove the rorts used by high income earners to avoid tax, there has been a vocal lobby against the removal of tax lurks used by property owners. We have heard a lot about this from the Opposition in this debate. Changes recently announced by the Treasurer quarantining negative gearing and introducing a 4 per cent depreciation allowance for new residential accommodation should have no influence on rental housing costs. The community should be aware that land- lords whose properties are already negatively geared are not affected by this reform. Those unscrupulous landlords and agents who use the change to justify rent increases-there have been reports of this happening already-deserve to be seen for what the are doing, cynically exploiting their tenants. There is no valid reason for such rent increases. As existing arrangements are not affected, there is no way that a landlord can use this decision to justify increased rents. The Opposition and the considerable vested interests that stand to lose from this tax subsidy claim that its curtailment will force up the rents and hurt low income renters. Even if negative gearing did provide benefit for low income renters, the Government believes that it is an extraordinarily expensive, inefficient and indirect way of providing such help. The fact is that the availablity of negative gearing did not stop rents rising in the past, nor did it ensure adequate supplies of private rental accommodation in several cities. Negative gearing encourages wealthy investors to compete with each other in bidding up prices on the existing stock of homes, thereby excluding low income people who might otherwise have been able to purchase. In contrast, the new depreciation concession should encourage new building for rental housing purposes and thus provide a strong incentive for adding to the supply of such accommodation. The Government believes that this will be a much more direct, effective and equitable form of rental housing concession. The only change from the tax changes should be a positive one, with the depreciation allowance encouraging the building of new private rental stock. As a result of neglect by the previous Government, the rental housing problems of this country will have to be resolved over time. This Bill is part of this Government's commitment to dealing with the problem. I commend it to the House. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(5.42) —I pay a tribute to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh). I subscribe to the proposition that if people deliver good speeches in this place it is fitting and proper for those who follow to indicate that. I compliment the honourable member for Phillip on her very sensitive coverage of a very difficult area. Her speech indicated a caring and well-informed approach. My views on the role of women in politics and public life are well known indeed and I suspect that the hierarchy of my Party and the various State branches have never appreciated my stand on this issue. If ever proof were required that women bring a certain type of caring thought to this place, the speech by the honourable member for Phillip indicated that. As an aside, I add that in some ways it is rather disappointing that women are not adequately represented on parliamentary committees, Cabinets and shadow Cabinets. Those bodies are the better for having women on them. I have always upheld that belief and, indeed I uphold it very strongly. In case there is any confusion, I repeat that women have a great role to play and that every Cabinet and shadow Cabinet would be better if it contained women representatives because women sometimes have a greater in-depth analysis of some of the social issues than we mere mortal men have. Whatever socialist politicians may want or whatever pseudo-intellectuals might think, the dream of the ordinary Australian is still to own his own home. Any government that ignores this dream, does so at its peril. Unfortunately, across Australia now this long-standing Australian dream of owning one's own home is being shattered because of this Government's economic and housing policies. It all comes back to this Government's concern to look after one privileged sector of the Australian community-the trade union movement. In effect this Government has divided Australia into two parts. The two accords, the back room deals over tax-heaven knows when we are going to get finality on that issue-and the support for the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its industrial campaigns show that this is a government for only the unionised part of the community, and only that part of the community with strong unions. In a speech that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) made in this Parliament on 12 November, he talked about the type of things that I am talking about and the types of things that the honourable member for Phillip spoke about. The honourable member for La Trobe said: My disappointment in the Budget is in respect of its failure to make very much of an improvement in the lot of poor people. Bishop Peter Hollingworth, the Executive Director of the Brotherhood of St Lawrence said: The rises in this Budget although well targeted to the poorest of the poor were not enough to prevent those people from being worse off in November than they were in March 1983 when the Hawke Government was elected. They are very significant points. It worries and concerns me that during the stewardships of this Government, which in an ordinary set of circumstances one hoped would have a real feeling for the poor-and I know you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are concerned-the very poor people in this country have become worse off. I hope that we can have a bipartisan approach by all politicians, State and Federal, to ensure that in two years time the very poor in this country are better off than they have been and are at present. I spoke about this Government being subjected to pressure from the unions. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in this Government's attitude towards my home State of Queensland. The States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill before us today is again confirmation of this attitude. This Government has sought to punish Queenslanders in the housing area because they had the temerity to elect a government which stands up for ordinary Australians against the excesses of union power. This Government stood by and did nothing while the trade union movement blockaded Queensland. This Government has sought to override Queensland Government legislation designed to provide Queenslanders with essential services. I now refer to a matter in relation to this Bill that too few people in this debate have placed any significance on. I can understand honourable members who have spoken previously in this debate concentrating on housing, but the Bill also deals with capital funding, and that is what I wish to address. Unfoutunately the Hawke Government has slashed Commonwealth funding to Queensland because the Bjelke-Petersen Government has shown this Government for what it is-a government that puts the interests of the trade union movement ahead of the interests of the community. Queensland has been unfairly treated by this Government in a number of areas. I am worried that the members from the Australian Labor Party who represent Queensland in this place have not been able to chink that armour of disadvantage by the Hawke Government to their State. Queensland has been unfairly treated by this Government in a number of areas. I agree with the comment made by previous speakers that housing, next to food, is of the greatest importance to human beings. Queensland will receive only $29 per capita compared with the average for the other States of $44. I do not know why this Government discriminates against Aborigines in Queensland. The Aboriginal housing grant system also disadvantages Queensland. Based on per capita housing assistance for Aborigines and Islanders, Queensland is being underfunded by $9.8m for 1985-86. Even though on 1981 census data Queensland has some 34 per cent of the total Aboriginal and Islander population, it will receive only 22.5 per cent of total Commonwealth grants this year. The story does not end there. These are not the only areas of significant Commonwealth underfunding of Queensland. In regard to Medicare, in 1985-86 Queensland is to receive an estimated $73.4m under the current Medicare arrangements. However, for Queensland to be fairly treated and for it to receive the same per capita amount as the other States, the Government would need to allocate it an additional $82m for 1985-86. Over the past two years Queensland has received an increase in Commonwealth payments of 14.5 per cent while in the same period Commonwealth discretionary expenditure-for the Government's own purposes-has grown by 29.4 per cent. Commonwealth tax collections in the same period have increased by nearly 32 per cent. That is not a very good story, and for Queensland it is a sad and sorry one. During the 1950s and 1960s most householders could expect to become owner-occupiers. However, the increasing cost of home ownership suggests that the future affordability of good housing in Australia is at risk. We are concerned to find that at present 75 per cent of Australians are owner occupiers-that is, they either own their own homes or are in the process of purchasing them. Whilst that is good compared with overseas statistics, such as 69 per cent for New Zealand, 62 per cent for Canada, 65 per cent for the United States of America, 53 per cent for the United Kingdom, 47 per cent for France and 29 per cent for Switzerland, it needs to be remembered that at one stage-at the stage when I was Minister for Housing and Construction, when the figures just happened to be very high-75 per cent of Australian people owned their own homes. The figure has declined, and I am concerned about that. The increase occurred because of the initiatives of the Menzies Government. I know that honourable members opposite are not proud of the Hon. John Dedman, Minister for Post-war Reconstruction. When he was asked under the Commonwealth State-Housing Agreement to give more money to the terminating building societies for home purchase, he said: `Hold it, no way! That will make them little capitalists'. Sir Robert Menzies, to his everlasting or eternal credit, said: `If making a person a home owner also makes him a little capitalist, I am for that'. Mr Lloyd —Hear, hear! Mr McVEIGH —I am glad the honourable member for Murray indicates that if making a person a home owner is turning him into a little capitalist he, like the late Sir Robert Menzies, the member for Groom and the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks), would be in favour of it. It is disappointing and depressing to see the present situation. Because of the Government's economic mismanagement, people buying their own homes today are paying the highest real interest rates for 50 years, the highest real rates of interest since the Great Depression. We have tried to get an assurance from the Government that it will manage the economy correctly so that real interest rates will come down, but each day the Treasurer (Mr Keating) huffs and puffs and cannot indicate the course that he will take. He knows that two years ago in the election campaign and since he has said that interest rates will come down. I have a great deal of sympathy for the ordinary worker-the person just married who wants to purchase his own home. Under this Government-Mr Deputy Speaker, I know, because I have had conversations with you, that you are not proud of it; I know that you are concerned about these things-on account of its budgetary and economic policies, a person with a housing loan of $40,000 is now paying $10 a week more in interest, as part of his interest and redemption payments on his house, compared with his payments in April last year. That is deplorable. Something has to be done about it. We have to show great concern about these matters. I hope that the next time we have a debate of this type we will be able to say that housing interest rates have been reduced. Short term interest rates in Australia are the highest of those of member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in real terms, and in nomimal terms they are second only to those of Sweden. The simple fact of the matter is that the cost of financing home mortgages and the cost of running small businesses have been going up enormously. The historically high nominal and real interest rates are acting as a deterrent to further expansion of the private sector. At the same time the huge public sector borrowing requirement continues to drain funds out of the money markets to fund the high demand from the Commonwealth Budget deficit and from borrowings by statutory authorities. Moreover, mounting inflationary pressures which are building up within the economy can only serve to push interest rates up still higher. Australia's inflation rate is now moving out of line with those of the major industrialised countries and, more importantly, with those of our major trading partners. The Budget forcasts that our level of inflation will reach 8 per cent-more than double the rate of our major trading partners-which will mean reducing Australia's international competitiveness even further. Moreover, it is evident from available statistics relating to inflation costs that mounting pressures are being exerted on our cost structures. For example-this is very important to the person who owns his own home and the person who is building a new home-the cost of imported materials for manufacturing industry rose by 16 per cent in the year to April 1985 compared with just 1.1 per cent in the year to April 1984. As these costs move throughout the manufacturing sector they will be reflected in rising outward prices and, consequently, higher inflationary pressures and higher costs of building homes for either home ownership of home rental. Cost pressures are becoming evident also in the building industry. The depreciation of the Australian dollar has seen a rise in the costs of imported high quality building materials used in the construction of hospitals, hotels and offices. As a result, the price index of building materials rose by 6.3 per cent in May, which is the highest monthly increase since June 1983. I ask honourable members opposite to spare a thought for home ownership when they are coming up with their final policy on wages, because every dollar of wage increase will make it more difficult for someone to purchase his own home. Compounding these problems is the Government's need to maintain a high real interest rate structure to prop up the lack of international confidence in the dollar and this Government's economic mismanagement. The future affordability of good housing in Australia is at risk, not only because of that factor but also because of the attempts by the two big building industry unions to force sub-contractors to become union members and to reduce their competitiveness vis-a-vis unionised day labour. That Australia's housing industry is the most effective of any in the industrialised world is a tribute to the extraordinary flexibility and productivity of its sub-contract system which comprises, for the main part, independent, self-employed small businessmen. It is this essential flexibility of the sub-contract system that has enabled the industry to expand activity levels by nearly 40 per cent over a two-year period without causing undue pressures on resources and costs or industrial disruption. The concerted attempts on a national basis by the building unions to establish so-called minimum rates for sub-contractors and to coerce them into becoming union members constitute not only a flagrant breach of the law but also a threat to the future affordability of housing. I give an assurance to the Australian people that the National Party will not have a bar of unionising the self-employed and the sub-contract system. Sub-contracting is how we get the job done. That is how a top quality product is turned out. The workers in that system are not worried about working under one rule or another; they are worried about building the best possible house at the least possible price for those who want houses. Let us be quite clear that if the Government tries to unionise the sub-contract system it is in for a fight with me, the Liberal Party and the National Party, because we will not have a bar of it. The high cost of money and increasing rental costs together have forced more people into the public housing market. I applaud the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Phillip when she spoke about the extraordinary conditions in which many people in the public housing market have to live. All of us want to work to overcome those problems. The end of negative gearing and the threat of a capital gains tax will not only multiply the high cost of money but also dramatically increase the number of people forced to seek public housing. A Bill such as this in reality does not address the overall problem of providing housing. What would address it would be policies which ruled out capital gains taxes and did not try to quarantine investment in housing away from other areas of investment and sound economic policies which would bring down interest rates. Unfortunately, as I indicated previously, this Government is presiding over the destruction of the Australian dream of home ownership. It is not doing enough to provide funds for public housing. I pay tribute to the Government of Queensland for the extraordinary advances it has made in public housing in recent years. In the period ending June 1985, as compared to the period ending February 1984, the number of people on waiting lists for public housing in Queensland declined by a staggering 18 per cent. That indicates that the Bjelke-Petersen Government is one of sensitivity, understands the problem and realises that home owners are being forced out of the market on account of the economic policies of the Hawke Government. The Queensland Government realises that, unless it pours more of its money into public housing, we will have a repeat of the circumstances which the honourable member for Phillip indicated had occurred in far too many cases. We know that numbers on housing waiting lists today are fewer than a few years ago. The numbers of people on pensioner housing waiting lists are fewer than four years ago. The reason for this in part is due to a program in Queensland called the income geared home loan program which provides low-income people with the opportunity to own their own home. There is an enormous scope in these areas to devise policies so that people need no longer depend on public housing but can have access to their own home. My final point is that too often we find local authorities placing intolerable development standards on the provision of housing. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(6.02) —The States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill forms an important part of the Commonwealth's overall financial assistance to the States and to the Northern Territory. In general terms the Bill authorises payments in 1985-86 arising out of decisions taken at the 30 May 1985 Loan Council meeting which will fall outside the provisions of the Financial Agreements Act of 1928. The principal aspect of this Bill, and the one on which I will concentrate my remarks, is that section dealing with arrangements whereby the States and the Northern Territory are able to nominate part of their approved borrowing programs for public housing. As a condition of the payment of those funds the Bill contains the provision that a State or the Northern Territory must be able to meet its marketing requirements for the purposes of the Housing Assistance Act 1984. Subject to meeting those requirements, the nominated funds will be provided to the States and the Northern Territory on the loan terms and conditions which are set out in the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and hence, which is of enormous importance, they will bear interest at the highly favourable rate of 4.5 per cent per annum and will be repayable over 53 years. Therefore, this Bill will play a major role in putting into effect this Government's commitment to the Australian people to increase the availability of public housing and other innovative forms of low cost housing. Housing policies form a fundamental part of a government's overall policies for social and economic development. This Government has targeted its housing policies through three main programs. We have done it, firstly, by assisting Australians into home ownership through schemes such as the first home owners scheme. That scheme has been of enormous success in helping so many hundreds of thousands of first home buyers into homes. Secondly, we have targeted our housing programs by continuing to build the stock of public housing. That is an objective which is particularly relevant to this Bill. Thirdly, we have of course provided income-related housing assistance to tenants both in public and private rental accommodation. However, underlying all three of our approaches to overall housing policy in Australia has been our success in general economic policy. It has been our success in general economic policy in achieving real gross domestic product growth rates of approximately 5 per cent per annum and in getting more than 400,000 Australians back in work in the space of just over two years that has given real support and credence to our three-pronged attack on overall housing policies. It is that three-pronged attack of assistance in the private sector through the first home owners scheme, of continuing to build on public housing stock and or providing income assistance to tennants in private and public rental accommodation which forms the basis of the new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement-if I can call it that-agreed to by the Commonwealth and the States last year. There are a number of reasons why the Commonwealth believed it necessary to enter into a new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement with the States and the Territories. Foremost amongst those reasons was of course some of the statistics made available as a result of the 1981 census. Those statistics showed that some 132,000 Australians in 1981 were living permanently in caravans. Of the remainder of the population, some 37 per cent of renters in the private market were eligible for public housing but simply unable to maintain it. That was in 1981. In a sense it set the framework for the need for increased resources for housing in Australia. However, if we look at what the Fraser Government did about those demonstrated needs at that time we find that, despite those needs, in 1982-83 it provided a meagre $103.6m in net Commonwealth payments to the States for public housing. That figure of $103.6m compares extremely unfavourably with the funds made available during the Whitlam Labor Government. In fact, that $103m was only one-sixth in real terms of what the previous Labor Government had made available for housing in 1974-75. Since this Government has been in office we have provided substantial increases in funding for housing programs throughout Australia. We have provided substantial funding increases in the public housing sector and in the private housing sector. I emphasise that the primary aim of the new Housing Agreement negotiated last year is to ensure that every person in Australia has access to adequate and affordable housing by seeking to alleviate housing-related poverty and providing housing assistance to both renters and home buyers as fairly and as equitably as possible. A number of features of that Agreement are still relevant to the legislation we are debating. The major feature of the new Agreement provides that there will be guaranteed minimum Federal funding of $510m per annum for each of the 1985-86 and 1986-87 financial years. Included in that allocation will be $10m for the new local government and community housing program. Another feature of the agreement is the widening of eligibility for housing assistance to cover all groups including single people and youth. Of course, rental for public housing will be based on costs which provide the potential for a decline in real rent levels over time. The new Agreement also provides for revised home loan arrangements which link repayments to borrowers' incomes and it foresees the introduction of the local government and community housing program which involves local government and community-based organisations in the provision of public housing. I mention briefly two other matters of importance in the new Agreement. The first is the introduction of the crisis accommodation program and the second is the incorporation of the mortgage and rent relief scheme into the Agreement. That particular scheme