Thursday, 20 February 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Ms MAYER(Chisholm) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 243rd report of the Committee entitled Review of Defence Project Management. The report consists of two volumes, volume 1 being the report proper and volume 2 being the project analyses. I seek leave to make a statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Ms MAYER —I thank the House. This report presents the findings of the Committee's inquiry into the Department of Defence's management of its major capital equipment acquisitions. It is presented in two volumes. The first comprises the main report and contains the Committee's findings, recommendations and supporting arguments. The second volume contains analyses of sixteen current or recent defence projects examined in detail by the Committee. The Utz report on the higher defence organisation noted `a history of criticism and complaint surrounding Defence procurement'. In an examination of ten major defence projects, the Auditor-General found that `Defence project management practices were unsatisfactory, contributing to: Significant additional costs to the Commonwealth; the need for scarce resources to be engaged in rectifying project problems; and a diminution of the defence capability through untimely delivery of equipment and facilities and through equipment and facilities not meeting technical performance objectives. The Committee sought to identify changes in defence organisational arrangements, decision-making processes and management systems which would improve the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of defence project management. The inquiry encompassed the full range of activities associated with the acquisition of defence equipment, from the conception of a need to the introduction of a specific brand item of equipment into service. The Committee drew a great deal of its evidence from a detailed investigation of sixteen recent major defence projects. The sample included some of Australia's largest peace time defence equipment acquisitions. I commend to honourable members the detailed assessments of these projects in volume two of the report. Of the sixteen projects examined by the Committee, eleven have failed or may fail to be completed on time, to budget or to technical requirements. A multitude of factors have contributed to these unsatisfactory results. Most could be attributed to inefficient and ineffective defence project management. The most common shortcomings in defence project management were: Inadequate evaluation of project proposals; underestimates of project costs, time scales and risks; incomplete project planning; inadequate evaluation of tenders; contracts which did not specify all contract requirements or provide effective incentives for contractors to minimise cost or perform to schedule; inadequate monitoring of contractor performance; contract supervision which did not submit the sometimes large number of contract changes to sufficient scrutiny to preserve project budgets and schedules; and generally slow departmental decision-making processes. These project shortcomings reflected several systematic inadequacies in Defence project management: a dispersal of project management responsibilities and authority; inadequate project management resources, especially in numbers of staff and computer support; a shortage of experienced project managers; limited training in project management at all levels; low retention of knowledge due to a high staff turnover; and inadequate management information systems within project offices and throughout the Department. An illustration of the problems which can befall a project when insufficient and inadequate resources are applied to project management is provided by the design of the cargo handling and storage systems on the Royal Australian Navy's new fleet underway replenishment ship, HMAS Success. A Cargo Working Party was formed in February 1977 to address cargo handling and storage on HMAS Success. However, the Cargo Working Party did not meet for the first time until three months later in May 1977. There were long breaks in deliberations of the Cargo Working Party and in 1983 fundamental design parameters of the ship were still being addressed. The Committee was told that the reason for the lack of progress of the Cargo Working Party was its lack of resources until the middle of 1983. Not only was the Cargo Working Party slow to produce results but sometimes the results themselves were wanting. A major decision of the Cargo Working Party was to retain the RAN standard pallet for ammunition and provision pallets on HMAS Success. There were sound reasons for this decision. Unfortunately, the Cargo Working Party did not think through the implications of the decision for the existing design of the ship. The decision to adopt RAN standard pallet size for HMAS Success involved a difference of 600 kilograms in the weight of a single ammunition pallet. The heavier pallets needed a heavier forklift to carry them and the heavier forklifts required modifications to the ammunition lifts for carrying the forklifts down to the magazines where they move the pallets. The combination of heavier forklifts and pallets exceeded the concentrated load designed for the replenishment deck and the deck had to be strengthened. Existing stowage arrangements in the magazines were also deleted and a Forgeweld system of flexible, adjustable stowage installed. Perhaps fortuitously the Cargo Working Party decision cost only $150,000 and 10 weeks excusable delay. An example of the difficulties which can ensue from the underestimation of the complexity of a project and its associated risks is given by the history of the Army's Hiport/Medport Mobile Radio Terminals project. The Committee heard a great deal of underestimation of the complexity of the project. The Department saw the project as a straightforward purchasing exercise although it involved significant design development for the initial equipment item. This failure to correctly estimate risk was a major contributing factor to two ensuing problems concerning the vetting of design drawings and the testing of initial equipment items. The contract stipulated that design drawings would be submitted to the Commonwealth before initial equipment items were cleared for production. However, the Commonwealth underestimated the number of drawings which were to be submitted by the contractor. Indeed, at the time of contract award there was no estimate of the number of drawings involved. The Army's Design Approval Authority was unable to cope with the number of contractor-supplied drawings and some 501 drawings were approved without vetting. The contract also provided that, prior to the manufacture of follow-on equipment, the initial production item was to be tested in accordance with contractor-supplied specifications to be approved by the Army's Design Authority. However, not only did the specification of the Commonwealth's test requirements in the contract omit the full series of tests but insufficient time was allowed under the contract for the approval of the contractor's test specifications. The resolution of these problems resulted in an increase of $3.5m in project costs and 41 months extension to the contract delivery dates. The findings do not necessarily reflect defence project management today. The Department has acknowledged and responded to many of the shortcomings identified by the Committee. Over the five-year to six-year time span of the projects under review there have been a number of improvements in defence project management. Greater authority has been given to project directors and there has been a gradual increase in the level of resources allocated to project management. In June 1984, after the inquiry was well under way, the major defence equipment acquisition functions were centralised in a new Capital Procurement Organisation. This change, the Department of Defence believed, would overcome the unsatisfactory dispersal of project responsibilities and authority, assign more authority to project directors, and simplify project organisational arrangements. The effects of the re-organisation had yet to make themselves felt in the time frame of the Committee's inquiry. The Committee believes that the Capital Procurement Organisation initiative will significantly improve defence project management. However, we have a number of reservations about the adequacy of these measures. They include: The change may represent only a formal change in the top management structure that will leave the underlying Service ways of doing things unchanged. The Committee believes that the procurement function should be given independence from the Services. In the past there has been a tendency for the Service sponsors or functional areas to maintain undue control, particularly over the technical aspects of projects. As a result large numbers of specification changes have been made with adverse effects on project costs and schedules. Most project directors do not have authority commensurate with their enhanced responsibilities. In addition to their limited control over technical aspects, project directors have insufficient control over project administrative resources. The measures make no explicit reference to training and other critical personnel management issues. Current planning envisages only a limited and gradual upgrading of computer support for project management. Basic Trainer Project An example of the difficulties which can face a project when technical considerations are allowed to drive a project in seeming isolation from cost or schedule concerns is supplied by the RAAF's basic pilot trainer aircraft project. In the basic trainer project this situation arose out of the failure to resolve conflicting project objectives and divided project management responsibilities. In addition to the acquisition of a suitable trainer aircraft, the RAAF wanted to re-establish a local military aircraft design capability to meet its overall aircraft support needs. The RAAF chose to pursue this objective by requiring the aircraft to be designed to military specifications. Another major objective of the project was the development of export sales to defray design and development costs and sustain the industry's acquired design capabilities. As aircraft design and development got underway however these parallel objectives of marketability and the development of design expertise came into open conflict. Dispute arose between the RAAF and the contractor, Australian Aircraft Consortium Pty Ltd, as to the status of the military specifications. AAC told the Committee that its understanding was that the specification was a target which would not be met to the full letter of the law. The AAC seemed prepared to compromise military specifications when 100 per cent compliance threatened to affect cost, schedule and marketability of the design. The RAAF, the AAC argued, was insisting on strict compliance with the specification even when non-compliance would have no significant influence on the RAAF's aircraft performance requirements. The RAAF told the Committee that it was in a situation of designing an aeroplane to specification but not regardless of cost. It added however that `undue compromise of the specification . . . would contribute to defeating the purpose of the project'. Under the management arrangements adopted for the basic trainer project, responsibility for the project was shared between the Air Force Materiel Division and the Air Force Technical Services Division. Although the Chief of Air Force Materiel was responsible for the overall management of the project, the Chief of Air Force Technical Services was the design approval authority and the air worthiness authority. Parallel with Materiel Division's project management organisation, the Chief of Air Force Technical Services had personnel responsible for supervising the design, engineering and quality assurance aspects of the project, although they were required to copy to, or channel, relevant information through the Project Director or his representatives. A 13-month slippage in schedule and a prospective doubling of the project cost appears to have persuaded the Government to abandon local design and development and opt for the licenced production of an existing overseas design. We believe there is considerable scope for further improvements in defence project management. Unfortunately, the Department of Defence appears not to share the urgency the Committee attaches to these improvements, largely, we suspect, because it does not appreciate the full costs of inefficient and ineffective project management. Failure to introduce defence equipment on time, to budget or to technical requirements, affects not only the Commonwealth Budget but also our defence capability and Australian industry. For instance: The savings forgone by projects not being delivered to cost represent resources not available to be applied to other defence purposes or other areas of Government expenditure; The shortfall in capability which may result from project delays is a cost to defence preparedness; and Contracting delays and generally slow decision-making processes impose significant costs on contractors and on the efficiency of Australian industry since Defence is a major customer of sections of Australian industry. For the Committee, the apparently secondary priority defence accords to efficient and effective project management underlined the importance of public accountability. If other defence priorities outweigh efficient project management, the choices and their consequences should be made explicit. Unfortunately, parliamentary scrutiny of the defence equipment acquisition process is inadequate. The Committee has made 68 recommendations to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of defence project management; 65 for action by the Department of Defence and three for action by other Commonwealth agencies. To improve the effectiveness of defence project management the Committee has recommended: (1) Firmly delineating the responsibilities of the Capital Procurement Organisation and the Service sponsor or client organisation; (2) assigning the Capital Procurement Organisation increased authority and control; (3) delegating more authority to project directors, especially over technical and administrative aspects; (4) increasing the level of staffing and computer support given to project offices; (6) making greater use of project management expertise outside Defence, especially that in the private sector; (7) implementing improvements in defence project management information systems; (8) improving the quality of defence contracting and contract administration; The further centralisation of procurement functions, the increased delegation of authority to project directors and increased computer support to project offices will also improve the efficiency of defence project management by shortening decision chains and increasing productivity. The Committee believes there is considerable scope for further improving the efficiency of defence project management by: (9) Modifying departmental procurement approval procedures to speed decision-making, and improve the quality of information available to decision-makers to allow a fuller consideration of cost-saving options, and to avoid costly changes after contracts have been let; (10) increasing the level of project management skills within Defence by giving greater emphasis to project management experience in selecting key project personnel, and expanding project management training at all levels; (11) increasing the retention of project management skills by developing career paths in project management and related areas; (12) consolidating defence project management procedures and practices; (13) providing stronger contractual incentives for suppliers to meet requirements on time and to cost; and (14) reducing the potential for post-contract delays by simplifying procedures governing design approvals, contract changes, and contract disputes. The implementation of a number of these recommendations will require additional resources. Others will involve a reallocation of existing defence resources. The Committee believes that improved efficiency will provide the necessary offsetting savings. Improved accountability will be assisted by centralising functional responsibilities, establishing firm management performance baselines and improving management information systems. To provide the necessary external oversight the Committee has recommended annual reporting to parliament on the major defence equipment program. The scope of the inquiry was very broad, touching upon all aspects of the defence procurement cycle from requirement definition to in-service