provides assistance to rent payers and home buyers experiencing temporary financial difficulties and who operated previously outside the Agreement. I will say a few words on funding, which is relevant to that new Housing Agreement and to this Bill. In 1985-86 direct Federal funding of $654.4m was announced at the 1985 Premiers Conference. All of these funds are to be grants, even though the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement specifies that only 75 per cent of that funding need normally be provided in the form of grants. Federal funding levels for earlier years were $406m in 1982-83, $567m in 1983-84 and $623m in 1984-85. With the direct Federal funding and the States' matching funding, and assuming that the States use the nominated funds to the available limit, $1.66 billion will be available for public housing in 1985-86. Of course, the States may also add funds over and above that level. In 1984-85 direct Federal funding amounted to $623m, State nominated funds amounted to $405m and other State funding amounted to $541m-a total of $1.57 billion. The use of funds towards which that new agreement has been directed has provided an enormous boost in public housing stocks throughout Australia. It is estimated that in 1984-85, the first year of operation of the new agreement, some 17,973 dwellings, a record number, were added to the public rental stock. That addition compares with a very mediocre 8,759 dwellings in 1982-83. Despite the very considerable increases in assistance that I have outlined under that program, there is still a continuing demand for both public and private rental housing in Australia. Despite those big waiting lists for public housing, which continue to increase, and waiting lists for home purchase assistance, which also continue to increase, there is still a large number of people in the private rental market who pay a substantial proportion of their income in rent. That is a matter which this new housing agreement is attempting to address. I have outlined the provisions of the Bill, how it relates to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and what that agreement might do overall for the housing stock in Australia, but I would like to examine what it means in pure, simple practical terms in reference to housing development-private, public and locally-in Australia. In Victoria, the effects of this Government's housing policies have been quite dramatic. We have seen that housing industry activity in Victoria in 1984-85 is now at its highest level for 11 years. The recent report of the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry indicates that there were 39,200 total housing commencements in Victoria in 1984-85. I mention that figure because it represents a 16 per cent increase on 1983-84 and a 50 per cent increase on 1982-83. That is the first effect of this new housing agreement and the combined effect of the Government's housing policies. More houses are being built in Victoria. In fact, the rate is 50 per cent higher than that which prevailed during the last period of the Fraser Government. I refer to what this means in Bendigo. Statistics prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that in the June quarter local government granted some 226 new housing approvals in the greater Bendigo area. That compares with the figure of fewer than 100 approvals for the last quarter of the Fraser Government. In money terms it means more than $10m of new housing approvals in the greater Bendigo area in the June quarter of 1985 compared with only $3m in the last quarter of the Fraser Government. So it represents a very great plus in terms of overall housing activity for Bendigo. What does it mean in terms of public housing? Perhaps it is in this area that the Bill and the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement have had a major impact. In the full year of 1981, under the Fraser Government, some 22 public housing dwellings were constructed in the greater Bendigo area. In 1982, the figure was 41. In 1983, under this Government and the Cain Government in Victoria, 97 public housing dwelling units were constructed. The latest figures show that, in 1984, 111 new public housing units were constructed in the greater Bendigo area. In simple terms, that means that on the 1981 figure there has been an increase of 500 per cent in the stock of public housing which has been constructed in the greater Bendigo area. I conclude by making a few remarks about some of the comments that have been made in this debate by Opposition speakers. With the exception of the last speaker, the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), Opposition speakers have not tended to concentrate their comments on any real need in our nation for public housing or housing generally but have clouded this whole debate in their ideological pursuit of jargon such as `privatisation' and `allowing market forces to determine supply and demand'. In my view, we have heard an enormous amount of drivel, very little of which has related at all to the Bill before the House. It is clear to me that the Opposition learned nothing from the period in which it was in government and it is learning nothing from the period in which it is now in Opposition. The first thing the Opposition did in the housing area when it was in government was destroy home ownership. Despite all the rhetoric today about home ownership, all the Opposition did when it was in government was destroy it. It did nothing for the homeless. It dealt sledge-hammer blow after sledge-hammer blow to the building industry. It decimated that industry over a period of years. All that the debate today has shown about the Opposition is that it really has its head in the sand as far as housing policy goes. One really has to ask the question: What does all the technical jargon such as `privatisation', `free market forces', and `intermediation' mean to the thousands of Australians who live in squalor? What does it mean to the tens of thousands of Australians who live permanently in caravans? What does it mean to the homeless youth throughout Australia who daily and nightly sleep in the streets? What does it mean to the battered wives of this country who have nowhere to escape their aggressors? What `market forces' means to those people is absolutely nothing. What the Opposition ought to do is get out into the community and have a real look at the needs that exist. It ought to acknowledge this Government's success in its housing policies, both in the public and private areas, because our success puts the Opposition's efforts to shame. In conclusion, I want briefly to recap that in 1984-85 housing approvals, Australia-wide, are the highest for 11 years. There were 150,000 new approvals this financial year which represents a real increase of 44 per cent on the last year of the Fraser office. In terms of public housing, in 1984-85, under this Government, 17,973 new public dwellings were constructed compared with 8,759 in the last year of the Fraser Government. Victoria this year had the highest level of approvals for 11 years. The 39,200 new approvals represent an increase of 50 per cent on the last year of the Fraser Government, in terms of what it could manage in 1982-83. Let us look at what it means in Bendigo. Housing approval figures for the June quarter of 1985 show 226 approvals, valued at $10.3m, compared with the last quarter under the previous Government's feeble efforts when there were fewer than 100 approvals, valued at $3.3m. There has been a 300 per cent increase in housing activity under the policies of this Government. What does it mean in terms of helping people to obtain their first home? In the Bendigo electorate it means that more than 1,500 first home owners have been assited with grants of up to $6,000 to buy their first homes. More than $6m of assistance has gone into the Bendigo electorate to help Australians realise that dream of home ownership. What does it mean in terms of public housing in Bendigo? It means that this year, under the combined policies of the Hawke Government and the Cain Government, 111 new public housing homes and units were constructed in the greater Bendigo area compared with a feeble 22 that were constructed under the previous Government in 1981. That represents an increase of 500 per cent. As for the Opposition's arguments that the private sector will be the answer to all of these problems in the housing area, it might look at a survey which was done between 1979 and 1983 regarding private rental housing in Bendigo. This survey analysed the number of private rental dwellings available for rent which were advertised each in the Saturday Bendigo Advertiser. Lo and behold, the survey indicated that in 1979 there was an average of 26.3 advertisements a week. In 1980 there were 28.8 advertisements a week. In 1981-here we come to the crunch-there were 24 advertisements a week and, in 1982, 20 advertisements a week. The private sector simply did not have the answers for meeting housing needs, nor will it under the Opposition's policy. The Opposition seems hell bent on privatisation and on allowing market forces to look after the whole of the housing sector. Our housing policies have worked. They have provided increased levels of home ownership for Australians in the private sector. They have provided increased and improved support for those Australians who cannot afford the luxury of home ownership. We have increased public housing stock and private housing stock. We are meeting and we will continue to meet the needs of those Australians who require housing. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(6.20) —It is with pleasure that I rise to sum up this debate very briefly for the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) who introduced this Bill in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Treasurer. In doing so, I should point out that debate centred mainly on the housing aspects of the Bill which is concerned with State works and housing finance approvals. The Opposition really has ignored the public works aspect of this Bill which it has used as a vehicle to criticise the Government's housing policies. As a result there has been a very wide-ranging debate on housing for a Bill of this type. Opposition speakers have told us what John Dedman was supposed to have said 40 years ago. However, there was very little responsible or constructive comment about Australia's required housing programs. The housing aspect of the Bill seeks approval for certain percentages of approved public borrowing programs for the States to be used for public housing purposes. Of course, it is very relevant to have a quick look at what has been said about the Government's public housing programs. The Government renegotiated the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement towards the end of 1983. This program has worked very well indeed. We have seen record amounts of combined Federal and State money directed to public housing. The Labor Government's Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement has an untied and a tied component and the States have to match the untied component. The tied components involve innovative programs such as the local government and community housing program and the crisis accommodation program together with three programs that we inherited from the previous Government, namely, the Aboriginal rental housing program, the pensioner rental program and the mortgage and rent relief scheme. As has been said, we directed $654m, all by way of grants, towards these programs for 1984-85. But we went further and said that we would continue the nominated fund borrowing arrangement-and this is what this Bill seeks approval for. Under this Bill a certain percentage of the Loan Council program can be directed in this way. I estimate that under this Bill almost $500m will be made available during 1984-85 to the States for public housing at the highly concessional rates of 4 1/2 per cent payable over 53 years. As has been pointed out, this means that almost $1,150m worth of Commonwealth money will be made available to the States for public housing. If one adds the State matching funds, almost $1.7 billion will go into public housing. As far as I have been able to ascertain, that, in real terms, will be an all time record. This performance is in direct contrast to that of the previous Government which made a miserable effort in terms of having a public housing agreement with a base funding arrangement of only $200m as a Commonwealth contribution. Of course, the Government has put a lot of emphasis on the first home owners scheme in the private sector area. An amount of $290m was expended last financial year and $290m is expected to be spent this financial year. This means that about 225,000 applicants seeking private home ownership will have been assisted by this Government by the end of June next year. That is a wonderful effort. I want to make a point before the vote is put on the second reading motion. I just sat and listened in silence to the misdirected criticism of Opposition speakers, hard as it was to take, regarding the Government's effort first in public housing and then in housing generally. I remind the Opposition that in its last year of office there were only 105,000 housing commencements in Australia. In the first full year of office of this Government housing commencements totalled 137,000. The number was 151,000 in 1984-85. Yet, members of the Opposition have the audacity to say here, as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) did today-despite the fact that under their Government starts crashed from 132,000 in 1981-82 to 105,000 the next year-that the possibility of a moderate downturn in 1985-86 to in excess of 140,000 commencements is somehow an extremely bad thing. Honourable members opposite made no reference at all to what happened under their policies in the early 1980s. The Government also has a very good record in respect of public housing which is the sector of housing to which this Bill directs its attention. As a result of the Commonwealth and State funds that are going into public housing, we will see a doubling of the number of acquisitions and starts in the State public housing sector this financial year compared with what occurred under the last year of the former Government. I conclude my summing up of the debate by pointing to the hypocrisy of the Opposition with regard to its comments on interest rates. As I said at Question Time today, the Opposition's comments on this matter are most confused and hypocritical. The Opposition does not seem to know where it is on interest rates. On the one hand it says that general interest rates and housing interest rates are far too high. On the other hand, it says that monetary policy should be firmed up much more which, of course, would make the price of money even dearer. It also says that housing interest rates should be deregulated which, of course, would mean in the short term a possible surge in those rates. Of course, we have said that over time interest rates will come down. We are not confused about this matter. We are saying that we will not deregulate, that we will not lift the ceiling and that the future of housing interest rates and, indeed, general interest rates, will be determined by the outcome of monetary and fiscal policy. We have brought the Budget domestic deficit down to $1.4 billion-a reduction of $2.4 billion. We have reduced the expected bond issue this year by $2.5 billion. The future of housing interest rates will also depend upon the future level of the exchange rate and the outcome of our wages policies about which we are very confident. All of these things will impact on interest rates. Finally, I make the point that over time, as our policies impact on the economy, general interest rates should fall. There is nothing really in the Opposition's arguments about the need to reduce pressure on the public borrowing sector because that is what we have done. Of course, the expectation which I have outlined is the logical end result of our policies. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr West) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(8.00) —The purpose of the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1985 is to authorise the Treasurer (Mr Keating), on behalf of the Commonwealth, to guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas Airways Ltd to finance the purchase by the company of a Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft and related spare parts and equipment. The guarantee is limited to an aggregate of $US115m or its equivalent in other currencies. This will be the fourth 747 extended upper deck aircraft for Qantas and it is additional to the three that were ordered, along with six 767s, for $US760m in late 1983. I understand that the first three are now in service and that the fourth is to be delivered in March 1986. It is encouraging for Qantas that international air traffic is increasing again and that this aircraft will be needed on the Australia-London or kangaroo route, on which there is very strong competition. A number of other companies are already utilising this type of aircraft, or have orders for such. Evidently, it is a popular type of aircraft. Qantas, of course, is also facing increasing competition on the Pacific route, particularly with the recent announcement that Continental Airlines will provide extra services. There is the threat or promise of the United Airlines takeover of Pan American World Airways which will also add to competition with Qantas in the Pacific area in the future. I note from newspaper reports that Qantas's headquarters in Sydney is for sale at a figure of $200m plus. I believe it is appropriate for Qantas to be concentrating its finances on its first priority, which is aircraft. If, by the sale of its headquarters, it can have a better commercial arrangement and therefore reduce its loan commitments, that would seem to me to be sensible. After announcing a profit-and a very good profit-for the year ended 31 March 1985 Qantas, I understand has been having some difficulties in its trading for the first few months of the current year. This is due to a combination of the increase in fuel prices, the fact that it does have- Mr SPEAKER —I do not want to restrict the honourable member for Murray, but I remind him that, as he so rightly said at the beginning of his speech, this is a very restricted Bill relating to the provision of certain equipment to Qantas, namely, a Boeing extended upper deck aircraft. Under the Standing Orders and practice of the House, the debate must be relevant to that rather narrow area. I trust the honourable member is not indicating that he is going to broaden the scope of the debate, as I would have to restrict him strictly to the Bill that is before us. It is one of those occasions when the terms of the Bill are very restricted. Mr LLOYD —I take the point, Mr Speaker. I think I could say that when one purchases new equipment, one needs new crews to fly the additional aircraft. We are talking about an extra Qantas aircraft. The point is that it is having this short term difficulty, as it does need new crews for its aircraft. Also, I understand there was a forward purchase of some tickets because of devaluation. The purchase of the Boeing 767s and 747s, which are part of the loan guarantees that we have discussed previously and which we are discussing tonight, will enable new services to be introduced on the Pacific route. Hopefully, this will mean a greater range of services, flexibility and more direct flights to and from various ports in Australia. I noticed in the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) that satisfactory offset arrangements have been made. I quote from the Minister's speech: 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. In regard to this question of offsets-this is an important part of any sort of re-equipment arrangements for Qantas-the then Minister for Defence Support, at the time of the earlier purchase of the first three extended upper deck aircraft and the 767s, stated that the Federal Government or, if one likes, Qantas, had achieved 27 per cent of the imported value for air frames, engines and simulators and that this was close to the Federal Government's target of 30 per cent against overseas purchases. But the Minister made the statement at the time that no decision had been made by Qantas on its choice of seats and galleys, but further offset negotiations were under way with prospective suppliers. In the Minister's second reading speech in relation to the loan guarantee arrangement that is before us, we are referring also, as I understand it, to offsets in relation to the major aircraft purchase. I ask this question of the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation, who is at the table: What happened to those earlier negotiations to get additional offset arrangements for the 1983 purchase? Were further offsets available or were they able to be arranged for the galleys, seats, et cetera? What is happening on this occasion? In total, what sort of percentage are we getting in relation to offset arrangements? When one looks also at the equipment or the aircraft that Qantas will need now and in the future, it is also relevant to look at the domestic air policy review that is now in progress. Qantas has made a number of statements to the effect that it believes that it should be entitled to a greater on-carriage of passengers to various ports that it serves in Australia than has been the case in the last few years, and that this would be helpful in developing the tourist industry in Australia because better packages for tourists could be presented. I concede that that is a strong argument. Obviously, if it is successful in regard to the review or in persuading government, more aircraft and more of these types of Bills will be necessary. Also, in regard to Qantas's future viability and, therefore, its ability to purchase aircraft, various government spokesmen and others have made points about the Opposition's attitude to the future of Qantas. I quote one paragraph-and that is all it is-from the official election policy of the coalition parties for the 1984 election: A minority interest in Qantas's shareholding will be open for purchase by employees of Qantas, by any superannuation or like fund maintained by Qantas, by Australian citizens and Australian companies. An appropriate interim limit in the size of shareholdings will be placed on ownership of shares so issued. The point I am making is that, contrary to the comments of certain people that somehow or other the coalition would threaten the viability of Qantas and its ability, therefore, to operate such a large fleet of aircraft and equipment, that is obviously not true. In fact the coalition would actually allow for worker participation, or membership by the workers, in regard to some of the advantages and benefits enjoyed by Qantas, which is presently the case in a range of other countries. Mr SPEAKER —I hope the honourable member is not going to continue that line. Mr LLOYD —No. I was actually moving on to air freight, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member has so far stuck to the terms of the Bill in response to my warning. That is fair enough. Mr LLOYD —On the new passenger aircraft that Qantas is purchasing, whether it is a Boeing 747 or 767, and particularly the 747, there is a large freight capacity. For example, I am told that a 747 can carry 40 tonnes of freight, and freight is obviously an important part of the overall operation of Qantas. I commend the Minister on the inquiry he has instigated or had established into the international air freight policy for this country. There is a growing interest in fresh agricultural exports, exports of a perishable nature, from this country to our near neighbours. The 767s that were part of the previous guarantee arrangement will operate on these routes, and they also have a certain freight capacity. One has in mind the freighting of out of season fruits and vegetables from various parts of Australia, including asian pears from the Goulburn valley. Qantas is our flag carrier for freight as well as for passengers. There are about three times the south-bound freight coming into Australia than north-bound freight. Therefore, there is not generally a capacity problem. Qantas will have to look at whether in future it will need specialist aircraft, as well as the passenger type of aircraft about which we are talking tonight if it is to provide the flexibility of air freight arrangements that this country will increasingly need. Perhaps the policy should be made more flexible to allow the addition of special purpose aircraft rather than the additional capacity for freight in the 747s and 767s to service some of these markets. It is in relation to air freight and Qantas-its capacity and responsibility as our flag carrier for freight internationally as well as for passengers-about which on behalf of the Opposition I must express concern in view of the present industrial dispute which is preventing the export of chilled meat from this country. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now going well outside the warning I have previously given him. I must ask him to observe the narrow nature of the Bill, which relates to the purchase of a Boeing 747 extended upper deck aircraft. Mr LLOYD —The point I wish to make, which I believe is appropriate to the narrow confines of the legislation, is that the Opposition considered moving an amendment to this Bill. That amendment related to the deferment of approval of this loan guarantee arrangement until such time as that dispute was resolved. We were concerned that Qantas had this responsibility and the freight capacity to carry perishable forms of goods from Australia and to maintain our export potential. The Opposition decided not to proceed with such an amendment, but we feel that if this issue is not resolved by the time this Bill reaches the Senate, and if Qantas has not better lived up to its responsibilities-because it has special responsibilities as well as advantages as our flag carrier for freight as well as for passengers-the Opposition will have to reconsider its position and possibly move for deferment in the Senate. As this is a narrow debate, Mr Speaker, and as you correctly pointed out it has a narrow title and we are talking about loan guarantees for this fourth 747 extended upper deck aircraft, I will conclude my remarks by saying that the Opposition supports the legislation, but maintains its ability to move for deferment in the Senate if the present industrial dispute in the Qantas air freight system is not resolved by the time the Bill is in the Senate and those chilled meat exports are not moving freely again. Mr LEE(Dobell)(8.15) —I support the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill. Its purpose is to authorise the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to guarantee borrowings by Qantas Airways Limited to the value of $US115m for the purchase of an additional Boeing 747 extended upper deck aircraft. When this aircraft is delivered in March 1986 it will bring the total Qantas fleet to 28 aircraft, increasing our overseas airline's capacity to meet the renewed market growth in international air travel. I congratulate the Government on negotiating offset arrangements with the airframe and engine manufacturers. Mr McGauran —What is an offset arrangement? Mr LEE —I would hate to have to give the honourable member an education lesson at this time of night. These offsets will provide orders and the transfer of technology to Australia's aircraft manufacturing industry. This Bill de- monstrates the Hawke Government's continuing commitment to revitalise Australia's public enterprises in general and our commitment to revitalise Qantas in particular. During the previous Government's years in office Qantas was starved of capital investment and disrupted by industrial disputes. In each of the four years prior to the election of the Labor Government Qantas recorded operating losses. During our first term of office, Qantas received an injection of $60m of additional equity capital. In November 1983 this Government approved a fleet modernisation program worth $860m. This Bill is further proof of the Government's commitment to this fleet modernisation program. On 31 May 1984 the then Minister for Aviation, the honourable member for Swan (Mr Beazley), issued new guidelines to Qantas directors. These guidelines gave our flag carrier greater freedom and flexibility in managing its commercial activities. The Commonwealth Government's controls on decisions by Qantas to spend money and on decisions to enter into leases were relaxed. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member for Dobell of the warning I have previously given the honourable member for Murray. He is now getting into the area of general policy statement rather than the purchase of a Boeing 747 extended upper deck aircraft. The Bill is narrow in its terms. I ask him to confine himself to the Bill. Mr LEE —Thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker. While this Government's first Minister for Aviation, the honourable member for Swan, and the current Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) deserve full credit for this Bill and the many other reforms which have been brought in, I congratulate the Qantas management team and the many thousands of dedicated employees who have worked hard to provide the Commonwealth of Australia with this return, the profit. I wish to make a few comments on the Qantas maintenance centre based at Sydney International Airport. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Dobell must relate his remarks to the purchase of the Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft. Mr LEE —I seek your guidance on that, Mr Speaker, in that the aircraft will be maintained at the Qantas maintenance centre at Mascot. Mr SPEAKER —It will also land at aerodromes in many parts of the world, but that would not allow the honourable member to discuss those aerodromes. I suggest he should confine himself to the Bill. Mr LEE —Thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker. At this stage I would mention that on leaving high school I sought employment as a cadet engineer with Qantas. After many interviews and several tests I was unfortunate in failing to gain employment with Qantas. That might say something else about the quality of management in Qantas. Mr SPEAKER —I think the House will allow the honourable member that diversion. I hope he will now come back to the Bill. Mr LEE —Clause 5 of the Bill outlines the guarantees which are provided. It states: For the purpose of the protection of the financial interests of the Commonwealth, the Treasurer shall not give a guarantee under section 4 unless- (a) the moneys are borrowed on terms and conditions that the Treasurer is satisfied are reasonable; (b) appropriate security to the satisfaction of the Treasurer is, or is to be, given to the Commonwealth over property of Qantas Airways Ltd, being property 85 per cent of the value of the interest of Qantas Airways . . . The important point to make about the provision of security is that under this Bill the Parliament will be allowing Qantas to borrow $US115m overseas and, because the Federal Government will be acting as the guarantor, Qantas will be able under this Bill to borrow that amount at a very low interest rate. If, as the honourable member for Murray suggested in his speech, the Opposition combined with other parties in the Senate and refused to pass this Bill, I think it would be important to consider what the net effect on Qantas's operations would be. The net effect would be that Qantas would have to raise $US115m overseas at a greatly increased interest rate. It is important these days, when some groups talk about selling off Qantas, to consider that a Bill such as this would not come before the House if Qantas were sold off. We have to realise that the effect on prices would be quite significant. To make Qantas pay taxes and not to pass a Bill such as this Bill, which allows Qantas to borrow loan funds at very cheap interest rates, obviously would have a massive effect on the cost structure of Qantas. It means that Australians would be paying larger amounts for their fares. In this Bill tonight we are continuing the Government's commitment to Qantas to improve its air fleet and showing that the Government stands behind Qantas. At this stage I would like to quote from a very famous book called The Age of Uncertainty by J. K. Galbraith. Although it does not deal with the Bill in particular, Mr Speaker, I think it is relevant to the debate in question. Mr Galbraith referred to a mythical air firm called UGEAIR and tried to show the dichotomy between the manager of an airline seeking to run a business and obtain loans such as those outlined in this Bill and the need for looking after things in the public interest. He quotes the mythical manager of this firm in an address to stockholders as follows: My message in government-the ever-expanding maze of government regulations, the ever-increasing cost of bureaucracy, the dead hand of government on enterprise, the blighting impact of welfare checks on people, what the handout state is doing to the work ethic, the belief that all problems can be solved by throwing a little of your and my money at them. In a word, I speak to you of socialism . . . Later in that same speech, the same mythical chairman of the board of directors-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member come very quickly to his point about the Bill. Mr LEE —I have two more sentences to quote in order to finish off that point. The very same chairman of directors sought increased government ownership and an increase in mail subsidies. Another point which perhaps should be made is that the aircraft which will be purchased under the terms of this Bill will be maintained and looked after in the same way that Qantas maintains and looks after the rest of its fleet. Qantas carries out an extensive range of non-destructive, routine maintenance tests. As an electrical engineer, although, as I explained before, I never had the opportunity to become an aeronautical engineer with Qantas, working at a power station I had occasion to use some of the following tests which, I understand, Qantas performs on aircraft such as the Boeing 747 extended upper deck aircraft. These non-destructive tests allow a problem to be identified before catastrophic failure occurs. Inspections are carried out at the Qantas base using the latest scientific techniques on Boeing 747s such as the one dealt with in this Bill. They include x-ray, ultrasonic, isotope, borescope, magnetic particle, fluorescent particle and dye penetrant tests. I am very pleased to say that Qantas now also uses the latest electron microscope techniques to investigate the structure of engine debris and oil samples. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member is straying once more. Mr LEE —By allowing the Government to be its guarantor in raising $US115m overseas under this Bill, Qantas is, of course, freed from having to invest its funds in other areas of its operation. I was interested to read that recently a study had been done which compared the forms of Qantas's maintenance procedures against those of its non-United States competitors. The same procedures would be used on a Boeing 747 of the extended upper deck class such as that provided for in this Bill. It should also be remembered that in this comparison Qantas suffers from a handicap in that it is 24 hours away from original suppliers. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member will suffer from a handicap in a moment if he keeps away from the substance of the Bill. Mr LEE —In that comparison Qantas turned out to be better at maintaining aircraft than any of its non-United States competitors. While I am on the subject of Qantas and its attempts to raise $US115m overseas, I am also very pleased to note that Qantas is working very hard to earn other foreign exchange which would reduce the necessity for a similar Bill to come before the House. Qantas maintains other people's aircraft such as those owned by the United States Air Force, those owned by the Canadian Air Force, those backed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and those of many other groups. I would now like to turn to the future of Qantas but I am not sure that Mr Speaker will let me, so perhaps I should pass on that too. I conclude by saying that the Bill before the House is part of the Government's commitment to put $US115m into Qantas. If honourable members opposite were let loose and able to carry out their own policies, if anything, Qantas would be flogged off to the highest bidder, whether it was someone from Australia or overseas. Mr Lloyd —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I quoted the actual official policy which did not say that at all. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr LEE —All I have to do is challenge the honourable member for Murray simply to give the same declaration on Qantas that he gave on Telecom Australia. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.27) —The Qantas Airways Ltd (Loan Guarantee) Bill is entitled: A Bill for an Act relating to the provision of certain equipment for Qantas Airways Ltd. That is a rather peculiar definition or short title of the Bill because it is not a Bill for an Act for the provision of certain equipment for Qantas; it is a Bill for an Act for a loan guarantee. We are not providing the equipment; the Boeing aircraft company is. As a consequence, I do not think we need to deal any further with that short title unless the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) is prepared to change it. If we are talking about a loan guarantee-that is not what is stated; it is the provision of certain equipment for Qantas Airways Ltd-the previous speaker the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), as he has had some engineering expertise, should have spent his time telling us why it is good or bad equipment. I thought we were talking about the money. This Parliament deals with this type of legislation because we are elected to this place to protect the community and its money. It is interesting to note that the previous speaker was at pains to tell us that we will be guaranteeing $US115m when, because the sum is in United States dollars, we will be guaranteeing an unknown quantity of money; and for the information of honourable members opposite that figure has changed considerably since the Budget was brought down. Mr Price —It is $US130m. Mr TUCKEY —If the honourable member could count he would know that it is $US170m. To guarantee $US115m today-US67c being the equivalent of one Australian dollar-means that we have to guarantee $A170m. But at the time the Treasurer (Mr Keating) introduced his wonderful you-beaut Budget it was not $A170m; it was probably $A160m. Can anybody, the Minister in particular, tell the Australian people what the figure might be next week? Consequently, I think there is very good reason for this House to take a deep breath and decide whether or not, in these times of uncertain currency fluctuations created by the present Government, the people of Australia should have their name put to this piece of paper which tells us that it is something to do with the provision of certain equipment for Qantas Airways Ltd when it is asking them to guarantee a debt whose size they do not know. That is the first point. There are other reasons why people should be very careful about contracting this debt. Evidence is available today why the people should be concerned about guaranteeing this business enterprise called Qantas Airways Ltd because Qantas is not delivering the goods. By its own conscious decision it has reduced its revenue. By doing so it has reduced its chances of paying this money. Is the Treasurer prepared to guarantee out of his own pocket a company that cannot deliver the goods, cannot deliver meat to Japan and other places to gain revenue, revenue to pay this debt? I am talking about a debt that has to be repaid. That does not worry members of the Government. They borrowed $20,000m in the last three years; they are not worrying about paying it back. Mr Price —What are the exchange rates? Mr TUCKEY —If the honourable member wants to interject on me, he will get more of it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will return to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —I have not for one minute diverted from this Bill. It is a very grave situation that a company today, by its own decision, is refusing freight at its freight terminals. That is work that would create revenue to repay a debt of $170m, as it stands today. Members of this Parliament are being told to stand up on behalf of the people who have elected us and pass this Bill to put Australia another $A170m, $A200m or $A250m in debt because we are contracting a debt in US dollars. The United States economy works on different principles from ours and has a very stable currency which is ever increasing in value. We are contracting for $US150m. The Australian company is very interested in the interest rates that it can get on this huge debt. Let us remember that a 2 per cent shift in interest rates means about $3.4m. That is the sort of differential figure commonly available for those with Government guarantees because the people of Australia stand behind the debt-not the Treasurer who stands here, or the long and the short of it, the Minister for Aviation. The international lending authorities are not interested in that guarantee. In international money markets the Keating signature does not stand for a great deal. Those markets know what the Treasurer's signature stands for. It stands for a guarantee by the Australian people. The Government suggests that we allow the Australian people to contract this debt when the company that wants them to guarantee those debts cannot guarantee our exports. It is costing us money. In fact, the company is damaging its own revenues and its ability to repay those debts. This legislation confronts us with whether or not the Australian people should guarantee a debt when meat-literally tonnes of it-one of the best exports and revenue earners cannot be exported by this company because it fails to have-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor shall not go into the debate on the export of meat. He will confine himself to the Bill. It is concerned with a Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Speaker, I ask for your guidance. I drew your attention to this at the beginning of the debate. The Act is entitled: `An Act relating to the provision of certain equipment . . .' I argue, Sir, that that short title in fact has nothing to do with this Bill. I ask you to rule whether this is a Bill about guaranteeing money or providing an aeroplane. Mr SPEAKER —The short title is: `Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Act 1985'. Mr TUCKEY —Now we are talking about money, not the provision of an aeroplane. You called me to attention on the provision of aeroplanes. Mr SPEAKER —The Bill is for a specific purpose. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Speaker. What are my responsibilities in this place? Am I to raise issues of that firm's ability to repay this debt or am I obliged to give carte-blanche approval because in my view-- Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member is obliged to keep himself within the limits of the discussion of that Bill and not broaden the debate into a general debate. Mr TUCKEY —I am certainly avoiding a general debate. Mr SPEAKER —I appreciate the effort that the honourable member is making but I am giving him the same warning that I have given the honourable member for Murray and the honourable member for Dobell. Mr TUCKEY —I do not need a warning. I am very concerned, and my responsibility as a member of the Parliament calls on me to protect the financial interests of my constituents and the people of Australia. Mr SPEAKER —Provided the honourable member keeps doing that within the Standing Orders and practices of the House, the Chair will assist him. Mr TUCKEY —Further, it is my responsibility to convince the members of this place, even those who have very little control over their vote, that they must be sure that this company can repay this money. A few basic business principles are involved. One is that if one knocks back business one is in financial difficulty. Consequently, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that today Qantas is refusing cargo. It has room for it. It is refusing it through its freight terminal where it services other airlines at a profit. Those profits are reduced. The Minister for Aviation will jump up in a minute and tell me that, with all the Federal money that Qantas has had given to it, it does not really need this business. I hope he does, because that is evidence that we need another airline. Revenue has been reduced because the company has refused to handle certain products brought to it-because it has failed to come to agreement with or control its work force. I understand that its work force has given reasons why it should lose this revenue. They are health and safety reasons. The unionists are refusing to handle supermarket packs of good Australian lamb-the sort of thing that they carry home for their wives on Saturday morning. There will be trouble in the community because these unionists, if they are not hypocrites, will have to tell their wives next week that they will not help them carry home those products. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The honourable member will come back to the Bill as detailed. Mr TUCKEY —I thought that that was a point-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member has made the point. He should not reiterate it. Mr TUCKEY —Let us get back to the revenue situation. If honourable members think that meat is the only revenue that Qantas has been refusing recently, I refer them to what has happened to the wild flower industry in Western Australia. I will read from a letter that I have received. It states: On the other hand, the fresh flower industry has been virtually wiped out in the last 12 months due to a complete lack of Air Freight space out of Perth Airport to Europe. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member is once again moving away from the provisions of the Bill. As did Mr Speaker, I accept that the failure to carry freight and thus lose revenue is valid, but I do not expect the honourable member to detail every portion of the freight that is not being carried. I suggest that he get back to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —With due deference, Madam Deputy Speaker, when this Bill comes to the vote of this place you have a responsibility as a duly elected member to protect the financial welfare of your constituents. Surely it is my responsibility-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair has a responsibility to put the Standing Orders into effect. It is a responsibility given to the Chair by the members of this House. Listening to Mr Speaker's advice to the two previous speakers in the debate about where they could and could not range, I think that the honourable member for O'Connor would agree that he has been given reasonable latitude. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not believe that I have been given one scrap of latitude. To be quite honest, I think that I have been interrupted somewhat in attempting to alert the Parliament to this disastrous situation. The loan is for $170m today. This Minister says: `We will lend it to Qantas'. That is what the Government is doing. A guarantee in business is the same as a loan. Any businessman knows that if a friend says `Will you guarantee me for $50,000?' in fact he has contracted a debt of $50,000. The constituents of honourable members opposite, on the advice of this Minister, have been called on to contract or guarantee a loan of $170m or $180m-we do not know what this Government is going to do with the exchange rate. We know that the Government has depreciated the dollar by a further 3c since it brought in its you-beaut Budget. However, what we do know is that it is the Opposition's job to protect the constituents. How can honourable members make a decision on this Bill if they are not given examples of what is wrong with the business they are going to guarantee? I have already told honourable members that Qantas is knocking back business today because it cannot carry an industrial dispute. Either Qantas does not know how to handle the dispute or the masters of this place have said: `Well, it is our mates-the Transport Workers Union-and you will do as you are told. Who worries?' The Opposition is saying that we have sincere doubts about this matter. In fact, had it been my choice we would have opposed the legislation in this place. That will most certainly happen in another place. We have advice from other people to enable us to know that the Senate will do that unless Qantas gets back into the business of accepting freight available to it for revenue in the interests of Australia and Australian businessmen. Mr White —Perhaps it has more than enough money already. Mr TUCKEY —Qantas has plenty of money because every time it wants some more, this Minister comes in here and asks the people of Australia to guarantee it. The Minister cannot even tell the people of Australia how much Qantas might owe one day, but the people of Australia are supposed to get behind this wonderful enterprise. Madam Deputy Speaker, you have told me that I should not warn the people of Australia that wild flowers cannot be sent from Western Australia. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Chair did not say that. The Chair asked the honourable member to stay within the Standing Orders given to it by honourable members. Mr TUCKEY —There seems to be great sensitivity in certain areas over this Bill and the circumstances surrounding it. In the time left available to me, I have to persevere in an effort to warn Australia that Qantas is in fact fast becoming an enemy of our export industry. Mr White —It is knocking back revenue. Mr TUCKEY —It is knocking back revenue. It is knocking back good business and yet it wants those same people-farmers who cannot deliver their meat and wild flower people who cannot get their flowers carried and who have been obliged to send them from Fremantle to Melbourne and back again on the same plane that lands in Perth, with the result that huge revenues are lost in summer time because it is winter time where they want to send them-who are losing revenue to put their names on the dotted line and sign up to defend this company. Those people have to risk their income through the tax system and through being Australians for a company that will not do business with them. As it is a government company, the responsibility rests with this Minister. The Minister might find that his confidence and his cockiness in this place will not do him much good in the other place if he is not prepared to explain how Qantas is going to recover that revenue it is throwing away or when it is going to regain that revenue. If the Minister does not explain that the Government may not have this Bill passed. That is going to cost Qantas a lot of money. Be that on the Government's head because the Government has not done anything to try to resolve this problem. The reason is that the Government does not think it worth it to have big trouble because a few meat processors and a few farmers are going to lose some money. Just the other day I read to honourable members what the Japanese think of this. It was a most interesting telegram because it came from a man's heart. His final words were: `We wish she would have as much meat as strikes.' That is the situation. We have one unionist against another. We have a 100 per cent value added product going out on these aeroplanes, not live and not with the wool on, but as lamb chops. That is the best possible result for Australian workers, but this airline, which wants a $170m guarantee from the constituents of honourable members opposite, will not have a bar of this freight, will not even handle it in its own freight terminal and put it on a Cathay Pacific flight. Qantas does not want it and does not want to know about it because that might hurt, or otherwise it has got instructions from this place. I say that we should not lend Qantas the money, that we should not give it the guarantee until it resolves this situation. It is a case of money. Mr Lee —Move an amendment. Mr TUCKEY —The amendment will be moved in the Senate. The honourable member should not worry about that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor does not need any assistance. The honourable member for Dobell will not interfere. The honourable member for O'Connor is quite capable of handling his own affairs. Mr TUCKEY —And he has handled it pretty well. There is good reason for the Opposition to be concerned about the performance of Qantas. There is every reason in the world to question why the people of Australia-- Mr Hand —You're a joke! Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member for Melbourne represents some of the poorest Australians and he will sell them down the drain. He will give this guarantee away to a big airline. I bet he has some meat workers in his electorate who next week will be stood down because this dispute is worker against worker. We have a 100 per cent value added product and the honourable member for Melbourne is saying that for some obscure reason it is not to be exported. That is the situation. That is why the revenue is down. Nobody knows what the Government is on about. It is hitting the very people who, despite Mudginberri and everything else, need help, and that is the point. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will get back to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Deputy Speaker, it is all about revenue. Qantas is not demonstrating that it should have the confidence of the Australian people to have this $170m guarantee because it is not running its business properly. It is unable to handle this type of dispute. Qantas took its stewards on once, but that was a big issue. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is moving further and further away from the subject of this Bill. Mr TUCKEY —On that occasion Qantas set out to protect its revenue. It gave me confidence that it could repay its debts. However, on this occasion it will not protect its revenue and that does not give me the confidence to recommend to my constituents that they put their name on the line by means of this guarantee. I wish someone would argue with me that it is not the people of Australia who are concerned because the Government has certainly behaved like that on plenty of occasions. Let us get the point straight. The point is that Qantas does not warrant the guarantee if it cannot deliver the goods. In fact, it cannot deliver the meat, and that is the position we are in today. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(8.48) —The Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill authorises the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on behalf of the Commonwealth to guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas Airways Ltd to finance the purchase by it of a Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft and related spare parts and equipment. The Bill deals with aircraft. The Bill deals with money. By implication, the Bill deals with the business of Qantas. Sub-clause (2) of clause 4 sets down a loan guarantee limit of $US150m or its equivalent in other currencies. Clause 5 of the Bill provides for a number of conditions to be complied with prior to the Treasurer giving a guarantee of the kind referred to in sub-clause (2) of clause 4. Towards the end of 1984 Qantas took delivery of its first Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft. The company now has three such aircraft. It is expected that a fourth such aircraft will be delivered in March 1986. The three initial aircraft were ordered in a package which included six Boeing 767-200 extended range aircraft. Two of the Boeing 767 extended range aircraft have been delivered and the remaining four aircraft will arrive by March 1986. This Bill is part of a series of legislation. An earlier Bill came before this House in October 1984. This is the second Bill of its kind to come before this house dealing with a single package of loan raisings to acquire a number of extended range and larger aircraft to enable Qantas to take advantage of the upturn in the tourist market developing in the world today. These aircraft were bought as part of a fleet modernisation program by Qantas. The company will fund the cost of the program from its own resources through the Hawke Government providing guarantees on some of the associated borrowings by Qantas. This modernisation program has seen the replacement of aging and less efficient Boeing 747-200 series aircraft which were purchased in the early 1970s. The new Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft embody the latest technological improvements. For example, these new aircraft will be powered by the latest generation and fuel efficient Rolls Royce engines. This aircraft has proved very popular with passengers, particularly business passengers. There is greater passenger comfort than was available in the earlier Boeing 747-200 series aircraft. Out of the same package, the Boeing 767 extended range aircraft will give Qantas greater flexibility and efficiency in catering for markets where the Boeing 747-200 aircraft were unsuitable. The smaller sized Boeing 767-200 extended range aircraft will give Qantas the flexibility to provide increased frequency of service on a profitable basis on routes where 400 passenger jumbos such as the Boeing 747-300 series aircraft are too big for either frequent services or profitable services. The long range capacity of the Boeing 767 extended range aircraft allows them to be deployed on short haul routes such as the trans-Tasman, as well as long haul operations such as from Australia to Singapore and Manila, and even to Tokyo. In other words, those aircraft will give greater flexibility to Qantas than the Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft. Some years ago, only 30 per cent of the total traffic carried by Qantas originated overseas while today approximately 50 per cent of Qantas traffic comes from outside Australia, and this percentage continues to grow. Since April 1985, the rate of in-bound tourist traffic carried by Qantas, latterly on Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft, has increased by 26 per cent from Japan, 21 per cent from Singapore, 23 per cent from the United States of America and 8 per cent from Europe and the United Kingdom-an area which for a number of years had little growth in Qantas traffic to Australia. I stress that the main advantage of the Boeing 767 extended range aircraft, which is part of the same package deal as this Bill that provides for loan raising with respect to the Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft, lies in the opportunity to use the smaller aircraft to increase services into parts of Australia where considerable potential exists for in-bound tourism. Accordingly, as a result of the packages contained in this Bill and the previous such Bill which came before the House, an improved frequency of flight is now possible on routes such as from New Zealand to Townsville and from Singapore to Darwin and Townsville. In the latter case, Singapore serves as a vital staging point for visitors to Australia from Europe, Asia and Japan. I hope that in 1986 Qantas will schedule Boeing 767 extended range services direct from Tokyo to Townsville. The tourism infrastructure of Townsville is rapidly expanding. The Townsville Sheraton hotel casino project-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The honourable member is straying from the provisions of the Bill. Mr LINDSAY —And other projects will enable Qantas to use to the fullest extent the Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft on its long haul routes and enable aircraft acquired out of the same package of financial Bills to be used on these short haul routes and particularly routes that are thinly trafficked such as the routes now existing from Auckland to Townsville and from Townsville to Singapore. In addition, the Boeing 767 extended range aircraft can carry up to six tonnes of cargo in standard containers or on pallets. North Queensland exporters of tropical fresh fruit and vegetables will be able to avail themselves of the large cargo capacity of this aircraft. The acquisition of the new Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft will enable Qantas to continue its campaign to motivate more Australians to travel overseas. Late last year it was estimated that about 50 per cent of Australians had never travelled overseas and about 36 per cent had made only one trip. The Qantas travel campaign was aimed at encouraging these people to escape from the daily routine. Although there was a slight decline-2 per cent-in outbound Qantas traffic earlier this year, since June 1985 there has been a 5 per cent increase in the airline's outbound traffic, much of it carried in Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft. Qantas needs extra aircraft seats to meet the expected growth in travel demand. It can provide the extra seats through the purchase or acquisition of Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft. It has not had an increase in seat capacity for at least four years. The international aviation industry is picking up. In the face of a very challenging trading environment, Qantas must, with vigorous and sustained effort, permanently secure its place as one of the most efficient and successful airlines in the world. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am sure that Qantas would be glad to hear that but it really does not form part of the Bill. Mr LINDSAY —Although travel demand is increasing, Qantas, by containing costs and increasing productivity through the acquisition of the new Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft, has achieved substantial economies. It needs the aircraft if it is to continue to face a very challenging and hostile trading environment and to continue to compete successfully in Australia with more than 30 aggressive foreign airlines without any of the attractive trade and tariff barriers available to most other Australian businesses. It should never be foregotten that in nearly 40 years, since the Commonwealth of Australia bought all the shares in Qantas, the company has not had one cent of subsidy from either a Federal government or State government. With the acquisition of this new Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft, Qantas will be able to stand up magnificently to the most fierce competition from airlines in countries with far lower wage scales and far greater help from their governments. One barrier against increased tourism to Australia was the decision of the Fraser Government, without notice or consultation, to cancel Qantas's rights to carry international passengers-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will not move into that area. I ask the honourable member to return to the Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft. Mr LINDSAY —The decision that led Qantas to acquire the Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft was prompted in many ways by the callous and brutal treatment of the Fraser Government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not move into that area. It is not covered by the Bill before the House. Mr LINDSAY —As I said previously, Qantas is acquiring the Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft to enable it to compete and to operate a successful international airline. It is competing against more than 30 airlines which, using these aircraft, operate a total of 126 flights each week and which service 54 destinations. Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 85 with particular relevance to `tedious repetition either of his own arguments, or of the arguments used by other Members'. I ask your ruling in respect of the speech of the honourable member for Herbert. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I must say that if we actually applied that standing order all the time we would not get much debate. The honourable member for Herbert may continue but I ask him to stick within the Bill. I take the point of the honourable member for Farrer but my point was valid also. Mr LINDSAY —That just shows how contemptuous the National Party of Australia is of Qantas and of its continued viability. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not move into that area either. Mr LINDSAY —Through the acquisition of the Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft Qantas will be able to survive in a rough and tough, no holds barred business environment. Threats by the Liberal and National parties to privatise Qantas will only undermine the capacity of Qantas to compete successfully against overseas airlines. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not move into that area either. I point out to honourable members that really there is no compulsion on them to use their full 20 minutes. Mr LINDSAY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I- Mr McGauran —Take the Chair's advice and sit down, you clown. Mr LINDSAY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask you to ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will withdraw. Mr McGauran —Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. Mr LINDSAY —The survival of an airline into today's fiercely competitive environment depends very much on having the most cost effective and the latest technology aircraft available. The Qantas fleet modernisation decision demonstrates confidence in Australia's future. It demonstrates the airline's desire to improve international accessability to our vast national tourist attractions with the most modern, cost efficient and suitable equipment available. The decision reaffirms the determination of Qantas to provide safe, efficient and regular air services at the lowest possible price. It is a decision taken by Qantas in the face of obdurate and stupid opposition by the Liberal and National parties, which seek to privatise Qantas against the interests of Australia. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Fisher. He will have heard, no doubt, that this is a very narrow Bill. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(9.05) —Madam Deputy Speaker, it would appear that the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill is indeed a narrow Bill. I was interested to hear the various ways in which you drew the attention of the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) to the Standing Orders. I am certain that every honourable member was very appreciative of the way in which you drew the attention of the House to the way in which the honourable member for Herbert was transgressing the Standing Orders. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Chair did no such thing. The Chair simply reminded the House that there is no compulsion on any member to take his full 20 minutes. The honourable member for Fisher must not put words into the Chair's mouth. Mr SLIPPER —Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I certainly would not in any way endeavour to do that. We have before the House tonight a Bill relating to Qantas Airways Ltd. This is a Bill which makes the taxpayers of Australia underwrite the debts of this nationalised company. It is an institution in which not one Australian-not even an airline employee-is allowed to have any shares. Why not? Because the current thinking of the Hawke Government-and the thinking of its predecessors-is that no individual should have the opportunity to be a part owner of Australia's national flag carrier. This Bill relates to a loan guarantee. Qantas is seeking a pipeline to the Treasury of Australia. Qantas is trying to have the taxpayers of this country underwrite, protect and cosset it. As far as the National Party of Australia is concerned, and as far as I am concerned, if the Government insists that Qantas, as a nationalised company, should operate in an unprivatised way it is important for the airline to wear the ordinary difficulties of any company in a rational economic climate. We are opposing this Bill here, and the Opposition in the Senate will defer this Bill if Qantas does not meet its obligations to carry Australia's products overseas. Qantas is refusing to carry Australian meat because of industrial action. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not move into a debate on that. Mr SLIPPER —That is a disgraceful situation. I am certain, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will agree with me on this issue. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not speak while I am speaking. The honourable member will not move into or explore that particular avenue. I thought I made it perfectly clear to the honourable member for O'Connor that while he may include the fact that the freight is not being carried he may not give a detailed exposition of what freight is not being carried. Mr SLIPPER —I believe that members of the Opposition ought to have the right in this House to emphasise the reason why we are opposing this Bill. If we are prevented from advising the Parliament why, it will not have a clear idea of why we are standing up and being counted on this vital issue. The Bill tonight-- Mr Leo McLeay —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. You called the honourable member to order but, rather than debating the Bill, he is now debating and questioning your ruling that he should keep within the limited ambit of the Bill. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member. There is no point of order. I am quite sure the honourable member for Fisher is going to stay within the confines of this Bill. Mr SLIPPER —It is my hope, and the hope of every member of the Opposition, to remain within the confines of this Bill, however narrow. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is a very narrow Bill. It is one of the narrowest Bills to come before the House. Mr SLIPPER —It is a very narrow minded Bill brought into this Parliament by the Hawke socialist Government. The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) saw fit to take a frivolous point of order. One has only 20 minutes to speak in this place. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair did not rule it a frivolous point of order. There is no need for the honourable member to make that statement. Mr SLIPPER —Madam Deputy Speaker, I considered it a frivolous point of order, although I do not presume to advise the Chair in any way. We stand in this Parliament and oppose this Bill. We oppose this raid on the pockets of every Australian. Does the Government prop up private enterprise, private business and private companies in such a way? Of course not; nor should it. Why should Qantas, a cosseted privileged quango, have the right to protection? Why should the taxpayers of Australia-the men and women of Australia-underwrite Qantas's business enterprises? Why can Qantas not operate in the ordinary difficult economic climate that Mr and Mrs average Australia must operate in every day of the year? If the Labor Party insists upon having government owned organisations such as Qantas, the Labor Party ought to be prepared to let them be subject to the normal wear and tear of business life. It ought not to expect us to underwrite its public enterprises. The Government is heading totally in the wrong direction. Instead of exposing Qantas to the situation in which it must make a profit, the Government is trying to give it an advantage. As far as we are concerned, it is not satisfactory for Qantas to benefit unfairly. We are not happy for Qantas to be treated in such a privileged way. We would privatise Qantas because we believe that Qantas ought to be owned by the men and women of Australia. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Fisher was present in the chamber when I asked the honourable member for Herbert not to move into that area. He will not move into that area. I call the honourable member for Fisher. Mr SLIPPER —I was very interested to see that the honourable member for Herbert was not permitted to move into that area. The future of Qantas, however, is a vital issue for us to face. If Qantas is coming, cap in hand, to the Parliament and the Government of Australia, then surely that entitles members to consider all the facts. Qantas wants to buy a new plane, but it has a very ordinary performance in the market-place. Qantas is not like British Airways, which will be owned by individual members of the British community shortly. Under this Government, Qantas will remain owned by the Government. That is unacceptable. Mr Leo McLeay —No, by all the people. Mr SLIPPER —The people of Australia are not allowed to own shares in Qantas; not one share is owned by an Australian. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for Grayndler not to provoke the speaker. I call the honourable member for Fisher. Mr SLIPPER —The situation is that Qantas cannot expect us in the Opposition to permit this Bill to be carried, particularly if it is not prepared to observe its obligations to the people of this country. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will not allow me to talk about the fact that Qantas is refusing to carry cargo, but as a result of this refusal it will meet the determined opposition of the parties on this side-that is, the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party. Qantas must operate in the ordinary market-place. Dr Watson —The real world. Mr SLIPPER —As the honourable member for Forde has said, most eloquently, as he always does, it must operate in the real world. Qantas should take a warning from the Opposition. If Qantas refuses to do what the people of Australia expect of it, the people of Australia, through this Opposition, will ensure that Qantas does not get the guarantee that it wants under this Bill. It really should not get the guarantee in any case. It is ridiculous for the Government to expect that we will support a Bill such as this. This Bill is a raid on government finances. We consider it to be disastrous that Qantas should continue to operate as a government instrumentality, virtually a branch of the Australian Public Service. It is even worse for our nation to have to underwrite the operation of Qantas Airways Ltd in this way. Mr Cobb —It is a drain on the taxpayer. Mr SLIPPER —As the honourable member for Parkes has mentioned, it certainly could be a drain on the taxpayer. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Fisher will continue his speech. Mr SLIPPER —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is important that we on this side of the House emphasise that Qantas, if it is going to operate, must operate in accordance with the cold, harsh realities of life. In addition, if Qantas is not prepared to carry the goods of this country overseas it will have to contend with the National Party and the Liberal Party. Mr Cadman —What goods won't it carry? Mr SLIPPER —The airline will not carry Australian meat. Perhaps it wants to send the farmers and the graziers of this country to the wall. As far as we are concerned that is not satisfactory. Mr Lee —I raise a point of order. The honourable member is talking about meat. Standing order 81 states that no member may digress from the subject matter. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. I think that the honourable member has been in the House throughout this debate and has realised that the honourable members are ducking and weaving everywhere. I call the honourable member for Fisher. Mr SLIPPER —Present company excepted, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. Referring to that frivolous point of order coming from my friend opposite-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It was not deemed a frivolous point of order. The honourable member for Fisher will confine his remarks to the Bill. Mr SLIPPER —Whilst I am not in the chair, it seemed frivolous to me. That is just a personal observation. I do not wish to detain the House further except to reiterate that we are opposed to the Bill. In addition, we believe that Qantas is not meeting its obligations by refusing to carry Australian cargo. Unless the airline accepts a warning, it can rest assured that the Bill will be doomed to failure in the Senate. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(9.16) —As indicated by the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) in his second reading speech, the purpose of the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill is to: Authorise the Treasurer (Mr Keating), on behalf of the Commonwealth, to guararantee borrowings raised by Qantas Airways Ltd to finance the purchase of a Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft. That seems to have been a little bit lost in the debate which has take place in this chamber today. The Minister continued: Acquisition of this aircraft by Qantas will bring to four the number of B747-300 aircraft in Qantas' fleet . . . Qantas' decision to purchase an additional 747-300 aircraft was a result of market growth, and the company's need to participate fully in that growth. I think that is a point that is worth dwelling on. I will return to that shortly. The Minister's speech continued: 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. In the course of this debate we have heard from those opposite who would ask why the Government should go guarantor in this Bill for this amount of money. A number of arguments have been advanced. Because money is involved it is suggested that the people of Australia should be outraged; indeed, they should throw up their hands in horror and say: `Why is the Government doing this? It cannot even guarantee the right price. There is some discrepancy because of currency devaluation problems and so on'. I believe the answer to that is quite simple. It is simple because, as the Bill says, it is a Bill for an Act relating to the provision of certain equipment for Qantas Airways Ltd, and it guarantees the money. As has been pointed out by the Minister in his speech, it is not a debt but rather a contingent liability in the event that Qantas cannot meet the debt. Can Qantas be expected to meet that debt? We would suggest that, yes, it could, given the performance of this airline over recent years. Those opposite do not want to hear this. If one looks at the disastrous record of their administration, one can see why they would be worried about looking at money Bills associated with the purchase of aircraft. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I suggest that the honourable member keep his mind on the Bill. Mr MARTIN —I certainly will. I suggest that the profit that was made by this company in the last two years, compared with the disastrous losses which occurred under the previous Government, indicates profitability for Qantas and, therefore, indicates quite clearly that the carrier is able to sustain profit margins and will be able to repay the debt. The Government is simply going guarantor. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) made a couple of points. I doubt that the honourable member for O'Connor has the ability to read because he kept going on about the fact that the Bill concerned the provision of equipment. The honourable member was concerned about the title of the Bill. He spoke about the fact that Qantas was purchasing equipment and so on. However, we are dealing with the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1985. It is there in black and white; it is a pity he could not read it for himself. However, we have come to expect that from the honourable member for O'Connor. The honourable member for O'Connor also talked about currency fluctuations. He wanted to know why the Government should guarantee a debt of $US115m when we did not know, because of currency fluctuations, what the final figure would be. The fact is that all deals in the international market place, whether they be for aircraft, oil sales or whatever, are done in United States dollars. The former Government received and paid its bills and also passed loan Bills, all of which were in United States dollars. This is exactly the case with the Bill before the House today. There was no scream about such an arrangement when the previous Government was in office. If one followed the line put forward by the honourable member for O'Connor in respect of the method of payment for this aircraft-after all, this legislation seeks to guarantee the money required to purchase the aircraft-it is fairly obvious that there would be no sale if that honourable members on the other side do not want to see any deal struck in United States dollars. Where would we be if that were the case? We would be very quickly out the back door. I suggest that Qantas can deliver the goods. I put it to the House-and this was touched on by previous speakers here this evening when dealing with the question of whether or not the money would be repaid-that Qantas can deliver the goods. The reasons for Qantas's profitability over the last two years include the volume of freight carried, the number of passengers carried and so on. It is important to note that this continued profitability, particularly in the last 12 months, was achieved mainly by significant increases in passengers, cargo and mail. I put it to the House that this is going to continue with the acquisition of the new aircraft because Qantas will be able to operate a daily service between Australia and Great Britain. Australia is going all out to attract tourists because of the relevance of the tourist dollar to stimulating the Australian economy even further. Of course, this is totally in keeping with the policies of this Government and the realisation of the economic benefits that would flow back to this country. I come back to the point that through the purchase of these aircraft we will be able to continue the influx of overseas currency, whether in United States dollars or whatever. This money will come back to this country and continue to make it great. I would like to go further and list a range of things which have made Qantas profitable and therefore will ensure that the company will be able to repay the loan for which it is seeking a guarantee from this Government. In 1984-85 the seat factor rose by 64 per cent, which was the highest rise since 1980-81. In addition, Qantas has flown a greater number of hours. Many more passengers have been carried by Qantas-something like 15.8 per cent more passengers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! They are very interesting statistics, but I suggest that the honourable member retain direct relevance to the subject of the Bill. Mr MARTIN —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to substantiate the claims that Qantas has in fact the ability, because of its efforts over the last two years, to revamp and to become economically viable once again-under, I hasten to add, the policies of this Government-in order to substantiate a loan and not be a drain on the taxpayers of Australia, as was indicated by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper). I would like to touch on a couple of points he raised. The honourable member indicated that the National Party of Australia would oppose the Bill. Interestingly enough, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), who was the first Opposition speaker in this debate, said that the Opposition would not oppose this Bill in this place but may seek some deferral or changes in the Senate. Perhaps we are seeing another opportunity here for the National Party forces of Queensland and Victoria to oppose each other. Mr Hand —I think that is factionalism. Mr MARTIN —I think that is very true. Factionalism is raising its head again. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask honourable members to cease interjecting. I also ask the honourable member for Macarthur to retain relevance to the Bill and also to ignore the interruptions. Mr MARTIN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Fisher talked about profitability. He said that there should be no feather-bedding of Qantas. Again, what I am saying illustrates quite clearly that Qantas as our premier carrier has reached levels of profitability which mean that the taxpayers of Australia will not have to fork out one brass razoo to guarantee this loan, be it in American dollars or Australian dollars. Indeed, I would like to quote from a letter dated 27 February 1985 from the Chairman of Qantas to the editor of the Australian Financial Review in which he said: In the nearly 40 years since the Commonwealth of Australia bought all the shares in Qantas, that Company has not had one cent of subsidy from either a Federal or State Government. Honourable members opposite are trying to tell us that this Government is feather-bedding and pouring money into this operation and that therefore the taxpayers of Australia have a degree of uncertainty when worrying about the Government being the guarantor of the loan. The economic viability of Qantas in the market place is reflected in an article in the Australian of 25 February this year which stated: The second-oldest airline in the world, it has an unblemished safety record and a reputation for consumate professionalism. Qantas has, over the years, endured bad times as well as good. At times stifled, it would seem, by government interference and regulation, it has been a drain on the taxpayer. But today's Qantas has emerged from four bad trading years- under the previous Government, I might add- as a leaner, more aggressive carrier. Its profit in the year to March 31 was $58.3m, a record pre-tax margin. It is a result which shows what can be done, particularly if government allows its trading authorities to get on with the job, free from political pressure and structural interference, able to respond to the market place. Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that there it is-clearly and precisely. The reason for the Government's decision to be guarantor by introducing this money Bill, one of several to pass through this place as a matter of course without rhetoric coming from the other side as to why they should be stopped, is clearly evident in this case. Qantas, through its profitability and as a result of the margins which it has been able to develop over the last few years, has been able to demonstrate that it is a going concern. As a going concern, it is like anything else in the market place-if it is making a profit, it is able to attract more business. As business increases, so the profit margin goes up. Qantas is a public enterprise which is free from a great deal of government interference. As has been spelt out quite clearly, Qantas is doing the job, and is doing it well. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the guarantee does not involve the Government in any cash outlay. I believe that this position will appeal to the Dri-glo brigade on the other side of the House. However, the arrangement does create a contingent liability for the Commonwealth. Appropriate measures are incorporated in the Bill to ensure the necessary safeguard for the Government's security. That is another point which needs to be touched on. We have heard a lot about horror and shock and the claim that the taxpayers of Australia are going to be in all sorts of bother. I put it to the House that that is an absolute fabrication and absolute nonsense. Quite clearly, the Chairman of Qantas believes that that is not the case. I remind honourable members of the Chairman's letter in which he said that no subsidies have been put in. We can see that appropriate measures are incorporated in the Bill to ensure the necessary safeguards for the Government's security. The fact that this Bill has been introduced at this time is most opportune. Honourable members on the other side have touched on some arguments about privatisation. Mr Deputy Speaker, in deference to the rulings that have been given I have tended to off-load three-quarters of the speech that I was going to give tonight, so have some other honourable members on this side. However, I point out that Qantas itself, through its profitability, through what it has been able to do to get into the tourist markets and through the purchase of not only this aircraft but also such aircraft as the Boeing 767, City of Wollongong-which I might add, was the first one flown to Australia-will continue to make the profits that it has achieved. It will do so through aggressive marketing and promotional activities. Again, it will recoup the money that will enable it to repay the debts which it has acquired so that it can purchase and modernise its fleet. I believe that Qantas does perform another definable role. I conclude by saying that to a goodly proportion of countries of the far flung globe, unfamiliar with Australians and things Australian, Qantas is Australia, and may it continue to be a good advertisement, as the article in the Australian stated. I could not express those sentiments any better. I believe that the opposition of honourable members opposite to this Bill would detract from the operation of Australia's premier carrier. It would do nothing to enhance our already greatly enhanced international reputation in regard to airways, air safety, efficiency and passenger comfort. I commend the Bill to the House. I commend the Minister for introducing this Bill. It is one that is similar to many others that have been introduced by the Opposition when in government and certainly by this Government. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(9.31) —Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know and all members of the House would know, Qantas Airways Ltd was born out of the endeavours of very courageous Australians who had great visions of the future. Qantas is the nation's flag carrier. There has been in the past-I stress, in the past-every reason for Australians to be proud of the operations of Qantas. It has become a truism amongst Australian travellers that Qantas is the best airline in the world. I hasten to add, however, that this praise invariably relates to the service provided to passengers. The provision of a new Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft would, in the normal course of events, have been welcomed by the Opposition as adding further to that standard of service. This 747-300 aircraft may well be used to carry freight, or it may enable Qantas to release another of its aircraft to carry freight, thereby adding to its cargo carrying capability. Qantas is our national airline carrier. Its responsibilities include carrying freight as well as passengers. As Qantas is the direct responsibility of the Commonwealth, every honourable member must be satisfied of its ability and its capacity to meet the debts that this Parliament is being called on to guarantee. In order to meet its loan debts, Qantas must carry freight. It must maintain its profitability by carrying freight as well as passengers, thereby meeting the repayment of its debts. Mr Lindsay —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I invite your attention to standing order 81 which provides that: No member may digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —I ask the honourable member for Gippsland to ensure that he retains relevance to the purchase of the 747 extended upper deck aircraft. I might say that it is stretching more than the upper deck to suggest that it will be used for freight. Mr McGAURAN —Qantas has, to date at least, had a good record in the carrying of cargo, thereby adding to its coffers, to use a colloquialism. The purchase of the 747-300 aircraft, together with related spare parts and equipment, I believe will add to the revenue-raising capabilities of Qantas, whether it be by passenger or freight cartage. Any airline which deliberately turns away the opportunity to carry freight at a profit is not fulfilling its responsibilities and placing in jeopardy its ability to repay loans. I and other members of the Opposition believe that the refusal by Qantas to carry chilled meat to overseas markets- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland recognises where he is transgressing. If the honourable member wishes to be permitted to continue making his speech, he should stick rigidly to the conditions of this Bill. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, at the risk of stating the obvious, this Bill is to guarantee the repayment of loans borrowed by Qantas. Therefore, I believe that the purchase of this aircraft will enable another aircraft in the Qantas fleet to be utilised for the carrying of cargo. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest once again to the honourable member for Gippsland that that is not relevant to the Bill. I have given my ruling that that is not relevant to the Bill. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, the ability of Qantas to meet its debts is of concern to the Parliament this evening and at every other time, particulary as the Parliament is guaranteeing the debts of Qantas. As Qantas is the holder of so much public money it has a number of very important responsibilities, not least of which is to ensure that it can repay its debts. It must therefore grasp every opportunity to raise revenue. It must therefore carry passengers and freight at a profit. Any suggestion that an airline would turn away a passenger or a piece of cargo- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Once again, I suggest to the honourable member for Gippsland that he fully understands what he is doing. I suggest that he should maintain his relevance to the Bill or I will be forced to take the appropriate action, which I do not wish to take against him. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, my major concern is that Qantas be on an economic footing so that every member of this Parliament who votes for this legislation is not held to account by the people who elect us to discharge our responsibilities, just as we demand that Qantas discharges its responsibilities. It would be the height of absurdity, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I know you would agree, for an airline to turn away a passenger who, together with other passengers, hands across an exact amount of money for an airline seat-assuming, of course, that the aircraft is not full. It would be absurd, to take the example one step further, for any airline to turn away a piece of cargo when an aircraft is empty and available to transport that cargo. That is, of course, stating the obvious. Any airline which turned away either a paying passenger or paying cargo would be derelict in its duties and embarking on either a course of financial incompetence or total abrogation of its responsibilities. Mr Lindsay —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I again invite your attention to standing order 81 which provides, amongst other things, that no member may digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Once again, with the patience which the Chair and this House has shown most admirably and, on this occasion, most humbly, I exhort the honourable member for Gippsland to remain relevant to the Bill which, of course, is to guarantee the purchase of this aircraft. Mr McGAURAN —May I respectfully speak to that point of order so that we can clear up any misapprehensions which may have arisen by the Chair? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not believe there is any need to do so. The point of order is upheld. Mr McGAURAN —This Parliament has never rubber-stamped, and should never do so in the future, any financial measure that comes before it. When this Federal Parliament is called on to provide a guarantee for tens of millions of dollars and an honourary member is not permitted to discuss the capability of the borrower's ability to meet that loan, we have reached the height of absurdity. The ability of Qantas to repay its loan must be under discussion before we, who have sworn an oath of office, are prepared to commit public moneys as a guarantee. The ability of Qantas to carry passengers and freight comes within the ambit of this financial Bill. Any move by Qantas to turn away deliberately without good reason or excuse avenues that would raise revenue ought to be a matter under serious discussion in this Parliament. The Opposition is supporting this legislation, but we warn the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) that if Qantas cannot deal with the industrial dispute at its air freight terminals, which is preventing the export of chilled meat, by the time this legislation reaches the Senate-- Mr Lindsay —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I again invite your attention to standing order 81 which provides, among other things, that no honourable member may digress from the subject matter of any question under consideration. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I uphold the point of order. There are other forums in which the same matter could be dealt with. I suggest that the honourable member for Gippsland bear that in mind. Mr Braithwaite —I wish to take a point of order and draw attention to the manner in which this debate has progressed. I have been present only since 9 o'clock, but obviously the debate is not being allowed to free-wheel, as have many other debates we have had in this chamber already today as well as debates in the past. We must ask ourselves whether the matter is relevant. I have been listening to the honourable member for Gippsland, and indeed I would have listened to all other honourable members-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! What is the point of order? Mr Braithwaite —The point of order is that I believe the honourable member for Gippsland is being relevant when he is talking about a loan under the Bill and the capability of the company to repay it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have ruled, and the honourable member for Gippsland knows what I am referring to, that he must remain relevant to the Bill. I have indicated that to him. Mr McGAURAN —The forum in which we are now all present is without question the most important in this country. To suggest that a member of parliament, elected by his constituency, should raise matters outside this forum is, in my view, an abrogation of my and this Parliament responsibilities. I, for one, do not engage in summits whereby unelected, paid representatives of groups can come and discuss matters such as the loan guarantee Bill that is now before this Parliament. I believe that this is the appropriate place, indeed the only place, given that this Parliament is called on to guarantee the Bill. It is of not much use discussing the guaranteeing of the Qantas loan in the Cabinet room or in the Parliamentary Library or in party committee rooms. This chamber is the place. I was making known to the House the Opposition's intentions that if the matter cannot be resolved by Qantas in its air freight terminals, in the Senate the Opposition will be forced to move an amendment whereby this Bill is deferred. Qantas is our national carrier, and that includes freight as well as passengers. It must provide continuity for perishable exports. We will move for a deferment of the legislation if Qantas does not fulfil its obligations. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(9.45) —I am extremely pleased to be able to support the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill, and indeed to demonstrate my and the Government's continued confidence in our national carrier, Qantas. The purpose of the Bill is to authorise the Treasurer on behalf of the Commonwealth to guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas Airways Ltd to buy new aircraft of the Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck model. Qantas already has three of this type of aircraft in operation on the Sydney to London kangaroo route, as it is called, and this aircraft adds to the six Boeing 767s that are being introduced this year as a result of the Government's approval of an $860m fleet modernisation program in November 1983 for the purposes of modernising the Qantas fleet. Two of the aircraft have already been delivered and the remaining four will be progressively introduced at bi-monthly intervals. These 767s will complement the new 747s and will allow Qantas to better serve the routes which have lower traffic demands. Aircraft bought since Labor came to power have increased the total operations of the fleet to 28. Qantas represents an image of great national pride to the Australian people. It is a symbol of Australia to the rest of the world, a symbol of which we can all be justly proud. What does the Opposition want to do with this great Australian symbol? We have heard just recently from some Opposition spokesmen some of the Opposition's plans for that body. It seems that they want to sell off Qantas to the cheapest bidder. I imagine the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) was reflecting those views when he spoke, and I refer to the comment he made. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Melbourne desist from that temptation and remain thoroughly relevant to the Bill. Mr HAND —I am being relevant to the Bill and pointing out that in the Australian Financial Review, John Hyde, economic mentor and guru of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), made it quite clear what the dries of the Opposition think. He said quite baldly on 22 February this year that Qantas should be sold. Honourable members opposite will all agree with that. They support the selling off of Qantas. We support funding of Qantas through the loan arrangements laid down in the Bill. Why do he and the economic rationalists in the Opposition want Qantas sold? They say that it will improve efficiency and competition. I am quite sure that many private overseas interests such as Pan Am, Japan Air Lines and the new owners of British Airways, whoever they will be when that airline is finally sold off by Maggie Thatcher-a decision that is likely to be sooner than later-will be more than happy to snap up the option if they ever got the chance because of the imbeciles on the Opposition benches. Mr Hawker —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I am not sure what this has to do with the Bill. Mr HAND —I am coming to that. I am trying to expand this point of view. Mr Tuckey —You haven't got the skills, Gerry. Mr HAND —You are one of the imbeciles I am referring to on that side of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will withdraw that remark. Mr HAND —I am sorry, I withdraw the word the second time I used it in the speech. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Unreservedly. Mr HAND —Unreservedly, of course. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I also ask the honourable member to come to the point of the Bill. Mr HAND —The point is that Qantas is a sound economic proposition. Our friends on the other side, or our class enemies if one wants to use the correct term, want to sell off the airline because they know it is a sound economic proposition. The Government is making these funds available because Qantas is a sound economic proposition. Honourable members opposite talk about its competitiveness and efficiency. The re- cords quite clearly show that in both of those areas Qantas is a very sound economic proposition and the Government is doing everything it can to ensure that that continues. Currently Qantas competes with some 30 aggressive international airlines when it flies in and out of Australia but the Opposition, in its confused state, does not see this as a competitive situation because Qantas operates as the only international Australian airline. If a private international Australian airline operated it would be real competition; that is the logic of the Opposition's argument. No other country of our size has more than one international airline but this is what the Opposition believes is necessary. Such a fragmented, international operation would not compete effectively. That is the end result of the Opposition's ideology. If Qantas were privately owned the Opposition would argue that one international airline was ample. In those circumstances, the other international airlines would provide the necessary competition. What we have here is that the bottom line of competitiveness appears to rest solely on the basis of ownership. Qantas owned publicly is uncompetitive; owned privately, and in the hands of some friends of honourable members opposite, it would, of course, be competitive. That is absolute claptrap and honourable members opposite all know it. The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) said that the Opposition would sell Qantas. He also said that the Opposition would block the funding arrangements in the Senate- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for Melbourne to remain relevant to the Bill. Mr HAND —I will endeavour to come back to the Bill which, I think, I was covering. It is important to say to the House that the Opposition is very keen to get rid of Qantas-we all know that-because it is making a profit. The reason the Opposition wants to sell it is that it wants to help out some of its mates in private enterprise. That is why we have had this onslaught on Qantas tonight. The fact is that Qantas has by far the lowest per kilometre cost of any airline in the world. It is the most effective airline in the world and honourable members opposite should be proud of it instead of knocking it all the time. They come into this place and introduce- Mr McGauran —They've sold out to the TWU. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne is inciting interjections. I suggest he come back to the matters before the House. Mr HAND —The interjection shows the level of the ability of the Opposition to grasp what we are talking about. The honourable member says that we have sold out to the Transport Workers Union of Australia. Where is the TWU mentioned in the Bill and since when have members of the TWU been flying Qantas aeroplanes? It is outrageous. Qantas is also cost competitive with the majority of airlines operating in this region. That is another reason why the Bill suggests that we give this money to Qantas. Despite having higher wage costs in this country we are far more cost effective than airlines such as those which come from Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. That is what honourable members opposite have missed. The reason why Qantas can compete has much to do with the current management of the organisation and the productivity of its employees. It would do honourable members opposite well to look at the reports presented by management and examine the work done by the employees of the organisation. Honourable members opposite cannot ever acknowledge that Australian workers are capable of doing anything good. Honourable members opposite come into this place and make smart, backhanded comments and attack the TWU, which is a red herring, but they can never bring themselves to congratulate the employees who keep the Australian flagship going. I am very upset. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will return to the substance of the Bill or he will be subject to exactly the same kind of constraint that I threatened to impose on the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr HAND —It is somewhat difficult, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the reasons why we are making funds available to Qantas is that between March 1970 and March 1984 productivity within the organisation increased by 269 per cent. Mr Cadman —What has that got to do with buying an aeroplane? Mr HAND —It has a lot to do with it because the honourable member always flies Qantas when he goes on an overseas trip. He always goes on Qantas because it is a safe and an effective way of travelling. He knows that he is in safe hands. We all know that. You never fly on any other airline. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will direct his comments through the Chair. Mr HAND —I am addressing the honourable member through the Chair. We have also seen an increase in employee productivity in the organisation. That is an important factor in why the Government is prepared to make funds available. Measures introduced to cut costs and improve efficiency in the engineering and maintenance departments were so effective that Qantas took out the United States Air Transport World Magazine's Award for the best technical and engineering managment in 1984. I would have thought that because the Americans gave us a free kick honourable members opposite would be clapping their hands. That is their normal form. In this case they are not even prepared to accept the view of the American Air Transport World Magazine. That is another reason why this is a sound investment for the Government to make. Mr McGauran —It's not the government; it's the Parliament. Mr HAND —It is the Parliament, the people, the taxpayers' money, and they are glad to put their money into something like this. If honourable members opposite want to talk about the subsidisation of inefficient industries, we will have a debate on other issues. This is a sound economic proposition. In the words of one commentator, who wrote in the rather staid pages of Rydges in September 1984, `Qantas has developed into a tight, highly flexible airline with a competitive spirit amongst the best in the world'. That is another very good reason for the Government to make- Mr Conquest —Who wrote that? Mr HAND —It was a correspondent for the journal. Mr McGauran —Identify your sources. Mr HAND —Does the honourable member want me to name everybody? I would be here all night if I had to do that. Not only is Qantas competitive but it is extremely profitable. This is another reason why we have given funds in this way. Mr McGauran —We are not giving funds; we are guaranteeing a loan. Mr HAND —I am sorry, I withdraw that. I stand corrected. In 1983-84 the airline made a profit of $57.98m, a turnaround of $105.57m on that of the previous year. In 1984-85 the profits of the operation rose to $62.3m and overall profits jumped to $147.8m. Honourable members should compare these results with the five years of successive losses which coincided with the years that the coalition controlled operations. Why did Qantas and other public enterprises make losses when the previous Government held the reins of power? It was certainly not because of inherent economic weakness in public enterprise as a form of economic activity. Nothing could be so silly, as the current operating position of Qantas demonstrates. I will tell honourable members why our public enterprises, such as Qantas made losses. Do honourable members want to know why? It was because of the near-sighted bunch of economic rationalists who are sitting opposite. They were led in their economic wisdom by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), and could not see their way clear of the economic claptrap they espoused. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will remain relevant to the Bill. Mr HAND —I think this is again a reason why this Government- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member for Melbourne that there is very little flexibility and very little latitude in this debate. The same conditions have applied to all speakers. There is no reason why they should not also apply to the honourable member for Melbourne. Mr HAND —I thank you for that guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think it is important for us to understand that honourable members opposite controlled public enterprises for a period during which all of them ran down. When we came to office we turned all that around. We now do not have any problem at all with going guarantor for Qantas Airways Ltd. That is to the credit of this Government, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are part of it and I know you are proud of our record in turning Qantas around in this way. The public showed this when it voted at the last election. The public supports our attitude- Mr Braithwaite —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order not so much to question the manner the honourable member is debating this matter, but to point out the ridiculous situation that has developed. Other honourable members have taken points of order about sticking to the Bill but the debate has been allowed to roam. I think it is a ridiculous situation. If we are going to have a repetition of this situation in future, there will not be any proper debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. If the honourable member for Dawson had been listening he would recognise that I have been asking the honourable member for Melbourne to remain relevant to the Bill in exactly the same way that I asked previous members to do so. Mr HAND —It is very difficult to make a speech I have written when I am not allowed to say anything in it. What I am attempting to do, which those opposite do not like, is to show- Mr Tuckey —We just want fair play. Mr HAND —I wish that the honourable member would get back to his own seat. Mr Cadman —I raise a point of order. I believe that the honourable member is responding to interjections. He is not sticking to the Bill. I would like your direction in this matter, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell is hardly in a position to make comments of that kind, given the number of interjections which he has made tonight. The honourable member for Melbourne will remain relevant and will cease taking notice of the interjections. Mr HAND —Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for your protection from that rabble over there. As I said-- Mr Tuckey —I ask that the statement `that rabble over there' be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not consider that statement to be particularly offensive. Mr Tuckey —I consider it to be quite offensive. Mr Deputy Speaker, if in your judgment of your members it is not offensive, that is your judgment. It is offensive to me and to my colleagues. We are not rabble. We are not to be referred to in that way. It is unparliamentary. I request that you ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If it offends the honourable member for O'Connor I ask the honourable member for Melbourne to withdraw the comment. Mr McGauran —Withdraw! Withdraw! Mr HAND —I do not need the honourable member's help to withdraw it. Would he be quiet? I have a speech to make. This is a denial of democracy. Those opposite will not let me have a go. I withdraw the remark about rabble but those opposite are behaving in a somewhat unparliamentary fashion. It is very difficult for me to proceed with my speech. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, you called upon the honourable member for Melbourne to withdraw. He has not withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Melbourne has withdrawn. Mr HAND —If the honourable member for O'Connor would stop talking he would hear me. I withdraw the terms I used about the members opposite being rabble. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your protection from the unparliamentary behaviour from that side of the House. It is most difficult to make a contribution while they are behaving in that way. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest that the honourable member return to the Bill. Mr HAND —Under the Australian Labor Party Government, public enterprises such as Qantas have been nurtured back to health. Mr Cadman —I raise a point of order. This is not relevant. I believe that the honourable member has strayed into political philosophy, rather than staying with the content of the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne knows to remain relevant to the Bill. Mr HAND —I got three words out that go. I am not doing too badly! Why will the honourable member not go back to where he was before and let me get on with my speech? I did not interrupt him. I am trying to establish in terms of the Bill, narrow as they are, that the reason why the Labor Government is so enthusiastic about Qantas is that in recent years, with our assistance and since we became the Government, there has been a dramatic turnaround in Qantas's profits. That is why we wish to guarantee this funding. Money has been made available for spare parts and equipment. During my contribution I have tried to point out that the employees of the organisation have increased their productivity. I have asked the Opposition to acknowledge that and congratulate them. I certainly congratulate the employees of Qantas on their performance, as does the Government. It is recognised around the world that all Qantas employees are of outstanding quality. It is about time that those opposite in their barnyard started to acknowledge that Australian workers are not to be attacked every time those opposite speak. That is the trouble with them. They knock our policies and want handouts for their pet interests. This enterprise is making a profit. Those opposite cannot say one good word about the flagship of this country that flies to almost every country in the world promoting this great country with our kangaroo on the back. All those opposite can do is carp and cackle like the barnyard cattle that they are. Mr McGauran —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I find those words offensive. I seek their withdrawal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Which words were they? Mr McGauran —The speaker knows which words they were. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am sorry; I do not know to which words you were referring. Mr McGauran —The words used were extremely unparliamentary and personally insulting. They were along the lines of `barnyard cackle'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest that from the demeanour of the honourable member for Gippsland he is not taking this very seriously. It is a frivolous point of order. The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation)(10.07) —in reply-I thank the honourable members who participated in this evening's debate-the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) and the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin)-for their positive and thoughtful contributions. Apart from the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), I do not think that I have heard a more pathetic or ill-informed discussion on a matter of such importance than I have heard from the Opposition this evening. I will answer quickly the items raised by honourable members because we want to finish with this Bill before the House adjourns. The honourable member for Murray expressed support for the Qantas Airways Limited (Loans Guarantee) Bill but carried with it a threat that if the acceptance of meat freight is not agreed to by Qantas Airways Limited before this Bill reaches the Senate, the Opposition will seek to defer the Bill. That is straight out blackmail. There is an industrial dispute at Qantas and at those domestic airlines handling facilities on behalf of international airlines. So all international airlines are affected. Qantas filed notice of that dispute last Friday. The matter is set down for hearing at 2.15 p.m. this Thursday. The Opposition is saying that if the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission does not resolve the dispute to the Opposition's satisfaction, it will block this legislation. Let that rest on the heads of members of the Opposition. But they are threatening the Commission. They are using exactly the same tactics as those of which they accuse other people. The matter to be resolved is not within the hands of Qantas. It has been filed and notified as an industrial dispute. It is with the Commission and it is set down for hearing, as I said, next Thursday at 2.15 p.m. I move to the matter of Qantas interlining, as raised by the honourable member for Murray. Interlining-the carriage of overseas passengers from other airlines by Qantas on domestic routes-is a practice that was terminated by the honourable member's Government. He was a member of the Government which, in 1979, stopped that practice by direction of the then Minister for Transport and honourable member for Gippsland, Mr Nixon. The same matter was raised by the current member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). The Government is not responsible for that issue. It will be looked at during the review of the two-airline policy. Those interested will have an opportunity to put their view and be heard. Those views will be considered by government. I remind the House that the situation was created by the honourable member and his colleagues. I am getting a little weary of their traipsing into this chamber placing before me the problems that they have created and saying: `We caused it; you fix it'. We are doing our best to overcome all the Opposition's failures, deficiencies, incompetences and mismanagements. Those opposite should be a little more patient. We are doing a good job but it takes a little more time. That problem is of the Opposition's creation. Mr Tuckey —What about my wildflowers? Mr PETER MORRIS —If that is what the taxpayer is paying the honourable member for, I am sorry for the taxpayer. There is a conflict in the Opposition. One view is expressed by the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Murray-I have some sympathy for him because it is not the first time it has happened since he became shadow Minister-who says that the Opposition supports the Bill. Then subsequent speakers such as the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) say they are utterly opposed to the Bill. The honourable member for Fisher said that the Opposition policy in respect of Qantas is that espoused at the last election-that a minority of shareholding in Qantas could be transferred to employees. However, other members of the Opposition and members of his own Party-the National Party of Australia-said that their policy was outright disposal of Qantas. Certainly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has said that. I have some sympathy for the honourable member for Fisher but it would help debate in this country and the understanding of these very important issues if, in its presentations to this chamber, the Opposition could agree amongst itself before it came into this place. Then we could have greater regard for the views it is putting. The honourable member for Fisher correctly referred to freight capacity as being addressed by the review of international air freight of primary produce, which is due to report later in the year. We will be considering its recommendations when they come forward. That matter is under way. The most ludicrous, ill-informed, intemperate and ignorant exercise I have ever heard was that put forward by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). To talk about a possible contingent liability as a debt is just sheer nonsense. He knows it to be nonsense. He knows that a contingent liability is not a debt; it is a contingency. In his idiotic reference to the preamble to the Bill as if it were clause 1 of the Bill he just wasted the time of the Parliament. Be that as it may, it reflects upon the poverty of thought within the Opposition at the moment. That is the kind of contribution we have heard from honourable members opposite. To say that Qantas is depriving itself of income is also nonsense. An industrial dispute has been notified to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and is listed for hearing. Mr Speaker, I am answering precisely the points asked of me as Minister. They have to be answered. Mr SPEAKER —I did not know so many had got through which were relevant. Mr PETER MORRIS —I am sorry to say that there were a multitude. I want to answer them on behalf of the Government. To suggest that that is depriving Qantas of income, as if it is some act of volition on the part of Qantas, again just points up the poverty of competence on the other side of the chamber. The honourable member for Fisher made the point about the Opposition being totally opposed to the Bill. However, the Bill before us is an ordinary, routine Bill. Over the years I have seen