support. Some aspects, particularly in-service support, could not be covered satisfactorily within the time and with the resources available. During the inquiry the Committee received some evidence of shortcomings in spares procurement and equipment support. These are important matters and the Committee intends to address them in a follow-up inquiry. A large number of people contributed to this report. In the first place I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my colleagues on the sectional Committee and also members of the sectional Committee in the previous Parliament, Senator Georges, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent), the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). We thank the Department of Defence, the Department of Housing and Construction and other Commonwealth agencies for the co-operation and assistance extended during the inquiry. The Committee also thanks most sincerely the members of its secretariat, past and present, for their support and work. The Committee looks forward to the response to this report. We shall be monitoring the implementation of the recommendations with interest. I commend the report to honourable members. Mr NEHL(Cowper) —by leave-I am delighted to support the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) in the presentation of the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, because it has been quite a marathon. My involvement as a newer member of the Parliament has been relatively brief, nonetheless it has been a most stimulating and interesting period. I have welcomed the opportunity to serve on the defence sectional committee. It has been a period of learning for me, and I am sure that once the report is studied it will be a period of learning for not only the Department of Defence but also the many other departments and arms of government. The fact that the report contains 68 recommendations is evidence of its depth and, as the honourable member for Chisholm said, the Department of Defence has already in the course of the investigation adopted many changes and has made many improvements to its defence project management. There are a great many areas where improvement is still needed. I am sure all members of the Committee, and indeed the Parliament, look forward to seeing a number of these recommendations implemented. I wish briefly to highlight one or two points of particular significance. One is in volume 1, page 35, paragraph 3.21 and deals with estimating project costs. The point made in the report is that incentives within the defence decision- making process to understate project costs to facilitate project approval apparently exist. I am sure this does not exist only in the Department of Defence; I am sure that it would be prevalent and common throughout government activity. One of the difficulties is that when government is being asked to consider a major project involving enormous amounts of money the cost estimate should be realistic. It should also be pointed out that the Committee has found and has been presented with some evidence which states that in some cases in obtaining equipment from overseas the price is quoted according to an inflation adjusted scale and then, before it is presented to the Parliament or the Government, the price is deflated back to current dollar values. This is why very often one gets incredible increases in the nominal cost, because of inflation. I think probably, that if the Department is to continue to deflate the inflation-adjusted prices quoted by overseas suppliers, particularly from the United States of America, both costs should be presented to the Government and to the Parliament. Also of significant interest is the length of time often taken in obtaining approval for technical changes or changes in the cost of delivery. For instance, in the case of the minehunter catamarans, in the client office the number of days taken to get change approved in delivery was a minimum of 49 days, a maximum of 75 days and an average of 61 days. In the technical area for these catamarans the minimum time was 50 days to get a change, even a simple change, made; the average time taken was 152 days and the maximum was 315 days. An inordinate amount of time is being taken to get sometimes quite simple changes made. For HMAS Success the maximum number of days required for change was 235 days and the average was 75 days. In the Hiport-Medport communications system changes for costing took 322 days maximum, delivery was 110 days maximum with an average of 51 days; technical change approvals took a maximum of 134 days and a minimum of 2 days, but still with an average of 37 days. For the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar project, in the purchasing office the amount of time taken to get a change approved in the cost area was a minimum of 5 days, an average of 115 days and a maximum of 250 days. Perhaps astoundingly, in the technical area, to have a change approved took a minimum of 10 days, an average of 105 days, and an almost unbelievable 595 days to get one change approved. That is incredible. I would like to comment on an item from the Auditor-General's report on the review of defence project management of September 1983. Even at that time relevant information was coming forward which indicated that the amount of time taken to supply major projects was increasing. The Humpty Doo transmitting station was expected to be fully in service when the project was approved in December 1978. In fact, it was in service in November 1983-five years late. The completion date for testing of the prototypes of the minehunter catamarans was August 1982. The actual in-service date was April 1987, again a lapse of five years. The equipment deliveries for the Hiport-Medport mobile radio terminals were supposed to commence in 1980. The expected in-service date at the time of the Auditor-General's report was April 1984, a four-year delay. They are still not expected before September 1986. Those examples highlight some of the problems we are experiencing in the supply of major defence projects. I also refer to page 10 of volume 1 of the report, which shows a chart of extended completion dates for defence projects. I shall cite examples from each service: From the Navy, the minehunter catamarans; from the Army, the Hamel light gun; and from the Air Force the Jindalee project. The minehunter catamarans were started in September 1974. The suggested time of completion is 1987, but the chart shows that phase 3 has only a question mark against its estimated completion date. Phases 1, 2 and 3 of the Hamel light gun project were started in December 1974. The guns are expected to be delivered and available by 1988, but the ammunition will take until 1991 to be delivered. Stages A and B of the Jindalee project were started in October 1969. They are now expected to be completed in the late 1980s. Again, my examples merely illustrate that we have a problem in this area. I hope and trust that Defence and Government will act to improve performance in this area and take notice of the Committee's recommendations. It is also of some interest to look at the chart on page 14 of volume 1, which shows schedule slippages. The figures I will give are the schedule overrun percentages for defence projects. The tactical air defence system is running 71 per cent late; stage A of Jindalee, 35 per cent, and stage B, 22 per cent; the C-130H simulator, 31 per cent; the F111A attrition aircraft, 82 per cent; Hiport-Medport, 80 per cent; HMAS Success, 70 per cent, and the minehunter catamarans, 57 per cent. The chart on page 15 shows the percentage cost overruns for defence projects. For the tactical air defence system, the nominal cost variation was 45.7 per cent, but in real cost terms the variation was minus 5 per cent. For Jindalee, the nominal cost variation was 46.2 per cent and the real cost variation, 25.3 per cent. For the C-130H simulator, the normal cost variation was 132 per cent, but 59.6 per cent in real cost. For the HMAS Success, the nominal cost variation was 185.4 per cent and the real cost, 98.6 per cent. I hope that those examples illustrate the need for a much more intensive application of effective and professional project management of defence projects. In conclusion, I pay tribute to and compliment the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) on her extremely effective chairmanship of the sectional committee. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it has been a marathon task. The honourable member has produced an excellent result. I, together with other members of the Committee, I am sure, present my compliments and congratulations to her. Mr ROCHER(Curtin) —by leave-When I became involved part way through the Joint Committee of Public Accounts inquiry, as did the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), I was under the impression that project management probably took a different form from that which I subsequently found it did take. Having spent a lifetime involved in the building industry I imagined that it was something like the management technique which has been applied so successfully throughout Australia. That proved not to be the case. I make the point that perhaps the Department of Defence and members of the armed services might learn a little from practitioners in the building industry about project management and the allocation of duties and responsibilities. While the building industry's experience is not necessarily adaptable to all projects undertaken under this project management technique which has been applied so successfully throughout Australia. That proved not to be the case. I make the point that perhaps the Department of Defence and members of the armed services might learn a little from practitioners in the building industry about project management and the allocation of duties and responsibilities. While the building industry's experience is not necessarily adaptable to all projects undertaken under this project management technique adopted by the Defence Department, it certainly is adaptable to some projects. Projects of a construction nature, as distinct from those which are essentially of a procurement-type deal involving great technical know-how, could be profitably studied by the Defence Department and the armed services as they seek to improve their abilities in this area. Chapter 2 of the Committee's report details some of the criteria which give rise to its recommendations. Although the findings were made as a result of evidence led and given to the inquiry, they contain a clue to the reasons for the recommendations which are enumerated. I remind the House that there are 68 recommendations in all. Eleven of the 16 projects examined may fail to be completed on time, to budget or to meet technical requirements. I am sure honourable members will agree that that is a pretty impressive percentage. In seven of those projects the major equipment items were likely or are likely to enter service significantly behind approved target dates. Further, eight projects incurred significant overall real cost increases. It is those sorts of circumstances that have led to the recommendations which are clearly set out in the report. There are shortcomings, and that is obvious. Generally, if not in specific cases, those shortcomings have been identified and are admitted by Defence personnel, both uniformed and not uniformed. The truth is that a new technique has been developed and one might expect progress to be made with it as experience is gained. However, there was nothing to suggest that without the initiative taken by the Public Accounts Committee in this area the evolution which one might expect to happen would have happened. There is some reason to believe that progress may not have been made had this matter not been brought to the attention of the Committee by the Auditor-General. Evidence was adduced which led us to the conclusion that deficient project definition was probably the reason for lack of management resources, particularly management personnel. It might be that they were complementary and that both the former and the latter are said to harbour some of the causes of the problems we found. But it was this combination of deficiencies in project definition and the subsequent lack of personnel and other management resources which caused the authorities involved to set priorities in a way which certainly involved shortcomings in the way the projects were handled. I suppose it does not need to be said, but this differed from project to project. As a result of these sorts of problems, attention to management resources, reporting systems and contract administration were seriously lacking in many cases. The honourable member for Cowper was, I think, unduly humble when he said he was involved in a learning capacity. I assure the House that he made a very significant contribution, as did all other members of the sectional Committee. Like him, I extend my congratulations to our Chairman, the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer). She was an effective chairman. She is a very diligent woman. With the co-operation and assistance of the staff of the Committee, she did a very good job on what is a major report of some substance and size. Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(10.38) —As was indicated when this subject was under debate on Tuesday evening, the community employment program is a part of the long term co-ordinated plan established by the Government to tackle the problem of unemployment in Australia. It has specific reference to the problems of the long term unemployed. The Government, of course, recognises that we cannot achieve all of our goals simply with one program. For that reason it has initiated the Priority One program, part of which is the youth traineeship scheme. It is to be hoped that through that program in the long term many of the problems that are associated with long term unemployment today will be obviated. The Government also recognises that it is particularly necessary to provide an economic climate in which jobs will be created and, at the same time, to assist those without job skills, whether they be young or of mature age, to gain the necessary job experience. It is in that particular area the CEP has its origin. I recognise that under the previous Government, in its latter days, there was a wage pause program. The wage pause program is one of a number of ad hoc programs which were established by that Government in a response to particular pressures at a particular time. In recalling the contribution of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) the other evening, I might say that he made an unfortunately disparaging reference to a program in his own electorate in the small town of Boolarra. I think it was a rather unfortunate choice that he made, because that program, which he claimed was one of the CEP programs and which he also claimed was unsuccessful, was part of the wage pause program. It was called the travelling clowns project. The interesting thing about that project is that it was appraised by and raised by the honourable member for Gippsland. It is a pity that he criticised that as it probably would have been far more useful had he gone out and contacted the group when it was in operation and provided some assistance rather than criticism. Job creation was not the top priority of the Fraser Government. I think people recognise this. Its economic policies demonstrably failed to achieve any of its stated objectives. Inflation rose, growth in the economy was negative and unemployment rose to levels that we had not seen since the appalling Depression of the 1930s. There are those who claim that there was a meanness of spirit about that Government that demonstrated that it had little compassion for the poor and those who were not the manipulators of the system. The Fraser Government pursued a policy that appeared to be deliberately geared to dividing the society by setting one competing group against another. At a time when national unity was a crying need, the Government was set on a path of social disruption and the very groups that should have been working together to forge a strong and growing economy in which all Australians could share were being set against each other as the Fraser Government attacked the workers and their representatives in the trade union movement. It pursued an industrial relations policy that blamed the union movement for all the economic and social ills that troubled the nation. Most of the members of the then Government, and I would imagine those who are the remnants of it in the current Opposition, knew then and know today that the causes of industrial strife are numerous and various. The nature of the conservatives, of course, has always been to break the back of the union movement and to deregulate the labour market. In this way it would be able set up a quiescent and dependent labour pool. I am sorry that I have to say this, but it does appear that their hearts and minds belong to the sweat shops of the nineteenth century. As we know, their policies resulted in an enormous increase in industrial unrest and bitter divisions in Australia. No real thought was given to job creation projects such as the community employment program as a long term program. All we had-I include the wage pause program in this-was a series of disjointed programs of a cosmetic kind that arose in an ad hoc way in response to pressures net along the way. It is sad to relate that there is ample evidence to show that the Opposition, as it now is, has not profited by its mistakes. Opposition members are still preaching the same policies-policies that this country just cannot afford to have foisted upon it. As we know, the result of their seven-year rule was an unemployment rate of 10.4 per cent of the entire work force. Mr Cohen —They have learnt nothing. Mr MILDREN —That is quite true. As the Minister states, they have learnt nothing. Bad as that was, the impact was felt more savagely in areas such as the area of Ballarat which I represent. The decline in the economy and the unplanned restructuring of industry left my own city with an unemployment rate in excess of 15 per cent. The Fraser Government promised full employment, but it left the country divided, the economy stagnant and unemployment at tragic proportions. The Labor Government promised to tackle all of these issues and to its credit it has achieved remarkable successes since its term of office began in March 1983. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised that we would see 500,000 jobs created within three years. Of course, that was scoffed at by the pundits on the other side. The country was full of sceptics and no wonder, because they had good cause to suspect promises of governments, given the record of the Fraser Government. Within the three-year period on my calculations, in excess of 608,000 jobs were created. That is a remarkable achievement. It is 108,000 more than was anticipated. Oddly, what we now face is a shortage of workers in certain skill areas because of the activity in those areas. Mr Cohen —A wonderful problem to have. Mr MILDREN —Yes, but one which, of course, needs to be addressed. An equally significant achievement has been the creation of employment opportunities under the community employment program. In most areas of Australia there are groups which find it extremely difficult to gain employment. These are the long term unemployed and certain disadvantaged groups such as the disabled, Aborigines, women, and people whose facility with the English language is very limited. It needs to be said that the community employment program is aimed at providing opportunities for employment in the local market for those who are unemployed, by targeting their specific needs. The significance of these projects for an area might be gauged by looking at the following figures that apply to Ballarat and Ararat. For the Ballarat electorate generally, the number of jobs created by community groups, the jobs on local roads program, local government and water projects total 874. The contribution the CEP has made directly to these is $10,143,338. In total there have been 164 projects in that area. I am pleased to say that 50 of these projects have been sponsored by community groups such as the Tramways Preservation Society, the wonderful and justifiably acclaimed tourist village Sovereign Hill in Ballarat, which the Minister knows very well, the Central Highlands Library, the Aboriginal Co-operative and, of course, the Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers, that remarkable organisation which is growing very rapidly across Australia, which is based in Ballarat and was initiated by Mr Tim Cox. Mr Cohen —I know it well. Mr MILDREN —Yes, and that group has deservedly received in excess of $1m for its projects. In Ararat a wonderful project called the Green Lake Reserve has been developed. These projects have had a number of benefits apart from those which obviously flow to the local community. The Ararat Harness Racing Club, a very fine organisation, has also taken advantage of the program. The work provided for the long term unemployed gives them the opportunity to develop skills, to overcome the psychologically debilitating effect of long term unemployment, and to develop self-esteem. These and many other projects by councils, government bodies, State governments and water boards have provided a remarkable number of opportunities for people to become involved. The program has been particularly successful in terms of people gaining jobs. About 59 per cent had gained some employment and 41 per cent were still in employment six months after leaving the program. Of these, 82 per cent were in full time jobs. Let us bear in mind that these people would have been virtually wiped off the scene because they did not have the skills to compete in the work force before the program. A certain parsimonious attitude has been expressed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) in this matter. I do not think he understands the nature of long term unemployment and the effect it can have on people. Before closing, I thank those people in my electorate who have come to the assistance of the unemployed by sponsoring projects. People such as John O'Loughlin and Daryl Vorbach, field officers, have done a remarkable job extremely conscientiously. People such as Chaz Dichiera, Stephen Bracks and David Miller have also contributed very much to the actual administration of these programs. Mr Cohen —What are their telephone numbers? Mr MILDREN —I do not need a telephone. These people really and truly deserve gratitude because they are so willing to go anywhere and encourage the groups that have contributed to take an active part in the scheme. I congratulate the Government on this program. I am particularly pleased to support the Bill because, once again, we have a long term problem and should not just turn away from the people who, in many respects, are the most severely hit victims of this system. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(10.50) —The House is debating the Community Employment Amendment Bill, which provides for the continuation of the community employment program first introduced in 1983. The difficulties assessed in this matter are enormous. Firstly, the continuation of the program is now, without doubt, a commitment that the Government must pursue. It must pursue it because it is one of the linchpins of the claims that employment has been increased and that there is a better overall level of employment. Of course, that raises very wide issues, many of which certainly were not canvassed by the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) when he spoke a few moments ago. The approach that he took was merely to talk of the veneer that is superficial in this total matter and not to recognise the salient features of the problems of unemployment and the needs that are so real if we are to develop any degree of permanency in a fuller level of employment in this nation. I want to say at the outset that the present CEP scheme is certainly better than the infamous regional employment development scheme begun in 1973-74 by the previous Labor Administration-an administration which found that it was unable to grapple with this problem. In fact it terminated that infamous scheme-that is an inadequate description of it but I will leave it at that-before it left office. Of course, then the Fraser Government gave consideration to what might be done in this area and a responsible approach was taken. To the credit of the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), when an employment scheme was reintroduced by the present Government, at least he was wise enough to take steps to avoid the disabilities that had existed in the previous scheme. But that was achieved largely because of the dedication and the responsible approach by officers of his Department, not only those centrally based in each State but certainly those in the regional areas. That has made a very substantial difference to the success of the present employment scheme. Unfortunately it has been necessary for many of my colleagues on this side of the House to catalogue some of the objectionable features of the scheme-objectionable because they present a very unfortunate aspect of just a segment of the scheme. I refer to the funding of very sectional propositions which promote the ideology and the philosophies of the present Government and its supporters in a range of areas. This scheme should never have permitted that sort of thing. I know that subsequent speakers from this side of the House will further catalogue the unfortunate occurrences which are on record and which in some areas continue. I believe that the Minister would strengthen his own stance in the whole matter and enhance the standing of his Government if he were to take steps to correct these anomalies and to rectify what can be regarded only as a very wilful approach on the basis of sectional interests being given funds to promote particular ideologies. I leave it at that because of other important considerations that I want to cover in this brief debate. The real issue in many electorates and certainly in mine and those of my colleagues in northern New South Wales is the problem of youth unemployment. Despite what speakers from the Government side have said thus far in the debate, the fact remains that youth unemployment is increasing. The figures give cause for great concern for the future of employment in that area as it relates to the community employment scheme. It is indeed significant that the proportion of youth unemployment in the total number of unemployed people in 1980 was 16.6 per cent. The figure has now grown to 18.2 per cent. If one looks at the situation in the rapidly growing areas of northern New South Wales, southern Queensland and some other regions of Australia, one sees that that level is still merely an average of the nationwide picture. In the regions to which I referred the level of youth unemployment is even higher. It is higher because of the rapid growth of population in those areas, because people have moved into those areas, with the hope and aspiration of obtaining work, and have had difficulties in finding a commensurate growth in employment. Why is that? It is because many of the economic policies of this Government fail to grapple with what is the basis of economic necessity-to encourage employers in the field of development in order to provide more permanent employment. What we have found in this debate is a lack of recognition of what is necessary to build up the structure of growth in this country in the real world of permanency of employment, in the real world of productivity in fields that will provide permanent employment. Of course, the word `employer' seems always to conjure up in the minds of those who speak in this House on behalf of the Government some degree of what can be described only as criticism of those who are prepared to do something of real worth. In other words, what the Government is doing all the time is engendering a dislike for that section of the community that in the long run will provide employment in this country. If we look at the taxation proposals and the whole gamut of economic management and what is yet to come from the tax package, we see that all of that discourages employers. Of course, employers are fundamental if we are to grapple with the real issues of employment. The Priority One campaign, so much publicised by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and by the present Government, has been an abject failure. In New South Wales it is virtually restricted to the Western suburbs of Sydney. It has failed to make any appearance of a worthwhile nature in the areas of high youth unemployment, certainly on the north coast of New South Wales. Officers of the Department have visited that area and attempted to interest employers, local councils and others in the possibility of participating in the scheme. But what do we find? There has been no incentive. The failure of the Government to be able to negotiate a junior wage or a youth employment training wage as distinct from the present awards has spelt doom to the whole proposition. The Minister in his second reading speech has certainly not given any hope in that respect. It is all very well for us to see millions of dollars expended on the community employment program, but those things are vital necessities for the encouragement of training and the provision of permanency in order to attain an ultimate real lift in employment. The honourable member for Ballarat said that there was something for the Government to be proud of in the fact that there was a shortage of people to undertake work in skilled fields. All I can say is that he certainly has failed miserably in his Caucus. He certainly has failed miserably in influencing his Government to grapple with that issue. What have we experienced during the past year? We have had a cut in funds for technical and further education which further reduces the opportunities for the development of skills in this country. What have we seen? We have seen the failure of the Government to be able to negotiate with the trade union movement to make way for a positive training approach under any scheme, whether it be Priority One or any of the other propositions that have been advanced. Yet the honourable member for Ballarat was praised by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who is in the House at the moment, for saying: `There is a shortage of skilled workers to take positions in many areas in this country'. Mr Cowan —Unions have tied the Government's hands. Mr IAN ROBINSON —As the honourable member for Lyne so correctly says, the unions have tied the Government's hands. They have tied them totally in this matter. If we were hearing in this debate of some approach to resolving this issue, the Government would of course gain some credit, but the embattled Government is facing a dilemma concerning the total spectrum of the economy. It is embattled over employment, but it is seizing on merely the superficial to say `Ah, look, employment is up and unemployment levels are down' without looking at what it really means and what it spells out for the immediate and long term future. Figures released the other day succinctly answer the whole question. These figures, from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, tell us that the average period of unemployment of people in this country has stretched from 30.8 weeks in 1980 to 51.9 weeks in July 1985. Average unemployment periods from 1981 through to 1985 have gradually climbed-to a level which is very unsatisfactory. We find in all the categories-those who are in the higher age bracket of the unemployed, those who live alone and of course those who are school leavers-that this enormous stretch in the period of unemployment is occurring. That is what those who are unfortunate enough to be unable to get into the work force are faced with. Is that something for the Government to be proud of? Is that something that it can make this veneered and superficial response to? Certainly it is not, and it is a matter that I hope it will address in the not too distant future. If it means some amendments to the CEP, let those amendments be introduced effectively and not blocked by adherence to a harsh attitude by the trade union movement. Mr Saunderson —How many jobs did you create? Mr IAN ROBINSON —The honourable member ought to come and have a look in my electorate at what is being done about jobs in some organisations in which I have some interest. Of course he would not want to know about that. Mr Saunderson —Have a look at the record. Mr IAN ROBINSON —Have a look at the record indeed! Our Government did provide permanent employment, to a far more satisfactory level than his Government has done and certainly is doing at present. I turn now to some of the impediments that exist in the CEP scheme. As I said, there are dedicated people in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, certainly in the regional areas. I want to pay tribute to those with whom I have worked. Mr Mark Raper, who is in charge of northern New South Wales, is an excellent officer who tries to be practical in all matters and to have regard to employment needs, to the spread of employment prospects that can be offered through the community program, and likewise tries to recognise the reality of projects advanced. It is unfortunate that we find intrusion from another level, from the political level. I refer to the New South Wales Government. What does it do? It has a part in the determination of programs, through the committee set up for that purpose, so there is a tussle with the New South Wales Government trying to use CEP funds purely to its political advantage. Mr Hicks —Shame! Mr IAN ROBINSON —It is shameful, certainly, as the honourable member for Riverina says, for the Premier of New South Wales to go across the country, flag wave politically, perhaps when a project carried out under the CEP is being opened, and say that the New South Wales Government has done this, that it battled to get the funds for it, totally ignoring the fact that there is a Commonwealth employment content in it. Mr Saunderson —It is not getting the credit for it. Mr IAN ROBINSON —The honourable member's Government is not getting the credit for it; the officers employed by the department administered by his Government is not getting the credit for it. The Premier has done this to the extent that I have quite properly made it known to the people concerned. In particular I have had to give credit to those employed in the CEP project and to give some recognition to their tenacity in doing the job as well as they have. Credit must go also to the supervisors in charge of those projects and to all who have played a part in them. On occasions the New South Wales Premier has failed to give such credit, as have his Ministers, and if that is not a shabby political trick I do not know what is. There are other unfortunate aspects of CEP administration. There have been attempts to by-pass or disregard the work being done by officers of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations who have had the dedication to try to make this scheme effective and to make it useful in the interests of those who are given jobs under it. I conclude by referring again to the fundamentals of employment. Unless we can mould into the community employment program a degree of understanding of what may lead to permanency in employment, the program will continue to have some disabilities. That can only be done if there is a more direct relationship in regional areas with the potential for employment, and that potential for employment can be developed only if there is recognition of what really generates local employment. So the excellent work being done by Commonwealth Employment Service officers, by those who have the task of encouraging employment, encouraging people to seek specific employment and encouraging people to undertake certain training so that their employment prospects will be greater, need to have a direct relationship with those involved in community employment programs. It is little use finding that funds, so precious at this time, flow through to State government departments merely to enable a slight extension in the dream run being experienced by those who just want to go out and carry out surveys into this or do a study into that and produce more paper. At the end of 18 weeks or 26 weeks-a favourite time scale for CEP projects-the dedicated person who has produced a report on the needs for this or the needs for that in welfare areas or a range of other areas, whose motivation has been lifted, wonders what in the world governments are all about, because it is the end of the road. The report is completed and stacked on an already huge stack of reports and there is no proposition for a continuation of that person's participation in the program. Unless these things are moulded into an administrative approach at Federal, State and local government levels, we will continue to see great disappointment on the part of those who are encouraged in the first place. I hope this is one aspect that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the Government will look at seriously when reviewing the work of the community employment program as it progresses into the future. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(11.09) —The community employment program was officially launched by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 1 August 1983 in an effort to create additional employment opportunities for the unemployed through the funding of labour intensive projects of social and economic benefit to the community. It was part of the Government's commitment to the Australian people to ensure that the trend to ever-increasing unemployment would be reversed. The Fraser-Howard team proved for the conservative parties that creating long lines of unemployed was a relatively easy task-one in which they were highly skilled. They managed to achieve an unemployment rate of 10.3 per cent, or 720,100 unemployed men, women and young people in Australia. They are the fundamentals that the people of Australia should never forget, and they are the fundamentals to which the previous speaker, the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson), referred. By contrast, this Government has striven mightily to reduce the rate to 7.8 per cent, or 583,500 unemployed. I believe that we cannot be satisfied with that. Even though we have created 608,000 jobs in our term of office we must continue to fight to reduce this rate of unemployment. Here we have the contrast of a government which is job oriented, seeking to bring down the number of unemployed and an opposition, which is unemployment oriented, with a proven record of creating record unemployment. I want to say something about some of the Opposition's speakers who have been quibbling about the program. This program has involved 16,772 projects, yet members of the Opposition want to quibble about a small minority of them. I think, on any fair assessment, this has been a tremendously successful project. I must say that I was bitterly disappointed at the comments of Mrs Judith Sloane from the National Institute of Labour Studies in Adelaide. She suggested, in the Institute's quarterly publication the Australian Bulletin of Labour, that 8 per cent is the current rate of full employment. This approach would condemn the western suburbs of Sydney, an area that I am very proud to represent, to being the permanent reservoir of Sydney's unemployed. I resile from those who can discuss unemployment in cold, statistical terms without considering the horrendous social and personal cost and the deprivations that individuals, families and communities must endure. CEP was to be specifically directed at those who were especially disadvantaged in the labour market, such as the long term unemployed, the disabled, Aborigines and migrants with English speaking problems. Of course, I am extremely disappointed that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia and the Party's spokesman on employment and industrial relations, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) had this to say in his speech: We will also be suggesting that, at least on some occasions, the scheme is being used, not for the purposes of providing employment opportunities for the long term unemployed, but simply to undertake capital works programs and other sorts of works which could not properly be described as employment programs for the simple reason that they do not employ anyone who would not otherwise be employed. I think that is a ridiculous statement. We have only to look at the previous Government's record in housing to see what devastation that caused amongst tradesmen and labourers. Many of these unemployed people have been picked up in the building programs. I think it is fair to say that the committees that were evaluating CEP projects have recently been cutting out many of the very worthwhile projects involving construction for the very reason that the industry has picked up. I think it is to the credit of the program that it is flexible and it seeks to pick up those long term unemployed. CEP also aimed to give equal access to jobs for men and women. The program provides not only jobs for these people but also valuable work experience or training which will assist participants to gain future employment. The CEP has been extremely successful to date and I am pleased to be able to stand in this chamber and support the Bill. Since the program's inception in June 1983 a total of 78,595 jobs have been approved and 75,519 unemployed people have been placed on CEP projects. That is a magnificent achievement. The community has also benefited under CEP. The program has provided facilities and services that could not otherwise have been expected or provided, such as public meeting halls, improved health care facilities, environmental improvements, welfare services and improvements to local roads. This legislation is an extension of what was a sunset clause in the original legislation. Of course, the CEP has three components. There is a State government component, a council component and a community component. If, in a tight budgetary situation, we are looking to review what has been the most effective parts of the scheme, I believe that the council and community components of CEP have been an outstanding success. The period since CEP has been introduced has been marked by strong economic and employment growth. Between August 1983 and June 1985, employment grew by over 390,000 and the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell from 10.3 per cent, under the previous Government, to 8.7 per cent of the total labour force. However, whilst the increase in employment has resulted in some improvements in the position of the long term unemployed, those employed for nine months or longer still account for 36.1 per cent of the total unemployed. The extension of the CEP to 1989 is thus necessary and an important part of the Government's program. The longer a person is out of work the greater the loss of skills and confidence and the more difficult it is for that person to secure employment. Even looking at the situation optimistically the total number of long term unemployed is not expected to fall significantly over the next two or three years. Thus CEP should remain an important and integral part of the Government's strategy to assist the unemployed. CEP has had large scale successes but, as in some schemes, improvements can always be made. I would like to point out that Blacktown and other western Sydney councils are receiving proportionately less than the Australian Capital Territory, although they have a markedly higher unemployment rate and greater needs. One of the aims of CEP was that priority be given, when approving projects, to those areas experiencing especially severe unemployment problems. The figures speak for themselves. Canberra, with a population of 250,000, has received $15.9m overall in CEP funding which has placed some 1,548 people in employment. Blacktown, with a population of 200,000, has received $7.5m which has provided a total of 738 jobs. Penrith, with a population of 130,000, received $5.5m which has provided a total of 525 jobs. Even though the Federal Government reduced the Australian Capital Territory unemployment rate to 3.8 per cent, this is cold comfort for the unemployed in the west and other needy areas where the unemployment rate can be as high as 20 per cent. I suggest that, as the economy continues to grow, more money should and could be directed to areas most in need. I understand that part of the problem may very well be a lack of projects coming forward from community groups. I am very pleased to report that the CEP area project officers, Mrs Cathy O'Farrell and Judith Melocco with whom I have had many dealings and I respect highly, will be looking to see what we can do on a co-operative basis to ensure that that does not continue to be a problem. I would like also to point out that, although the CEP guidelines suggest that the duration of jobs can last for three to twelve months, the average duration of CEP jobs is only six months. Clearly, a significant number of projects do not last as long. I am a firm believer that, if we want to change some aspects of the guidelines, one area that we may very well want to give consideration to is extending the period of employment. I know that research has been undertaken in post-job situation for CEP workers, both employed and unemployed, and the results are quite encouraging. However, I suggest to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) that we need to do a little more work on that to shore up the conclusions reached as a result of the research. The work experience from CEP projects has currently placed 41 per cent to 46 per cent of former participants in employment around six months after leaving CEP. But what of the other 59 per cent to 54 per cent? The answer may very well be that the duration of the average CEP projects is too short. It would serve not only to boost the self-confidence and self-esteem of job seekers but also to increase the extent of their acquisition of skills. They would have the opportunity to leave the scheme early, should they be able to find a permanent job. A number of worthwhile projects which are under way in my electorate have been receiving CEP funding. Whilst I do not run through all those projects I do want to mention a couple. Narragingy Reserve at Doonside has received four CEP grants. The latest grand total is $364,141 and the local council matched the Federal Government grant with $98,000 of its own funds. The money will be used to employ 36 people for a period of 26 weeks to continue the construction of garden and lake areas as well as to complete individual family and general purpose picnic areas which will incorporate tree planting, turfing, water supply and an extended picnic area. To date a total of over $1.5m has been provided by the Federal Government for this 90 hectares of passive recreation area which, when completed, will be the envy of Sydney and will be a facility that the west will enjoy and is currently enjoying. It is the largest passive recreation project within my electorate and within the Blacktown City Council area. Although the project is far from finished, it is already proving to be very popular. Mamre Farm is another project that is receiving CEP funding. This matter has been referred to by my colleague the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free), who in large part deserves the credit for the arrangements he made with the Commonwealth and State departments in relation to this project. The project is exciting and is concerned with restoring the original Mamre homestead of Samuel Marsden. Honourable members may recall that he had an original land grant of 1,030 acres on the plains and he called his home Mamre. The home was sorely neglected and completely run down. It is situated on 300 hectares of land which has just been handed over. I take this opportunity to pay a few compliments in this connection. In the western suburbs vernacular, it took a very stroppy sister of the Sisters of Mercy, Sister Mary-Louise, to get this project under way. I would like to quote the words of Sister Ellen, the superior: It is within this framework that the project will seek to provide an environment of beauty that can stimulate, calm, uplift and motivate; to nurture and enhance the ecology of the site in all its aspects; to provide efficient working models of land and energy practices that will act as a learning environment which enables and encourages others to adopt similar techniques; to adopt, in general, a concept of stewardship to care for the land, leaving it self-sustaining and better endowed than when we found it. ``Mamre'' hopes to provide a climate where individuals have a sense of identity, self-worth, dignity and belonging, regardless of their social or economic circumstances. ``Mamre'' hopes to foster the concept of self-help, local destinies which liberates and empowers local community. ``Mamre'' hopes to enlist the energies of young people in useful activities and to provide workshops and other activities that restore their self-image and confidence. A sum of $139,268 was allocated in June 1985 and was to employ nine people, two clerks, a carpenter and other staff to assist in the development of the farm. The intention is to run an historical homestead at Mamre Farm as a tourist and recreational centre with a teashop and restaurant facilities and to run the farm as a working historical model. This will provide a focus and a base to run a number of other activities for youth and provide a range of services to other groups in need. An application for further CEP funding is presently up for consideration and I am sure will be granted. There is more I would like to say, but I have run out of time. I am pleased to support and commend the Bill. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(11.25) —This debate provides a welcome, if somewhat sobering, opportunity to review and reassess the community employment program-to ascertain, in light of the available facts and figures, whether or not the Government can legitimately claim that CEP is an effective and efficient measure to combat the continuing and worsening unemployment problem. Unfortunately for the Hawke Labor Government, the Australian taxpayers and, most importantly, the unemployed people within our community the answer is a resounding no. Under this Government we have been inundated with a plethora of so-called employment creation schemes-most of which are ill-researched and inadequately planned, and depend for success not on facts but on hopes. Many of these projects have desirable ends but doubtful means. The community employment program comes into this category. Though no one would question the value and validity of any scheme which genuinely reduced long term unemployment, piecemeal, stop-gap, `seemed a good idea at the time' measures designed to create demonstrably false reductions in unemployment figures should be revealed for what they are-a waste of taxpayers' funds on yet another Government propaganda exercise. In its present form, the community employment program offers few real and lasting benefits for those most in need and deserving of assistance. Yes, we have more bicycle paths, more river banks being weeded and beautified; we have construction of some important and useful community facilities; we have the backlog of some government departmental filing being busily sorted and stacked; we have funding available for a wide range of projects and activities which could rightfully be classified as being of general community benefit. What we do not have is any real or immediate improvement in creating secure, permanent job opportunities for the long term unemployed. What was originally established as a means of creating employment and providing much needed on the job training facilities has, in fact, become a source of funding for a wide range of projects which, more by good luck than good management, create some temporary employment as an afterthought or side effect. Let us be honest with ourselves and the community and remove the word `employment' from CEP. Let us recognise it for what it is-a source of supplementary funding for State and local government and community projects which would not otherwise qualify for Federal government assistance. If this Government really wants to reduce long term unemployment by creating permanent job opportunities for those who want to work, it should turn its attention to the free enterprise, small business sector. Small business has in the past and, given the right terms and conditions, can again in the future generate thousands and thousands of jobs for both skilled and unskilled workers. All they need is a little more encouragement and incentive, and a lot less government interference, red tape, and unnecessary regulation. Australian small businesses have the desire, initiative, potential, knowledge, experience, resources and capacity to fill the unemployment gap. Give them the opportunity to do so, give them a fair go, and proper jobs will be created and funded from the proper source-the private sector. Over three years this Government has spent an average of over $8,000 per CEP placement. Imagine the effect if this amount of money had been invested instead in small business-almost $1 billion made available to the real job creators in our community. A lot more jobs would have resulted-a lot more jobs that lasted a lot longer than a maximum of six months each. There are several obvious major shortcomings in the CEP. These include the transitory nature of the employment offered, the fact that many people are trained to develop skills which will be of little practical benefit to them in their quest for permanent employment, and the lack of any real accountability to taxpayers in regard to the proper and responsible administration of the scheme, particularly once the funds have been handed over. The debacle recently referred to in another place by my colleague Senator Jim Short serves to highlight this problem of public accountability. In his adjournment speech on 13 February 1986, Senator Short revealed the disgraceful situation which has developed in relation to the CEP. Footscray swimming pool project. An estimated $2.9m of taxpayers' money has literally disappeared down the plughole. This enormous amount of public money has been frittered away in an extravaganza of incompetence and mismanagement. As an old-well, middle aged-Footscray boy, I have a certain vested interest in and continuing loyalty to this area, and I join with Senator Short in his call for an urgent and full investigation into the Footscray pool fiasco. Fortunately, within my electorate of Casey, we have not encountered problems of the magnitude revealed by Senator Short's investigations, in Casey, the community employment program is administered as efficiently as possible within the current Government guidelines, which themselves are full of inappropriate constraints and obvious shortcomings, by the officers of the CEP eastern zone. Their task is not made any easier by the fact that the short term, now you see it, now you don't, approach of CEP allows-even encourages-the commencement of projects which have little hope of being completed. It is extremely depressing for sponsors to see only partial realisation of their objectives. It is even more depressing for participants to see their hard work and dedication rewarded, after a brief six months, by a return to the ranks of those willing to work but unable to find appropriate employment. One of the basic concepts of the employer-employee relationship is, or should be, that in most circumstances loyal and dedicated service and the adequate performance of duties and responsibilities by an employee will result in continuing employment, hopefully even promotion. Under the present CEP guidelines there are no guarantees, except for the fact that after six months at most one's job will be terminated. I have been contacted by many people, particularly young people, whose initial elation at securing work via the CEP turned to dismay when the realisation dawned-usually a month or two before the termination of a project-that they had no prospect of continuing in their present position, even if the project had not been completed and little chance of finding alternative work. Often they find that their training has been of no advantage and has no direct application in the real employment world. Time and again they say: `I have done my best. I have done a good job. The boss is pleased with me. Why am I going to lose this work opportunity? Am I not to be given another chance?' Should I not be entitled to some possibility of continuing employment? Of course they should, but under CEP the opportunity is denied them, unless they re-qualify again as long term unemployed. They are innocent victims of a system which says: `Be unemployed for nine months and we will give you six months work: and after being jobless for another nine months, we will give you another six months'. It is like a mouse on a treadmill, and just as cruel, unjust and unnecessary. These people have experienced the restoration of their self sufficiency, dignity, confidence and self-esteem, which only employment provides. Unfortunately, like their CEP jobs, such feelings may be only temporary. Some, of course, are lucky. They find that CEP provides a welcome stepping stone on the road towards permanent employment. It is a shame that we are not able to establish just how many come within this category. For no apparent reason, other than to disguise the inadequacies of CEP, statistics are not available to enable dispassionate and factual assessment and monitoring of the success or otherwise of the scheme. On 20th November 1985, I placed a question on notice to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) which, in part, sought information regarding the number of people, in categories of age and sex, served by Commonwealth Employment Service offices in my electorate, who were registered as unemployed on 1 January 1984, and who subsequently had been employed for a period exceeding three months but who were again registered as unemployed. I also requested details as to the average period of their employment and how many of the positions were directly created through CEP-funded projects. I further asked how many people registered as unemployed since 1 January 1985 and subsequently placed by the CES into CEP-funded employment, had not re-registered as unemployed. The Minister replied that it was not possible to provide the statistics sought, as they are not recorded. Mr Andrew —Disgraceful! Mr HALVERSON —It is disgraceful indeed! If these basic facts and figures are not recorded, how can the Government accurately assess the results of the CEP scheme? How can it legitimately claim that it has had any real or lasting impact on unemployment? It cannot. It does not know. The figures are, perhaps very conveniently, not recorded. Government members who loudly proclaim the creation of thousands of new jobs through CEP are giving us only half the picture. They are following the advice of the well-known song: `Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative'. They are deliberately eliminating any reference to the fact that the vast majority of these thousands of so-called new jobs no longer exist. This can be described as the sand castle syndrome, one can build 100 sand castles a day and then watch as the incoming tide sweeps them away. Next day one returns to the same spot on the same beach and uses the same sand to build another 100 castles. By the end of the week, one has created 700 new sand castles. The fact that not one remains extant is inconsequential to one's claim. The fact that one has used the same sand time and again is immaterial. But, as one tells one's listeners of these exploits, one purposely and misleadingly create in their minds a vision splendid of 700 sand castles, when, in reality, at best there may be 100 and, by the time the tide comes in, there will be none. Recreating sand castles is similar to recreating jobs. Both can be created anew ad infinitum. But they are not really new, they are just recycled. Let me take this opportunity to set the record straight in regard to my attitude towards CEP. On several occasions it has been quite wrongly claimed or implied by my political opponents that I am opposed to CEP per se. That is not true. I am totally supportive of any worthwhile measure that will assist in permanently reducing unemployment. I am totally supportive of any project which will improve community facilities and services. What I have opposed, and will continue to oppose, is the use of public moneys to fund activities which have no practical purpose, or are of no real benefit to anyone but a few vocal radical activists, who see a chance to pursue their own questionable causes at the expense of the long-suffering taxpayer. I am opposed to CEP funding being directed towards projects which could and/or should be funded from other sources. I am opposed to pouring money into projects which can best be described as bottomless pits. I am opposed to spending money on training people for jobs which do not exist, or to waste their time on developing useless, non-specific or limited application techniques and skills which are not generally in demand now, and are not ever likely to be in demand in the employment market-place. In short, I oppose extravagant, unjustifiable, uncontrolled and unaccounted for spending of public money. If this offends some people, so be it. I do not intend to alter my attitudes or to condone the waste of time or resources. What I will continue to do, and what I believe this Government should be doing, is to consider carefully each CEP project on its own merits and to weigh up what individual or community benefits are likely to be achieved for each CEP dollar spent. So far, the available evidence indicates that in some instances current CEP guidelines are too restrictive and, in other instances, not restrictive enough. I question the Government's claims about the number of new jobs created under CEP and I challenge its conclusion that CEP is an effective method by which to reduce the problem of long term unemployment. Finally, there is a world of difference between the permanent, long term, secure employment opportunities in the private sector and the short term, artificially created, taxpayer-funded jobs in the public sector. Until this Government adopts policies which will result in real employment, the long-suffering taxpayer will be faced with the massive costs associated with creating `pretend' jobs and funding the additional schemes, services and facilities, such as the community youth support scheme, the community employment program, the new enterprise incentive scheme, the jobs on local roads program, Youth Access, Jobstart, et cetera, which are used to patch up the damage caused to individuals and the community by the continuing, unchecked problem of unemployment and this Government's refusal to recognise that job creation is the province of the private enterprise sector, particularly the small business sector. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(11.40) —What great knockers members of the Liberal Party of Australia are! What great knockers members of the National Party of Australia are! As a team, one would have to say they are totally non-inspirational. Their ideas are totally forgettable; their initiatives are desperately meagre. The rare good ideas they have fall off the back of an Australian Labor Party truck. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson), mentioned the word `inadequacies'. I hope that he does not leave the chamber; I have a few pertinent remarks to make. The word `inadequacies' is one with which the coalition parties have a very close relationship. It epitomises the conservative cronies of the honourable member for Casey, who saw fit to refer to community employment program recipients as `useless good for nothings', as `useless recipients of public money'. I am prepared to publish a few facts about the honourable member's electorate. In that electorate to date approval has been given for 83 projects. The total expenditure on CEP projects in the honourable member's electorate is $7,082,779. If the honourable member does not appreciate that amount of money-that $7m-which has been given to his electorate by a Labor government perhaps he would like to hand it back. If the kids in his electorate, the people who are being helped by this program, are useless no-gooders, let the honourable member give back the money. Some 565 jobs have been created. We will have those figures in his local paper, together with some of the honourable member's comments regarding those people. Five hundred and sixty-seven kids in the honourable member's electorate would be delighted to know the honourable member's opinion of them. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Community Employment Amendment Bill for two reasons. The first is that I live in Cessnock, New South Wales, in the centre of Australia's historic coal mining history, so I am not unfamiliar with the agony of unemployment. The second reason I enjoy speaking on this Bill is that it allows me to compare and to contrast the sympathetic attitudes towards the unemployed of the conservatives and the Labor Party in this great nation of ours. When one speaks of unemployment the mind turns immediately to the Great Depression. Let us dwell on that period for one moment. Nothing much changes in politics, particularly with the conservative parties-the Tory parties in Australian politics. The coalition has changed its name from the Nationalist Party to the United Australia Party to the Liberal Party, and from the Australian Country Party to the National Party; but has its attitude changed? The one thing that never changes is its incompetent handling of the economy. Throughout the 1920s we had the boom and bust economic measures of those paragons of conservatism-Stanley Melbourne Bruce and the Country Party's Sir Earle Page-who teamed up to plunge this country into economic ruin. Matching the incompetence of Bruce and Page with greed and a lack of sympathy for working class people were people such as coal baron Brown, whose great lockout brought the Depression to the coal fields months before it fastened its steely jaws on the rest of Australia. Mr Downer —What has this got to do with the CEP? Mr FITZGIBBON —I am comparing attitudes. Coming from the coal fields of New South Wales it is hard not to become bitter about unemployment when one recalls moving stories of evictions by conservative governments and the necessity for hundreds of people to queue outside the soup kitchens. It was economic incompetence and rapacious conservatism that took this country into the Great Depression. It was a hostile Senate that denied James Scullin the policies needed to soften the blow of economic tragedy. Conservatives, then and now, are prepared to demean their fellow human beings by making them go through all sorts of indignities because they are not able to obtain worthwhile employment. We remember the pittance of a susso in those days. The conservatives have never had any decent schemes to aid employment. We remember the Depression days, when the country was plunged into economic gloom. What ideas did the conservatives have? Sir Otto Niemeyer from the Bank of England was invited here to advise the conservative Government. What did he say? He said: `Tighten your belts'. The whole attitude of the conservative forces to those who are unemployed is: Tighten your belts fellows, life was not meant to be easy; things will get better, perhaps. They never get better under a coalition government. Latham, Lyons and Menzies did not have a clue about solving unemployment. They had to wait until World War II came to their rescue. The unemployed were then soaked up in the defence forces. However, the conservatives were equally hopeless as managers in war as they were in peace, so much so that the Australian people spurned conservative leaders and turned to that great Australian and Labor leader, John Curtin, who, as Prime Minister, gave his life to bring this country through World War II. Is it not significant that in times of crisis it is always Labor to which the people turn and which saves the day. Menzies was lucky and blessed with a bright economic outlook. He did not have to contend with serious unemployment. What did conservatives have to offer when the unemployment blowtorch was applied to their bellies? The old cry from Malcolm `life was not meant to be easy, bear it fellows; the poor we will always have with us' epitomises the Opposition's attitude. There is no doubt about which party cares most for the unemployed. The Party that cares most for the unemployed is the Labor Party. Labor believes that it is the right of every man and woman to have a job, to escape the soul-destroying trauma of the unemployment scrap heap. We care for the dignity of the individual. What have members opposite ever done to generate employment? They have never given a determined commitment to jobs, jobs, jobs. Sure, they will use labour when it suits them for profit, profit, profit; but they have no thought, no care for the dignity of labour. The wage pause has been mentioned. It was a piddling, trifling little effort. This century there have been two great employment schemes. Everyone knows the names of those schemes. First we had the Whitlam Labor Government's regional employment development scheme, and what a great success it was. People on the other side of the House are prepared to knock it, but as, member of the Labor Government throughout that period I know the great benefits, the everlasting benefits, it brought to communities throughout the length and breadth of this country. I am prepared to take honourable members opposite by the hand to my electorate-or to any electorate-and show them the substantial projects which were undertaken as a result of the RED scheme. Of course there was some small waste because local government authorities did not have the forward planning to complete successfully every project in so short time. However, overall it was an outstanding success, and the Australian populace knows that it was an outstanding success. The second great employment scheme of this century is the Hawke-Willis community employment program. Those schemes come readily to the lips of every Australian. If one went into the streets and asked the average Australian to name an employment scheme initiated by the conservatives one would be met with a deafening silence. Labor cares for the workers and Labor makes a genuine effort to create jobs in times of economic adversity. This Bill seeks to extend for a further period of three years this outstandingly successful program CEP, which is aimed at the most disadvantaged in our labour force-the long term unemployed and special target groups. This is unlike the Opposition's wages pause program, which was very selective and did not go to the heart of the matter, to the long term unemployed, those who most needed to have their dignity restored. This program has given hope to this special group in our society and has enabled a large number in that group to be fully employed following participation in the program. I will not canvass the reasons for the unemployment problems in Australia. I do not have the time. I will only re-emphasise that the conservatives opposite have never had an answer to unemployment problems. I believe that all speakers on the Government side have emphasised the great achievements which have been made by the CEP. The unemployed in Australia welcome the scheme. They want it to continue. It is a marvellous scheme. It is achieving remarkable goals. We are creating jobs for those who need them most-the long term unemployed, other groups or disadvantaged job seekers, Aborigines, the disabled, migrants with English language difficulties and women and youth. It is very important to recognise that the community employment program is the largest labour force program ever implemented by a Federal Government, and it was a Labor Government that delivered it. Statistics readily indicate that the community employment program is even more successful than the marvellous Whitlam regional employment development scheme, and it has been targeted to assist those whose needs are greatest. Work experience and training for unemployed people to obtain permanent employment have succeeded beyond everyone's expectations. Those who had little hope of returning to the general labour market have had their dreams realised. The community employment program has been invaluable and has led to a high level of participants going on to full time employment at the conclusion of their particular project. Research clearly indicates that the probability of gaining employment declines noticeably the longer a person is out of work. This vicious circle of unemployment means that the problems faced by these people in getting back into the labour market cannot be addressed through economic recovery alone. But this program has been able to restore the confidence and psychological well-being of many long term unemployed and has provided the impetus to get them back into the normal work force. One of the most outstanding achievements of the community employment program has been its success in meeting its objective of equal female representation in jobs created under the program. The overall participation of women in the program has been 38.6 per cent. I suspect that honourable members opposite have never done such a remarkable thing for women or shown much fairness towards women. Particularly gratifying to me is the level of funding that has been allocated to my electorate of Hunter. I pay tribute to Mr Gavin Farley and his staff and all the people involved in Community employment program in the Hunter Valley. To date, a total of $7.5m has been approved for the Hunter electorate. This has financed 139 worthwhile community projects. These projects have enabled 757 people in the target groups to participate-359 women, 43 Aborigines, 167 disabled people, about whom we care, and 38 migrants. These figures also reveal that among the participants were 502 long term unemployed and 376 young people under the age of 25 years. I have mentioned that the spread of community employment program spending throughout the Hunter electorate as pleasing. The honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) was not pleased that his electorate had received $7m. He tried to suggest that community employment program funds were spent on all these left wing, way-out, fantastic sorts of projects. Mr Cadman —How much is that a job? Mr FITZGIBBON —All right. Just listen. These are the way-out, left wing, non-useful projects on which money has been spent in the Hunter Valley. This week I received advice that the Denman Children's Centre in the northern sector of my electorate has received almost $22,000 for two clerical assistant positions to provide assistance to the child care centre. All those child care centre kids-oh, mate!-they are way-out. They are left wing as far as you can move, brother! Numerous projects have been approved for funding at Maitland, Cessnock, Singleton and Merriwa, which include the Walka Waterways Corporation, which has just received funding for phase 2 of its development, which will create a magnificent tourist attraction in the city of Maitland. This project will provide employment for nine people and the CEP component is $102,000. Also this week I was advised of CEP funding for the Maitland District Tourist Association, the Greenhills Church of Christ Nursing Home-a very radical left wing organisation, I assure you, brother-the Maitland family support scheme, the Maitland Youth Crisis Centre, the Singleton Child Care Centre, and a remarkable program for greening the Hunter River banks at Singleton. At Cessnock, the Cessnock Police Boys Club, the Cessnock Multi-Purpose Children's Centre, the Allandale Hospital Auxiliary and the Hunter Music Academy will all benefit from substantial CEP grants. During 1985 many worthwhile community projects were funded throughout the Hunter electorate and throughout every other electorate in this great nation of ours. These programs have provided the necessary work experience and training for so many of the nation's disadvantaged people. Needless to say, all the projects were deserving of funding and were of great benefit to the community at large. I commend the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and my Government for taking positive action to assist those most in need in our society by continuing CEP funding. It is a salutary lesson to those opposite, who could never achieve anywhere near what we are achieving. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(11.56) —The Community Employment Amendment Bill, as others have said, extends the centrepiece of the Labor Government's labour market support programs. I rise to give the Bill some support, but I do so with very significant reservations. I think one point which was raised by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) and which needs to be challenged is the assertion that conservative parties have never done anything to help the unemployed. Of course, during the 16 halcyon years of the Menzies Government we did not need expensive job creation programs, because throughout that period the so-called conservative Government maintained full employment in this country-something the Whitlam Government was never able to do and something that this Government is unable to do, either. Instead of addressing the fundamental causes of unemployment, as the Menzies Government did, the Australian Labor Party has looked at some sort of a quick fix answers, and a temporary one at that, such as the community employment program, which, of course, does alleviate some of the hardship of unemployment-that is incontestable-but, at the same time, Labor also runs away from the real causes of unemployment and the very real issues that should be addressed. This is not only the view of a back bencher on the Opposition side; this was a view also of the report of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs in Australia. At the very beginning of the report, in a chapter entitled `The Context', Mr Kirby said: Labour market programs, no matter how extensive or well co-ordinated, are not a panacea for achieving full employment. The links between labour market programs and policies and the achievement and maintenance of full employment are not as strong or direct as many may have thought in the past. Macroeconomic policies have a far more significant influence on the demand for labour . . . I do not think that I have read a truer statement from an independent inquiry of that kind for many years. The fundamental macroeconomic problem in Australia relates to the nature of our labour market and the rigidity that is built into that labour market by the Government and by its partner, the Australian Council of Trade Unions. For reasons of their own, they will not accept a less rigid labour market. They will not move gradually towards a greater degree of flexibility in that market which would create employment opportunities for those tragically out of work. Instead, they believe that the whole of their economic policy must rest on the foundation of a deal with the ACTU-a deal which guarantees wage increases for everybody, regardless of whether they are in a strong or a weak industry, but which keeps the unemployed out of work. The Government does a deal with the ACTU, but it will not do a deal with the unemployed. We are now faced with a 3 per cent productivity deal on top of all that-a quite extraordinary initiative from a government that claims to be concerned about the unemployed. To take one example from rural Australia, with incomes declining, many farmers now existing on negative incomes will also be asked to pay the full 3 per cent increase in so-called productivity. Clearly there has not been an increase in productivity on the land in Australia in the last couple of years and it is absurd to expect primary producers to do that. Over the last three years there has been some economic growth in Australia as the cyclical pattern in the economy has turned up, just as it did between 1978 and 1981 during the period of the Fraser Government. The present Government, since it came to power, has benefited from the world economic recovery. It initially also benefited from the breaking of the drought. But one of the things it also benefited from in the employment sector was the wages pause initiated by the Fraser Government. The wages pause is an example of a policy which was a direct assault on the problem of unemployment. It froze wages to help employers have the capacity not only to survive during a recession but also to provide additional jobs for Australians. It also provided some $200m for job creation schemes. The CEP is largely modelled on those schemes. In addition, $100m was put into the Commonwealth Development Bank to help small businesses as well. Honourable members opposite may remember that this wages pause program was supported by every State government in Australia whether Labor, Liberal or National Party. It was also widely and strongly supported by the Australian community. But who did not support it? Only one section of the community opposed it and that was the Federal Labor Party, the Federal Opposition at the time. Labor says it is concerned about unemployment. It says that people should have the opportunity to have jobs but it opposed one of the most constructive job creation policies-the wages pause-and worse, the now Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) in January or February 1983 called for the unions to take industrial action in order to support the breaking of the wages pause. That is a staggering initiative from what is now a government supposedly concerned about the problem of unemployment. That high unemployment at the time of the Fraser Government was, as I said, due to a very severe world recession. That is well documented. It was also caused by a substantial wages explosion in 1979, 1980 and 1981. Who was behind that wages explosion? Was Mr Fraser behind the wages explosion? No, the person behind that wages explosion was none other than the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). He was the man who as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in 1979 went out and called on the unions to take industrial action in support of as great a wage claim as they could possibly achieve. He was the architect of the massive unemployment that existed, and still exists, indeed, in Australia. He was the man who, as President of the ACTU, also oversaw, I might mention, the loss of some 32 million man days throughout his period in that job. Of course, there have been some improvements, as everybody knows, in the raw unemployment figures since March 1983 as a result of the economic upturn. When we look at these figures fairly carefully they are by no means as bright as one would hope during a period of some global and, of course, national economic recovery. After all, during the three main years of economic recovery during the period of the Fraser Government-1978 to 1981-just under 500,000 new jobs were also created. At the end of that economic upswing there was a lower level of unemployment in Australia than there is at this time at the end of the subsequent economic upswing. It is also worth noting, since members on the other side