many such Bills go through this chamber in respect of Ansett Airlines of Australia and Qantas Airways Ltd. There is nothing new about it. It does not involve a raid on the Treasury, as the honourable member for Fisher suggested. Again that reflects ignorance and incompetence in the remarks that he put forward. If we are going to have a debate, let us have a debate that is factual and informed. The honourable member for Fisher said that, if Qantas refuses to do what the Opposition wants, it will be blackmailed into bankruptcy. The one thing that stands out when this Government is compared to its predecessor-those who now sit opposite-is the leadership, support and performance of our public enterprises. All public enterprises have done far better under the Hawke Government-not being subjected to bashing by the government of the day but encouraged to do better, and supported, with efficiency improvements urged upon them and the co-operation of the work force of the organisations improved. That is what public enterprise is about. However, the Opposition wants to use it for a political instrument, just as the Opposition used it before as a political tool. If Qantas, an organisation which belongs to all Australians, does not carry out the political wishes of honourable members opposite, the Opposition is prepared to sabotage it and, if necessary, bankrupt it. It ill behoves the Opposition to be lecturing the Government on how to manage public enterprises. The Government will not have a bar of that point of view and I am sure that the people of Australia will not. In summary, the Bill is a routine measure. It deserves the support of the House. It will enable an organisation which is the flagship of this country abroad and which has done so much to promote Australia abroad to carry on the development of the service in an efficient, effective and successful way on behalf of all residents of Australia. I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(10.15) —I am sure that all honourable members of this House have heard that old saying that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. There is a variation to that old saying: There are lies, damn lies and John Brown's statistics. Today in the House the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) galloped in on return from overseas-I think it was from the Soviet Union and London-after the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) called him back and talked about the cost of administration in his Department. Let me set the record straight. According to the Budget Papers, unless they are wrong-and, of course, they could be wrong under this Labor Administration-it is irrefutable that in 1984-85 this Government spent $3.83m on salaries in the administration of sporting programs. According to the Budget estimates for 1985-86, this Government, under the administration of the Minister, spent $5.132m. In anybody's language-anybody who can understand mathematics and use a calculator-that is a 34 per cent increase. The Minister came in here and talked not about sporting programs but about his entire portfolio. He talked about the Australian Government Publishing Service, the Information Co-ordination Branch and the Tourist Commission-the whole lot, not just sport. He got it wrong on sport. The trouble was that he has finally won Australia's award for the Jim Hacker trophy because the Department that did the Budget for him wrote his speech notes for today. The Department snowed him again because he came in here citing portfolio figures when he really should have been justifying his expenditure on sport. The Minister cited $8.6m for his portfolio. That is right; it is a 34 per cent increase for sport. He got it wrong in a number of ways. He referred to me as the honourable member for Higgins. I happen to represent the people of Richmond. He talked about the Australian Sports Commission and said that it did not have a salaries and administration component of $1.1m, but in fact had a figure of $519,000. I draw the attention of honourable members to `Portfolio Program Estimates 1985', Budget Paper No. 6. I turn to the bottom line of page 366 which shows that for the Australian Sports Commission $649,000 was for salaries. At page 430 is shown expenditure on administration expenses. There is a list of expenses for such things as commission meetings, committee meetings, property maintenance, et cetera. That totals $519,000. The total of those two figures, for everybody except the Hon. John Brown, the Minister for not very much, is $1.168m-not $519,000. Quite frankly, the Minister does not know what he is talking about. He ought to get new batteries for his calculator. He ought to check the figures his Department gives him and he ought to try not to snow the people. Quite frankly, he is not the Minister for Sport-he is the Minister for job creation. There is a 34 per cent increase in salaries and administration, yet he tried to snow the members of this House by selectively quoting from the Budget Papers and by suggesting that we should look at his entire portfolio when the criticism levelled was at the amount of money he has spent on sport and sport programs. Those interested in sport in Australia know exactly what has gone wrong. This Minister cannot run his Department. He cannot control the growth in the bureaucracy and he does not know which way he is going. If he continues this way, the best thing for Australia is for him to go back overseas and spend a limited amount of money travelling around the world enjoying himself, preferably a fair bit of it at his own expense, rather than spending money of the Public Service and the bureaucracy. I have never in my career in this House seen a more blatantly biased and inadequate cover-up of a circumstance. The Minister came in here and reacted very strongly to one Press release on salaries and administration. He did not make one comment on the amount of money he spent on Cumberland Oval in Parramatta Park in the heart of his electorate. How does he justify that? What about the 34 per cent of the entire allocation for national sporting programs-$8.29m or 31 per cent is earmarked by the Federal Labor Government for some 20 projects in its three-year national sports facilities program-to be spent in the Minister's own electorate? It is an absolute disgrace. I think he should learn to add up or buy a new calculator. Or perhaps sport needs a new Minister. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(10.20) —In the 3 September edition of the Independent News-a newspaper circulating in the Mornington Peninsula-Frankston region of Victoria-certain comments were reported to have been made by the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). The article stated: Mr Reith added that he believed the Government- I emphasise, the Government- had treated the question of telephone charges on the Peninsula as a `political con job'. ``They think that by holding further hearings down here, they will be able to string out local people for another year or so without copping a backlash. And so he went on. The comments of the honourable member for Flinders relate to certain public hearings that took place as part of the inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on expenditure into the zonal charging policies of Telecom Australia. These hearings were conducted in the Mornington Peninsula and Frankston districts of Victoria on 14 and 15 August of this year. As a sub-committee chairman, I presided over those hearings, at Rosebud on 14 August in the company of my colleague, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), and at Frankston on 15 August. At Frankston we were joined by two other members of the Committee who were from the Liberal Party of Australia-the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) and the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). I think those two gentlemen who participated in the hearing at Frankston would regard that, as did my colleague the honourable member for Grayndler, as a terrible attack upon their integrity as members of the Expenditure Committee. As every honourable member in this chamber knows-or, should I say, should know-the Expenditure Committee is not a committee of the Government party but an all-party committee. It is rather significant that in my opening comments at the hearing conducted on the Mornington Peninsula I made the following points: The zonal and charging arrangements which concern residents of the Mornington Peninsula were briefly examined by the Committee during the first phase of the Telecom review, and were addressed in the Committee's report entitled `Ringing in the Changes' tabled on 4 October 1984. Many of the recommendations of this report, if implemented, would benefit Australians living in rural and smaller urban areas. However- this is the important point- neither Telecom nor the Minister for Communications has yet responded to this report and the Committee is therefore taking this opportunity, during the second phase of the inquiry, to address the issues raised by Telecom's charging arrangements on the Mornington Peninsula in greater detail. The Committee has been encouraged in this approach by the large number of submissions received from residents from suburban areas of capital cities which are zoned in country areas by Telecom. I pay particular tribute tonight to the work done by my colleague, the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth)-until tonight I would have paid tribute also to the honourable member for Flinders-in encouraging these submissions. Something like 50 per cent of all the submissions to the second part of the inquiry came from the Mornington Peninsula. That indicates that there is considerable concern within that area of Australia. This was the honest reason why the Committee felt it proper and prudent to visit that area for a second time. It was not, as the honourable member for Flinders has suggested, some sort of Government committee trying to do a whitewash. On the contrary, we advertised for submissions, people on the Mornington Peninsula quite rightly responded, and we took the opportunity of going there. It should be pointed out that during that hearing local members in the area were given the opportunity to respond. The honourable member for Flinders, along with a couple of his State parliamentary colleagues, came before the Committee at Rosebud, as did the honourable member for Dunkley at Frankston, to give evidence. They talked about their concerns. It is interesting to note that, in the context of the great privatisation debate that is currently taking place within the extreme Right elements of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Flinders particularly used the occasion to talk about the whole question of privatisation. If honourable members are interested in his views, they could do no better than to look at the evidence he gave to the Expenditure Committee on 25 May 1984, when the Committee made its initial visit to the Mornington Peninsula. As the honourable member for Flinders-he was not the honourable member for Flinders at that stage; he was just ordinary Mr Reith-said on that occasion, many of these privatisation suggestions came from the Davidson Public Inquiry into Telecommunication Services in Australia. Here we have another example of what the Liberal Party really stands for. It is arguing totally for the privatisation of Telecom. It is arguing along all the sorts of lines that we are hearing at present. God help us all if these propositions were ever implemented by a Howard government. We would be in all sorts of strife in the rural areas of Australia. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(10.25) —My attention has been drawn to an article in the supplement to the Canberra Times of Sunday, 15 September, entitled `The Vice Squad hasn't time for dirty movies-and no one is complaining'. On reading the article one cannot help being dismayed at the `sell at any cost' attitude of some of the video library proprietors in this country. It is obvious that money is the name of the game and that sales are made without shame and regardless of the age of those purchasing these immoral videos. I am appalled that vice squads do not have time to enforce the existing State laws and I can only wonder how long it takes to make a bust and sort out these pur-veyors of pornography, given the apparent ease with which these tapes are available in Australia. To have our nation's capital, Canberra, also known as the porn capital is something that I regard as shameful and disgusting, to say the least. Mr Slipper —They call it Copenhagen now. Mr CONQUEST —The honourable member is right; they call it Copenhagen now. The tentacles of these mail order outlets reach far and wide and it is not uncommon for constituents of mine in Hinkler to call into my electorate office to complain about having received unsolicited mail containing brochures displaying their wares in quite graphic detail. To the author of that Canberra Times article I would say: `You are wrong'. People are complaining, but not loudly or often enough. I believe that we, as the nation's parliamentarians, should be outspoken in our condemnation of porn and use our influence to rid the country of this rubbish. Unfortunately, the harm done by video is aided and abetted by television programs which show totally unsuitable or questionable material in appropriate timeslots. I can recall in the last week or so two examples which support my claim. On the afternoon of Saturday, 7 September, on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program called Beatbox-a program directed to the younger viewing audience-street interviews were conducted by the compere in which questions were asked relating to masturbation, one night stands and the sexual activities of the respective interviewees. I see no earthly reason why such questions need to be asked and I can only wonder at the reasoning behind the ABC having, or wishing to telecast this degrading footage nationwide. Perhaps some of the woolly-headed thinkers in the Corporation will have an answer, but it will certainly be one which I will find hard to accept. If this type of program is representative of the direction in which the ABC is going with respect to entertaining and/or educating our young people, I think it is time either to reassess decisions or to reassess the worth of those who make the decisions. Two days later, on the program Good Morning Australia, we were treated to an interview with a paedophile who advanced some outrageous ideas on what he believed our young children should be allowed to do in expressing love. Perhaps the program content was suitable for late viewing in the interests of questionable democracy, but it was not suitable for viewing between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. on a weekday. In my opinion it is the height of poor taste to telecast such interviews at any time when the likelihood that children will be viewing is significant. I find it hard to relate to people such as paedophiles as anything other than dirty old men. The sooner this nation takes a good look at itself and realises where this decadence is taking us, the sooner we can perhaps do something to reverse our moral decline. This country was built on the sanctity of the family unit; yet daily, through programs such as those we have witnessed in the last couple of weeks, we have seen different people trying to break down the moral attitudes that most of us have been raised with and trying to bring our young people down to a situation which we find very hard to understand. I truly believe that at least this Parliament, if nobody else in this country, should take note of this problem and start to do something about it. Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.30) —I rise tonight to make a few comments on the Qantas Airways Ltd maintenance centre based at Mascot Airport having been stimulated by the debate on the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill earlier this evening. It will be of interest to honourable members that the maintenance centre will maintain and repair 747 extended upper deck aircraft, the subject of debate earlier this evening. Mr Hollis —You did not hear it. Mr LEE —No, I did not. Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is located 120 kilometres south of my electorate. It would be natural to assume that Qantas provides no employment for my constituents. However, the son of one of my neighbours at Toukley was offered an apprenticeship by Qantas this year to train as a ground engineer mechanic. I had the pleasure of witnessing the signing of Paul Maguire's indenture of apprenticeship last month. I hope that schools within my electorate will continue to provide Qantas with apprentices for many years to come. Mr Chynoweth —I am sure he will make a good apprentice. Mr LEE —Yes, he will. I turn now to the Opposition's current official policy on aviation. This policy document was prepared by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) prior to the last election when he was the shadow Minister for Aviation. The Opposition's policy states: We believe that not only is Australian private participation in Qantas as Australia's flag carrier desirable but also that private shareholdings in Qantas will subject Qantas management to continuing private sector scrutiny. The policy document continues: Foreign nationals and foreign companies should be excluded from holding shares in Qantas, whether directly or indirectly, since their interests and the interests of Qantas as Australia's overseas carrier, the Australian Government's interest in Qantas's overseas operations and the interests of the Australian travelling public, may conflict. The policy as enunciated by the honourable member for North Sydney clearly states that Qantas shares will be sold only to Australian citizens because overseas shareholders may not act in Australia's best interest. I will now quote from a report in the Canberra Times of the last address of the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in his then role as Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The article is headlined `Howard not frightened by foreign owernship'. The article stated: The possibility that foreign ownership of government instrumentalities could result from a privatisation policy does not frighten the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard. Mr Howard is quoted as saying: . . . he `wouldn't take fright at the possibility of some foreign ownership . . . although on the basis that one should hasten slowly on these matters I don't know that I'd open it up immediately for majority overseas ownership,' he said. `But I think in time a certain component would not be undesirable at all. `Indeed, if we are to smooth the transition to privatisation on our domestic capital market we have to consider the role to be played by overseas capital in acquiring interest in the instrumentalities. `If you dump them all on the domestic market and don't allow any foreign capital in, you'd push interest rates through the roof.' Mr Milton —Selling our birthright. Mr LEE —That is right; selling our birthright. The honourable member for Bennelong argues that we cannot dump public enterprises on the domestic capital markets without pushing interest rates through the roof while at the same time the honourable member for North Sydney, in a policy which still applies to the Liberal and National parties, claims it would not be in Australia's interests for foreign citizens to hold shares in Qantas. Earlier tonight we heard the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) and the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) go on record as saying that they firmly believe in the selling off of Qantas. The question we have to ask is who really speaks for the Opposition on these matters. Mr Slipper —Hear, hear! Sell it off. Mr LEE —The honourable member is on the record again as being in favour of selling Qantas off. What about the honourable member for Parkes? Mr Cobb —Hear, hear! Mr LEE —He is in favour also. Who really speaks for the Opposition on these matters? I cannot recall the present shadow Minister for Aviation, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), pledging to sell off Qantas. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) revealed to the House last Thursday, the honourable member for Murray has issued a Press statement claiming that the Nationals will not sell Telecom. I call on the honourable member for Murray to defend the public enterprises within his own current shadow portfolio. I challenge the honourable member for Murray to place on record a commitment that the Nationals will not sell Qantas. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.35) —I am sure that there is one thing that all of us in this House can agree on-the importance of exports to our national economy. I have no doubt that we could agree on the importance of maintaining existing export markets and, indeed, increasing our level of exports. We have an export market which has a free on-board value of over $200m. Some misguided people will have this important foreign exchange earner terminated. I am, of course, referring to the live sheep export trade. According to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics Occasional Paper No. 81 published in 1983, Australia held 40 per cent of the live sheep import trade in the Middle East and exported 7.3 million sheep. The paper also indicates that the average prices received by farmers for sheep may have been raised by as much as 20 per cent as a result of the trade. The paper further states that the stimulus to sheep numbers means that in the longer term a live sheep trade would eventually lead to greater slaughtering in Australia than would be the case in the absence of the live sheep trade. Opposition to this valuable rural export market comes from two quarters. On the one hand we have the animal welfare argument which suggests the trade is inimical to good animal welfare and is not in the interests of the animal to be transported to the Middle East for slaughter. Honourable members may be aware that there is an estimated loss of about 5 per cent of sheep on farms. This is compared with the loss of between one per cent and 2 per cent encountered in the live sheep export trade. We would all agree that problems are associated with any activities involving live animals and that everything should be done both on the farm and in the live trade to ensure that the most humane methods are employed in the production of meat for human consumption. On the other hand, we have a further argument to suggest that the live sheep export trade has been detrimental to Australian meat workers. I return again to the BAE report which points to the evidence that the live sheep trade has had a stimulating effect on sheep numbers and slaughtering in Australia and, hence, on job opportunities in abattoirs and in other areas associated with the sheep industry, such as shearing. Indeed, as educational standards and cultural traditions change with time so the demand for hot meat over frozen meat may alter. While there is demand for meat which with much ceremony and religious significance requires that it be slaughtered by the purchasers, why should we then deny farmers and the Australian economy the chance to earn this much needed revenue? I refer to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare which has made some sensible recommendations on the transport and sale of sheep to the Middle East. This Committee investigated the problem of feedlotting large numbers of sheep-up to 100,000-in preparation for their three-week sea voyage. The Committee looked at losses incurred in the feedlot, and problems of shelter and feeding in wet weather. The nutrition and quality of feedlot pellets occupied the Committee's attention and the big number of sheep and the details of sheep loading on to special ships also were investigated. Sheep penning densities, water quality, feeding methods and ventilation requirements also have been considered by the Committee. Further observations were made on the unloading procedures at Middle East ports as was sheep handling practices in Middle East cities. Veterinary advice given to the Committee indicated that these were all satisfactory. The special requirements of halal animal slaughter for the Moslem religion is a key factor in the encouragement and support of this live sheep trade. The local preference for hot meat compared to refrigerated processed meat also means that live sheep is a special religious requirement. Consequently, it is unlikely that change will occur in customs and investment taking place in cold storage capacity. The President of the National Farmers Federation, Mr Ian McLachlan, has written in strong terms to Senator Georges stating that he misrepresented the Committee's view that the live sheep trade be phased out over seven years. The Opposition fully agrees with Mr McLachlan that the live sheep trade be continued with improvements in transport, feedlotting, shipboard facilities, loading, unloading and general sound animal facilities. The Opposition supports Mr Pearce Blandford, Chairman of the Sheep Meat Council of Australia, who said that in his view the industry already was acting upon the Senate's sensible recommendations that there is a need for the Government to recognise the benefits of encouraging self-regulation in live sheep matters identified by the Committee rather than introducing costly and restrictive regulations. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.40) —I would like to take the opportunity in the adjournment debate to speak about Australia's heritage. The Australian heritage about which I wish to speak is Cape Tribulation or Daintree. I am sure that honourable members have heard much about the road that has been pushed through in that area. I have visited the area four times and have looked at the road. I report to the House on the state of the road during my last visit about two weeks ago. Cape Tribulation is a magnificent area of Australia. It is certainly an area which we must protect at all costs. At present the road is open because it is the dry season there. Four-wheel drive vehicles travel along this road. I am certain that those vehicles are doing a lot of damage to that area. At least 30 vehicles a day travel up the road. They are creating huge ruts in the road which will create, during the wet season, a real problem in terms of run-off. They are also distributing a lot of dust from the road. The dust is spreading over the trees and is killing some of the smaller trees. I actually got out of my vehicle and had a look. I am no botanist but at least I can tell when a tree is dead. I would say that many trees have been killed by the dust. I also looked at the drainage system on this road. I actually crawled through a three-foot drain to have a look. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr CHYNOWETH —Honourable members opposite may laugh. They have never done any hard work. They have never looked through a drain to see the damage that can be caused. They would not know what a drain was like on the inside. I looked through. The pipes were cracked. One of the pipes was 6 inches out of alignment. Therefore, when the next wet season arrives, naturally the water will run underneath the pipe, washing out the pipe and, therefore, the road. One does not have to be an engineer to know these things. All one has to do is have a look. Honourable members opposite laugh and carry on. They have never even had a look. They do not know what damage is being caused there. This morning a committee received a report from someone who had worked for the armed forces as an engineer and who had looked at the road. Over 70,000 cubic metres of soil is ready to slip straight into the ocean. That is a lot of dirt. It is all going to go straight on to the fringing reefs. I have looked at these reefs. I am no expert on coral reefs either, but at least I get out, snorkel around and swim over the area. The reefs are alive, functioning, growing in a good condition at the moment. I do not know how they will be after 70,000 cubic metres of soil is washed on them. There is much beautiful growth of coral on this reef. I actually saw some brain coral growing on it which is probably needed on the Opposition side. The Opposition could do with quite a bit of that. Some of the land up there has been sold. Recently 200 acres of land at Daintree was sold for $1.6m. The developers are moving into this magnificent area. They are buying it up as quickly as they can. They will push roads through it and destroy even more of it. It is a disgrace that this should be happening. The Queensland Government and the shire council in that area should be condemned at all costs. I am quite amazed that Queensland members of Parliament are not looking after this beautiful area of their State. They just do not care. I think that they are all interested in what sort of payout they can get from the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. Buses can travel along this road now. The use of the road is not confined to four-wheel drive vehicles; one can actually catch a bus to Bloomfield. One of the problems which have come up through the opening of this road is that there is a lot of petty theft in Bloomfield. Until the road was opened people could leave their houses unlocked and their boats, petrol and cars out in the open. Now their property is being stolen. That is progress. It is due to the insensitive thinking of the Queensland Government and the shire council. The shop at Daintree was broken into for the first time in its history. All this has come about as a result of the opening of this road. All of this has come about because of the senseless destruction of this area and by allowing all sorts of vehicles and all sorts of people to go up there and wreck the place. Some of us in other States are concerned about looking after this beautiful place in our planet. Other people are not. I urge this House to do something about looking after that very beautiful area so that not only my children and I can enjoy it but also my children's children will have the opportunity of going to that exquisite place and enjoying and seeing what I have seen with my own eyes. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.45) —I speak tonight as a result of an article which appeared in last Wednesday's edition of the Canberra Times. Listening to some of the previous speakers tonight, it would appear that the Canberra Times is a very well read journal. Well read or not, last Wednesday's issue delivered an insult to the citizens of Goulburn. I refer to the article which called Goulburn a collection of ancient and modern hovels. The columnist, Ian Warden, commented on the latest development in Goulburn in more recent times; that is, the construction of what is now one of the best features of Goulburn, the giant ram on the Hume Highway. Goulburn is well known as one of the most historic and picturesque cities in Australia. Goulburn is nestled in one of the richest and lushest rural environments and has had its economy built upon the sheep's back. Mr McGauran —It is a city of churches. Mr SHARP —It is a city of churches. Indeed, it has a beautiful cathedral. Mr Warden, in his article in the Canberra Times, attacked Goulburn and, as I mentioned earlier, its latest development, by describing the giant ram as `Queenslandesque in its massive nastiness'. He made the general comment that the development of the big ram was a tasteless development. I take this opportunity to state quite clearly that in my view the development of the giant ram at Goulburn is adding to Goulburn's economy. It is certainly adding to the job creation potential of Goulburn. I was pleased to note that in yesterday's edition of the Canberra Times the Goulburn giant ram received further attention. At my suggestion, Ian Warden decided that an impartial judge should be appointed to determine whether the giant ram was a tasteful or a tasteless development. As a result he has conscripted the services of Mr James Mollison, the Director of the Australian National Gallery, to pass judgment on this very worthwhile development. This Friday the giant ram will be opened by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). I look forward to the occasion. I also look forward to the judgment that will be passed, no doubt in the affirmative, of the very tasteful nature of the giant ram in Goulburn. I think that rather than the Canberra Times criticising developments of the nature of the giant ram in Goulburn and indeed attacking the very symbol of the development of the economy of Goulburn-it could even be said the symbol of the development of the economy of Australia-it should be complimenting the entrepreneurs who have developed this attraction, Louis and Attilla Mokany, and even be trying to inspire the people of Canberra to develop a similar kind of development for themselves. I wonder what would be the symbol of Canberra's economy. Perhaps it would be appropriate to have a giant tea cup as a symbol of the economy of Canberra. The mind boggles as to the amount of debate which would generate from that. Would it be a tea cup and saucer or a giant mug? Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(10.50) —After hearing about the difficulties of the giant ram at Goulburn I would like to bring to the attention of the House a matter that I guess is a little more serious, namely, the plight of a constituent of mine, Mr Emil Staykov from Arthur Street, Marrickville. Mr Staykov is an Australian citizen who arrived in Australia in December 1980, as a refugee from Bulgaria, where he left behind his wife and two young sons. After he arrived in Australia he wrote letters to the Bulgarian Consul in Sydney asking that his family be allowed to join him. He wrote to the Consul on 21 April 1981, 12 October 1981, 24 November 1981 and 21 October 1982. The replies that he received were negative. He received no explanation as to why admission of his children had been refused. Approval had been given by the Australian Government for their entry to Australia if they were given exit visas from Bulgaria. The Bulgarian Consul advised him that the only way he could see his family was to return to Bulgaria. Mr Staykov's wife then endeavoured to obtain an exit visa in Bulgaria, which was refused because she was advised by the Bulgarian Government that, his escape from Bulgaria was considered a betrayal. Even though the Bulgarian Government considers Mr Staykov to be a traitor, the Consul still writes to him in Sydney and invites him to visit the consulate and attend cultural activities there. This is an interesting approach to a person which the Consul's Government considers to be a traitor. Mr Staykov has sought the assistance of many people in Australia to have his family reunited with him. He has written to the United Nations, to the Premier of New South Wales and to the Australian Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). He has seen me as his local member. I have approached our Foreign Affairs Department through the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). I have written to the Bulgarian Consul on many occasions but I have received no reply. I received a reply from the Foreign Affairs Department which assured me that everything was being done by our Government to assist Mr Staykov's family to be reunited with him in Sydney. I was heartened by this and wrote again to the Bulgarian Consul. Again, I received no response. The Foreign Affairs Department in both Canberra and Bulgaria has taken up the Staykov family's reunion matter time and time again. However, it has received no response from the Bulgarian Government. I went to the extent of writing on Mr Staykov's behalf to the President of the Bulgarian Republic. I received no response from him. This is not the first time that issues of this type involving the Bulgarian Government have been raised in this Parliament. A number of honourable members and senators have raised the question of Bulgarians who have come to Australia as refugees and who wish to be re- united with their families. It is unfortunate that the Bulgarian Government adopts the attitude that it will punish those who leave Bulgaria by punishing their families. Indeed, I think this is a most unfortunate method of meting out punishment to people of whom the regime does not approve. The Bulgarian Government does not seem just to take isolated approaches to people who leave the country as refugees. As recently as August this year it was reported that at least 1,000 ethnic Turks had been killed in Bulgaria because they refused to change their Turkish names to Bulgarian names. There have also been reports that several thousand ethnic Turks in Bulgaria have been imprisoned. I would like this Parliament to note these matters tonight. I would like the Parliament to pause for a moment or two to think of the plight of people like Mr Staykov who desperately want to be reunited in Australia with their wives and children. I add my plea in this House tonight for the Bulgarian Ambassador in Canberra to show some compassion, particularly in respect of Mr Staykov, and allow him to be reunited with his wife and two young children. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.55) —Tonight I want to raise a matter that is of great concern not only to constituents of mine in Warringah but also to the constituents of my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and residents of the eastern suburbs of Sydney. One of the great features of the development of the northern Sydney Harbour foreshores in recent years has been the establishment of the Sydney Harbour National Park. I might say that this was carried out under the auspices of a State Liberal government. However, a great number of people in the areas that I have mentioned are unhappy about poor television reception. Because of the topography of the Sydney Harbour foreshores, residents of the Sydney Harbour peninsula area as well as residents of Balmoral, Mosman and the eastern suburbs are being denied effective television reception. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that remnants of Mr Wran's navy are often anchored off shore along the peninsula area and interfere with the television reception of people who live in that area of Sydney. For many years there has been constant agitation by me and others to have a television translator tower put in place so that at a very small cost a great number of Sydney residents can receive television reception equal to that of other Sydney residents. The Federal Government and, to his credit, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) have supported the proposition that a translator tower be located on North Head. The problem is now back in the State Labor Government's court. However, the appropriate State ministry will not allow, under the State environment impact legislation, that translator station to be built. It is not proposed that the tower be built in the Sydney Harbour National Park. It would be placed beside the North Head sewerage works. I can assure all the greenies in this House and those outside who may be listening to or who may read this speech that in fact the translator tower would be of very minor size. It would be inconspicuous. In fact, it would be very difficult to see unless someone were literally looking for it very hard. The installation of the translator tower would mean that many thousands of Sydneysiders, particularly old people whose only form of entertainment in many cases is television, who pay their taxes like everybody else and who should have access to appropriate transmissions of a high technical excellence, would be given effective television reception. As I have said, this problem has existed for many years. Unfortunately, because of the intransigence of the present State Labor Government, this problem, which could be very simply resolved, has not been brought to finality. Considerable agitation has been taking place not only in the peninsula area but also in other affected areas of Sydney. Public meetings will be called later this year. Additional pressure will be brought to bear upon the State Government. The Minister for Communications, in a letter to me, said that he has asked his colleague the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) to go back yet again to the New South Wales State Labor Government to see whether he can persuade the appropriate Minister, Mr Carr, to override the advice that he has received from his Department and to allow this television translator tower to be installed in the most appropriate place. There is no question that the environment would be unaffected. There is no question that the national park would be left unaffected. If the translator station were put into place, many thousands of Sydneysiders, particularly elderly Sydneysiders, would have effective television reception. A very clear decision has to be made by the State Government. I again urge this Government to place as much pressure as it can. I ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment to have detailed talks with his State colleague and to try to persuade the State Government, which has been utterly intransigent on this issue, to drop its objections to what is an entirely appropriate construction. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr John Brown —I require the debate to be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(11.00) —About three-quarters of an hour ago at the start of this debate a speech-to use a rather poor euphemism-was made by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). I felt compelled to at least answer it. The honourable member for Richmond may be ignorant of the fact that when such a speech is to be made during the adjournment debate, the normal procedure in this House is for the Minister to have been alerted. Of course, the honourable member for Richmond is a rather new and callow member of this House. Maybe he did not know of the ritual procedures, so perhaps I will let him live in the bliss of his ignorance on that point. However, a few points are worth making. I do not intend to debate his statistics because they are patently wrong. Mr Blunt —Try debating the figures. Mr JOHN BROWN —I tell the honourable member that interjections will not help him. His statistics are patently wrong. The answers were not prepared by me; they were prepared by my Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I will vouch for their authenticity, which is something that he might not be able to do. I doubt that anyone on the other side of the House will doubt my integrity. Those figures that I gave this morning stand as being a true record of the situation. Mr Blunt —You are not talking about- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Richmond will cease interjecting. Mr JOHN BROWN —I think that is fair, Mr Speaker. I sat in my office and listened to his diatribe; I think he can sit quietly and listen to my answer, and show at least a little courtesy. The simple fact is that this honourable member has not had the courage to stand on his feet while he has been a shadow Minister and ask me a question while all members have been present in the House. Amongst his peers he could not ask me a question; not once. He has concentrated on putting out the most miserable, mean, petty fogging, mischievous press releases from the time that he became a shadow Minister. He has not yet made one positive statement on either sport or tourism. I am quite happy to stand in front of my peers in this House and be judged on my record as a Minister in those areas. I think it is fair to say that sport has achieved a new dimension under this Government-something which the former Government, for 31 of the 36 previous years, had not managed to do. The respect that this Government has gained from the administrators and practitioners of sport within this country is unrivalled. Something will happen in the next couple of months that might prove on an international basis that that is the case, but I will not refer to that now. The honourable member's efforts as a shadow Minister have almost measured the efforts that the Party of which he is a member made in government. It did nothing whatsoever for sport. All that he has done since he has been a member of this place is to cast aspersions of what this Government has done. I tell the honourable member that he has gained very little, if any, respect from sporting organisations in this country. The first opportunity he had to support what we were doing of a positive nature was when we introduced legislation in this House. It was the first sports Bill which had appeared in the 84 years since Federation. What did the honourable member do? He rushed around in his mischievous, nasty little fashion and tried to rustle up a lack of support for it. It did not work, because every sporting orgainsation in this country supported it. The honourable member made himself a laughing stock with them because of it. He arrived in this portfolio unheralded, he leaves it unlamented. He will not be noticed. As far as tourism is concerned, the honourable member did exactly the same thing. He made every mischievous little effort that he could in order to undermine the very positive things that this Government has done in regard to tourism. I reminded the House not long ago that my dear friend, Phillip Lynch, sent me a letter, which arrived on the day he died, congratulating me for doing on behalf of this Government all of the things relating to tourism that he would have loved to have done in government but for which he could not get the support of his colleagues to do. I am very proud of what we have done in regard to tourism. The honourable member's contribution was to run around, putting together every miserable, mean, negative Press release that he could. He has lost any respect that he might have had in the tourism industry. The simple fact is that tourism under this Government has achieved an absolutely new dimension. Fifty thousand new jobs in two years have been created-something that the honourable member could not have achieved if he had sat there forever, because he did not have enough imagination or enough wit. I think it is very paltry that without alerting me to what he intended to do, he entered the House tonight with a set of figures that do not stand up to examination. For instance, the honourable member referred to 33 extra people being employed in my Department. I think I explained this morning that, having achieved responsibility for the National Sports Centre, which was previously the responsibility of another department, I was given 33 staff. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. If no other Minister rises, he may continue. Mr JOHN BROWN —I will take only another minute or two, Mr Speaker. I am very dissapointed that someone who I thought had a little respect should issue such a Press release and then, when it was answered, should sneak into the House to make a response. His response does not stand up to examination. The figures I cited this morning are absolutely accurate. His figures were absolutely false. I will give the honourable member the opportunity to speak to the officers in my Department to see- Mr Blunt —Would you like me to read the letter into Hansard? Mr JOHN BROWN —I read the rubbish that you talked about previously. It is patent nonsense. Mr Blunt —Get your calculator out. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Richmond is taking advantage of the late hour. I warn him. Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member has an opportunity as a young man on the front bench to achieve something. He will never achieve it by being negative. If he took a positive view about what was happening he might do better. I am sure that the man who has replaced you, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), will make a much better effort to have co-operation in this area. When I was a shadow Minister I shared a great sense of co-operation with Ministers, and I think we achieved something together. It does the honourable member no credit to cast aspersions on everything that this Government does in regard to two areas in which I think it has achieved an enormous amount of respect-sport and tourism. Let me tell the honourable member that it has done him no credit in this place to sneak in here tonight with some lousy response that he did not even inform me about. In summing up, I am pleased that there is a new shadow Minister for my portfolio. I am sure he will make a much more positive contribution, because we happen to be very proud of our efforts, in both of those areas. Nothing that the honourable member might do late at night during the adjournment debate, by making a sneaky speech, will dismiss in any way the very positive achievements that we have on the board in both of those areas. I hope only that in the honour- able member's new area of responsilility he shows a bit more positive achievement and does not worry about negative, nasty, petty flogging miserable arguments all the time, because he does have an opportunity to do something. As I said earlier, the honourable member arrived in this portfolio area unheralded; he leaves very much unlamented. Mr SPEAKER —The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.08 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 16 September 1985. Fisheries Act-Notices Nos. 141A, 148. Quarantine Act-Determination fixing fees pursuant to section 86E, dated 31 July 1985. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Variations of plan of lay-out of City of Canberra and its environs, dated 12 September 1985. Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act-Declaration under sub-section 9 (1) deeming to amend Schedules 1 and 2 of the Act, dated 29 July 1985.