continually berate us for the performance of the Fraser Government, that for 82 of the Fraser Government's 86 months in office, unemployment was lower than it is this very day after three years of growth in Australia. The other significant point about the present level of unemployment is that the duration of those on the dole has also grown. That point has been made by other speakers and I do not wish to labour it. It is important to recognise that in 1983 the average duration of unemployment was 33.2 weeks and now it is getting up close to a full year. For those people who are in long term unemployment things have became worse and not improved during the period of this Government, in spite of some economic upturn over that period. Unemployment in Australia is still a very massive problem. It is a problem that all humane Australians should be doing their best to address. As I said, the Government is attacking the symptoms of unemployment with the very expensive community employment program and it is not attacking the causes. Consequently we have a community employment program which is costing the Commonwealth Government alone $880m or so a year. If one adds on the costs paid by States and local governments the figure is very much higher. It is incontestable that the community employment program has provided some benefits. In my own electorate there is no doubt that benefits have come to the community through the creation of much needed facilities. We have a major problem in the Adelaide Hills and in the Fleurieu Peninsula with bushfires and a large number of Country Fire Service sheds have been built as part of the community employment scheme. There has also been some assistance with the construction of community halls. I suppose the best known CEP project in my electorate and, indeed, the best known in South Australia is the Victor Harbour railway project, where the State and the Federal governments agreed to use CEP funds to upgrade that railway. I called for that initiative, I might say, back in January 1983 and I congratulate the Government on adopting my proposal. Having said that, I point out that there are many substantial weaknesses as well in the CEP. I believe in many respects that it is an extremely inefficient way to both provide facilities and to create jobs. I will just use a couple of quick examples from my own electorate to show that is the case. In the town of Normanville near Yankalilla a caravan park has been built under CEP. The cost of creating that caravan park, which has involved the clearing of some land, the building of toilets and showers, and the building of a very small house and store as well, has been $820,000. It has cost nearly $1m, and to build the caravan park has taken about a full year. It is not as though at an enormous expense to the taxpayers many jobs had been created. Only 38 jobs were created for nearly $1m. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), in giving the cost of CEP, used a figure of between $9,000 and $10,000 per job. If that were the case, in the instance of the Normanville caravan park we would be looking at more like 100 jobs rather than 38 jobs. It is an example of a fairly inefficient sort of project and I hope that similar projects will not be repeated, at least in such an inefficient way. In the town of Murray Bridge, a toy library provides a very important service and facility to many people in that community. I have given a lot of support to the work the people there have been doing. Under CEP a young woman was trained as a librarian for the toy library and I think her training period was something approximating one month. She then worked in the toy library, supported by the CEP, for six months. At the end of that six months, though, this hard working and enthusiastic young woman was retrenched because, of course, on average the program lasts for only six months. Instead of her being able to continue in employment, that poor woman was thrown back on to the dole and somebody else is in the process of being trained and will be put into that job. I suppose one could say that at least two people have had a turn at being trained and working in the Murray Bridge toy library but the simple fact is that in human terms somebody who has been trained, somebody who could do the job proficiently, has now been thrown back on to the dole. That is a tragedy for that woman. As far as the community is concerned, two people are being trained to do one job for a period of one year and there is a clear inefficiency in that. Obviously there are examples too of some projects which one would have to describe as fairly futile. In that instance I move away from my own electorate and take a very good example of a project in the electorate of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) where the CEP secretariat has agreed with the local council and the State Government to pave about three kilometres of what is known as King William Road at a cost of $4m. That is quite absurd. The road was a reasonably adequate road before it was paved. Four million dollars of the community's money was pumped into repaving that road. I looks nice and some people say it is the best road in Australia. I would not doubt it at that sort of cost, but it provides no real addition to the stock of resources for the community, considering all the other very great needs in our society. Other projects are completely ignored. In my electorate, in country towns there is still a need for community houses. There are shortages of labour for various voluntary organisations such as Meals on Wheels. None of these necessary and important projects can be assisted by the CEP under the guidelines, yet all that money-$4m-was poured into what was frankly absurd, the paving of King William Road. The other really major weakness of the CEP is the fact that it creates jobs for just six months. In other words, for many people it creates jobs without hope. No doubt the Minister's figures are accurate and 41 per cent of those who worked under the CEP have subsequently found permanent jobs. I recognise that, but 59 per cent of people who have worked on the CEP-the example of my constituent in the Murray Bridge toy library is a very good one-have really found that CEP jobs are jobs without hope. After six months, on average, those people have been thrown back into the tragedy of unemployment. Apart from changing the macroeconomic policies of the Government-I do not want to debate that any more-are there many real, constructive alternatives to the CEP in terms of job creation? We need to look at the total cost of unemployment to the community in dollars and cents. It is interesting to see that the cost to the Commonwealth Government is in the vicinity of $4.5 billion. On top of that, there are a large number of State schemes. I have not been able to establish their exact cost but I believe that it is about $2 billion. Most of the Commonwealth's $4.5 billion expenditure is paid out just in dole payments. They are really compensation for failure for the poor people who are unemployed. I regard that compensation for failure as a fairly inadequate and unimaginative response to a very real, human problem. We should be looking increasingly at paying the dole as a reward for achievement rather than as compensation for failure. I urge the Government to look at some of the alternative schemes that have been thrown around in the community, not least the sorts of work benefit schemes which propose that the unemployed be given at least some community work in return for their unemployment payment. All unemployed people should have the opportunity under that sort of scheme to do some kind of part time work. Those who choose not to do that-and as a Liberal I am a great believer in choice-should continue to receive a basic allowance. Those who choose to participate in a work for benefit scheme, in other words, those who choose to contribute to the community, should receive not just a basic allowance but, on top of it, should be able to earn the casual award rate of, say, $4.50 or $5 an hour up to and a little beyond the full unemployment benefit. An 18-year old with no dependants who is single and unemployed at the moment gets $88.20. Under a work for benefit scheme-I use these figures as an illustration-that person could receive a basic allowance of about $50 and work on a community project of some kind for $4.50 an hour, up to an income of perhaps $90 or $100 a week. That scheme would give all unemployed people who want it some involvement in the community. One of the great problems with unemployment, as I am sure all honourable members know, is the psychological and debilitating effect it has on the jobless. If we gave them something to do-all those who want to participate-they would have the chance to raise their dignity and the community would get something in return for its investment whereas, at the moment, it gets practically nothing. I believe that this sort of scheme could replace all the existing unemployment schemes such as the CEP and the large number of State schemes. That would have the advantage of reducing duplication and waste. The State and Federal governments could draw up a list of approved programs that would be used for a work for benefit scheme and those programs would be based very much on submissions coming from both local government and community groups. It is worth mentioning that that sort of approach was taken by the Fraser Government when it introduced its wages pause, but it did not have much time to develop it as a result of the shocking outcome of the March 1983 election. This sort of work for benefit scheme would not just be directed towards major capital projects, as the CEP tends to be, but also towards labour intensive projects. In other words, people would be able to assist with the provision of voluntary services in the community. In Stirling, in my electorate, 59 people receive assistance from Meals on Wheels, which can no longer find anybody to provide that much needed service to elderly people. I would have thought that that was an example where a work for benefit scheme could use the unemployed to provide a much needed community service. I do not have a dogmatic commitment to this sort of scheme, but I think there is a very great advantage in the Government and all members of this House giving consideration to some sort of scheme that provides not compensation for failure for those unfortunate enough to be out of work but opportunity for them to be rewarded for achievement in the community and to gain some dignity. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith)(12.17) —It was very interesting to hear the contribution of the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). I congratulate him. It was the best contribution we have heard from the Opposition so far, including the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) the other evening, which was disgraceful. The honourable member for Mayo was very quick to get off the subject of his electorate. He did not point out to the Parliament or the Australian people that under the community employment program his electorate had received $8m. He pointed out a couple of projects that he had supported, but I wonder what happened to the other $8m worth of projects. Did he support them or refuse them? The honourable member nods, and I appreciate that. I also noticed that the honourable member for Mayo was very quick to mention Bob Menzies. We all know that in his own right he was probably one of Australia's great Prime Ministers. I did not agree with him, but he contributed to the nation in some small way. The honourable member was very slow to mention Malcolm Fraser, the famous former Prime Minister. I pay him the tribute that he tried to justify Malcolm Fraser's record by manipulating the figures a little, but he and the Australian people know Malcolm Fraser's record and they will never forget it. The honourable member will be on the Opposition benches for many years because of that so-called famous Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. The shadow Minister at the table, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), also knows Malcolm Fraser's record. Let me tell the House about the Hawke Labor Government's record on the CEP. I am very proud to support the Community Employment Amendment Bill. I am sure that all Australians who are concerned about unemployment will also support the CEP. Since its inception, the Federal Government has allocated $968,763,000. It has approved about 16,772 projects with the creation of 93,216 jobs. In Queensland, to which I will give special mention, the allocation was $160,390,000, for the creation of 16,373 jobs. I am very grateful to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the Government for the great contribution to my electorate of Griffith of $25,401,000, and the creation of 2,214 jobs. The other night we had the opportunity to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition take half an hour to rant and rage about the disgraceful CEP. At the end of his speech, he said: `Well, the Opposition is not opposing the Bills; we are supporting the community employment program'. Of course the Opposition supports it, and so it should. It was a disgraceful episode and a disgraceful speech by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. This is my first opportunity to speak in the Parliament since returning from the United Nations. When I left the country, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) was in charge of Opposition business as Leader of the Opposition. But on my first day out of the country Andrew, the honourable member for Kooyong, shot himself in the foot and I found out that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) was Leader of the Opposition. Mr Hollis —The country went to pieces when you left. Mr HUMPHREYS —I know that the country went to pieces when I left but the Opposition also went to pieces. I thought that, when the honourable member for Bennelong took over control of the Opposition benches, everything would be different and that we might get some honesty and integrity from Opposition members. But we found that, although the Opposition front bench had changed, nothing was different within the Opposition. Opposition members-with a few exceptions-were still trying to deceive, and to lie to, the people of Australia-- Mr Blunt —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You know that the term used by the honourable member for Griffith has been ruled unparliamentary. I ask him to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Which word? Mr Blunt —I am sorry; I will not repeat the word but he suggested that members of the Opposition had been deliberately untrue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr HUMPHREYS —I was referring to the whole of the Opposition and not to one member but, in deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw and say that members of the Opposition have been handling the truth carelessly since that change. I would like to point our a few of the points made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition has criticised no more than 15 projects approved under the CEP in Australia. Opposition members have homed in on a few areas. I will mention one project that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition criticised and that was the peace and disarmament project. We have also had criticism of this project from the honourable member for Moreton, Mr Donald Cameron, through letters in the media. It is very misleading when the Opposition homes in on these few projects. Opposition members continue their effort to try to deceive the people of Australia. But the people will not be fooled by them. It is a very interesting point that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition criticised the peace and disarmament project, especially the peace bus. I have a couple of letters from the then shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), which he sent to Mr Worth from the peace and disarmament project. One letter states: Thank you for your letter of 24 October 1984. As you know the Opposition has released an expanded policy paper on disarmament and arms reduction and I am trying to get 500 copies printed for you. As soon as they are available . . . I inform the House that I have another letter here that I will be happy to table for anyone to see. It is from the then shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Mackellar, in which he stated that he could not supply 5,000 pamphlets for this bus to distribute. Opposition members have criticised the peace bus but they used it to distribute their literature during the election campaign. Ms Jakobsen —That's right; hypocrisy. Mr HUMPHREYS —We have the hypocrisy of them criticising a project that they have been using. Let us look at another criticism. I have an article from the Brisbane Courier-Mail of 19 February entitled `CEP money is used to fund leftist groups . . .'. It reports that a Queensland senator from the National Party of Australia asked a question in the other place. He referred to the allocation of $47,000 to the `unilateralist' Campaign for International Co-operation and Disarmament. He criticised what he called leftist CEP projects. Let me make a point about this honourable gentleman. I wonder what he will say to the people from the Queensland Lawn Tennis Association about a grant of $111,866 to the Queensland Lawn Tennis Association for repairs to the grandstand. Senator Glen Sheil is an official of that club. I am sure he will not mention anything about that, but he criticises the CEP projects. But there is more to be said about Queensland. We have heard Opposition members saying how bad the CEP is. Let me just mention a few of the projects that have been approved in my electorate in Brisbane. An amount of $2,100,000 went to the Brisbane City Council-a Liberal council-for bikeways. The National Party's Lands Department received $456,633 for computerisation of reserves records. There is a grant of $491,000 to the Liberal Brisbane City Council, yet another grant of $320,000 to the Liberal Brisbane City Council and yet another grant of $280,000 to the Brisbane City Council. Then we have a grant of $460,000 to the Greek Orthodox Community of St George in Brisbane. I wonder what Opposition members will say to the Greek community if they consider that a leftist program and that it should not receive those funds. There is also a grant to the Justice Department-another National Party Government instrumentality. I could go on and on with grants that have been given to the National Party Government in Queensland. I refer to grants under the CEP program that the National Party and the Liberal Party do not believe in. Yet we have a National Party Government and a Liberal council taking all these funds from the CEP. They are very quick to accept the money. I will quickly read out some figures from State Government departments in Queensland that receive CEP money. They have applied for it from the committees and from the Federal Government. They are: Department of Health, $954,242 and $1,244,000, Railway Department, $386,000 and $1,116,000, and the Police Department, $476,000. They are just a few of the examples of how bad the CEP is according to the National Party Government in Queensland. There are more examples. I draw the attention of the House to the operation of the CEP in Queensland, in particular the Queensland Government's participation in the State sponsored CEP. I have read out the figures but it is very interesting that I continue on this line. I will try to be as quick as I can. I am sure all honourable members will be most amazed to know that this is one of the few joint State-Federal programs in which the Bjelke-Petersen National Party Government participates zealously. We always hear from the Bjelke-Petersen Government how bad the Federal Government is and how bad all these programs are. But the Premier loves this project. Let me tell honourable members how much he loves this program. Mr Hollis —He never sends the money back. Mr HUMPHREYS —We all know why he loves this program. I believe, and I am reliably informed, that directives have been issued to State Government departments instructing financial planners within the departments that wherever possible CEP applications are to be made for work carried out by the departments. On 9 August last year my office received copies of 46 applications submitted to the CEP secretariat by the State Government. I will cite a few examples of the types of work put forward in some of the submissions from this particular batch of applications. There was one from the Queensland harbours and Marine Department, one from the Railway Department and one from the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service which I will come back to. The Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service has been in the Press recently. I think we all know about that and I will mention some more figures shortly. Other departments which lodged applications were the Queensland Forestry Department, the Lands Department, the South Brisbane Hospitals Board, the Queensland Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the Department of Mapping and Surveying, the Mines Department, the Police Department, the Works Department and the Department of Primary Industries. They all love the CEP program, as do all concerned Australians. Bjelke-Petersen especially loves it. I believe that the State Government, through the community employment program, is reducing the number of its permanent employees by employing CEP participants to carry out what are in most cases normal clerical duties in the State public service. My claims are supported by factual evidence which I will be happy to supply. I can supply that from the Queensland Public Service Board's annual report and CEP records. They are all available for honourable members on the other side and I am sure honourable members from the Government side will be interested in those figures. I want to mention one special department in Queensland; we need look no further to see how money is manipulated by the Queensland Government. I refer to the Department of Tourism, National Parks, Sport and the Arts. Honourable members all know that until a few days ago that was administered by none other than the Queensland Premier's ex-Press Secretary, the infamous Mr Allan Callaghan. As a good example of the misuse of Commonwealth funds, that Department had received a total of $7.2m CEP funds as at January this year. We know how some of the money has been disappearing. We all know who is responsible for that. People have had to resign. The Federal Government has paid $7.2m to this Department. We have been paying while they have been manipulating the funds. We all know that until a few days ago Mr Allan Callaghan was running that Department, so I do not think it is too hard to work out what has been going on. Although I have much more evidence here, I cannot continue because time has run out. Mr Blunt —I'll move an extension. Mr HUMPHREYS —I am happy for the honourable member to move an extension of time, but it would be taken off his side's time. I have much more information here about the Queensland Government and how it is manipulating CEP funds. CEP is much more important than our concern about the State Government manipulating funds. The program was originated to help young unemployed people. As a businessman for 20 years I know all about employing people and I know about how staff should be handled. I can recall that when young people came to me for a job I would be happy to employ them if they had had experience but if they had not had experience I would have to think twice. I have spoken to the people who have participated in the CEP projects in my electorate. All of the young people who had jobs under the CEP were given references by the employers so that they could go to other employers with those references and with job experience. That is what it is all about-giving young unemployed people a job and giving them experience so that when they front up to employers they have a much greater chance of being employed. I congratulate the committees in the different States that have assisted the Federal Government on CEP projects. I congratulate all the bureaucrats involved in the Commonwealth Employment Service who are doing a marvellous job for the Government. I congratulate the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on this very worthwhile program. I hope it continues for many years, as I am sure it will. Mr COBB(Parkes)(12.33) —Before we start talking about schemes designed to lower unemployment it is worth while spending some time considering what causes unemployment. Labor is a commodity and is subject, like any other commodity, to the laws of supply and demand. If the demand cannot match the supply, which it cannot at the price being asked now, we get an unsold product called unemployment. The 8 per cent unemployment that we have is the amount of the product that remains unsold. Clearly the product is overpriced. Both wages and the on-costs of wages are too high. A former Australian Labor Party treasurer, Frank Crean, summed all this up beautifully with the expression: `One man's wage rise is another man's job'. This is particularly pertinent when we consider youth employment. While we have 7.8 or 8 per cent unemployment, the youth unemployment rate has now risen to 21.4 per cent-some to two to three times the adult unemployment rate. Obviously the level of youth wages is not only pitched too high but also pitched too high relative to adult wages. It is obvious that the best way to lower unemployment would be to lower wages, especially youth wages. In fact, a complete deregulation of the youth wage market would be the greatest gift this Government could give to our unemployed youth. Much better that they can get a job at $200 a week than that they can get no job at $250 a week. Of course such a proposition would be too easy to implement and, heaven forbid, it has the twin evils of being common sense and it would work. Governments of all colours have not been able to resist dabbling with makework job creation programs. Whitlam had the disastrous regional employment development scheme; the South African tourist, Mr Fraser, had his special youth employment training programs; and now the Hawke-Crean Government has the community employment program. All have wasted money like it is going out of fashion and all have failed in that they have usually destroyed more jobs than they have created. Let me explain. To set up one of these jobs costs about $20,000 of taxpayer's money for a year, plus 20 to 30 per cent more from the sponsor-a community group, local council or whatever. On top of that there is a stack of other costs-supervision and the like. The total cost is quite substantial. With that sort of outlay we naturally have some responsibility to the hard pressed taxpayers of this country to see that the unemployed people placed in those high cost jobs actually do something worth while. However this has not been the case and I would now like to turn to some examples of what I mean so the taxpayers of this country can see how carefully-or rather, carelessly-their money has been spent. Here are some of the community employment program projects that have been funded since the Government started this wonderful program in August 1983: I refer firstly to the Campaign for International Co-operation and Disarmament. It is a group which has close links with the pro-Moscow Socialist Party of Australia- Mr Hicks —All pinkies. Mr COBB —That is right. It received $47,568. What for? To employ three people for a year to celebrate its twenty-fifth anniversary. Some party that must have been. Mr Cowan —On taxpayers' money? Mr COBB —That is right. The People for Nuclear Disarmament received $78,482 to employ five people on a peace bus project, as has been mentioned here previously, but on top of that it was given $15,392 to employ one person on disarmament education. I quote from the organisation's left wing magazine Challenge: The bus is equipped with all sorts of propaganda aids. The mind boggles. It advertises in the communist newspaper Tribune for staff, so ends up with many communist members. The Victorian Trades Hall Council got $81,640-no figure is too high-to employ four people for a year on cataloguing industrial information. As if that is not enough, it received a further $157,839 for 12 people to work for eight months on-listen to this-a trade union art and working life program. How about these other groups? The Friends of the Earth received $23,697 for two people to conduct research into recycling. Its magazine Chain Reaction was a bit short of cash so it received $34,696 to employ two people for editorial and promotional activities. FILEF, the Australian operation of the Italian Communist Party, received $36,766 for the construction of new offices and staffing. The Victorian branch of the Union of Australian Women, a communist-led organisation if ever there was one, got $35,631 for three people to write the history of this esteemed organisation. Can you believe it? Mr Cowan —On taxpayers' money? Mr COBB —That is right. Melbourne's left wing community radio station, 3CR, was looking a bit tacky. That would not do for our comrade announcers, so it received $26,203 for renovations. That was not enough; it received $29,970 for three people for seven months to carry out an ethnic broadcasting development program. Canberra's radical radio station 2XX recently was granted $112,987 to train seven people in audio production for a year. Mr Hicks —What is our deficit? Mr COBB —God knows. The Australian Capital Territory Trades and Labor Council received $245,230 to employ 13 people for a year and Actors Equity, that fine moderate group, received $15,426 to make representations to `eliminate current exploitation of announcers by employers'. Have you ever heard anything more ridiculous? The Printing and Kindred Industries Union, another fine bunch of moderates, received $172,644-no figure is too high-for nine people to `investigate the extent of sub-award employment practices'. Mr Hicks —And they complain about poverty in this country. Mr COBB —That is right, they do. The Womens Sub-Committee of the Newcastle Trades Hall Council, that lovely group of even-handed people, received $45,641 for three people for 10 months. The Victorian Teachers Union has been given $110,617 to fund its women's affirmative action handbook. I ask honourable members to listen to this one which must surely be the daddy of them all: The Gay Publications Co-operative and one of its affiliates, between them, have received $123,280 to do things such as produce their homosexual magazines Outrage and Gay Community News. It is an outrage all right! It is an outrageous waste of taxpayers' money. If the Australian Labor Party wants to support and fund such deviant behaviour, as it so obviously wants to do, let it fund these practices out of its own pocket. But it should not do it with taxpayers' money. The list goes on and on. In the last few weeks alone I have been deluged in my office with a mountain of Press releases from the office of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), all bragging at just how quickly they can waste taxpayers' money. Let me read from a sample of them so that honourable members can judge for themselves just how worth while they are. There are numerous amazing examples. Twenty-one young unemployed people are to work for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation at a cost of $334,890. What is the aim of this project? Let me quote from the Press release which states: The major aims of the project are for young people-so far so good- of non-Anglo Celtic backgrounds to provide an opportunity for `accented' voices to be heard on air and win acceptance within the community. If people have an Australian drawl, like me, they cannot get on. The Hobart City Council- Mr Goodluck —Oh! Mr COBB —Here is one for the honourable member for Franklin. An amount of $24,800 has been allocated to the Hobart City Council to employ two people for 29 weeks to paint murals on three inner city sites. Here is another one, involving the South Australian Health Commission. An amount of $71,481 has been allocated to employ 10 people for up to 32 weeks to obtain information on the health needs of women. The Ministry of Planning and Environment has been allocated $1.3m for six projects, one of which includes sending people out to investigate and assess shipwreck sites. Mr Hicks —What have they done for Australian families? Mr COBB —It makes one wonder. Nothing, according to the list that I have. The Association for Community Theatre Inc. is to receive $41,873 for rehearsals and performances of a multicultural play in English and Polish. This is for primary school students, not adults. That association is to employ six persons on the play, five of whom must be migrants with English language difficulties-if people can talk English they cannot get on-and these people will be employed for 16 weeks. It is beyond belief! Central Sydney will get $86,226 to train Aborigines in the objectives and activities of trade unions in New South Wales. I am sure that that will do them a lot of good in Redfern. Seven people are to be employed at a cost of $81,975 to beautify a museum site. There is nothing wrong with the project so far. The project is for six months and the Press release states: . . . they will gain experience and training in gardening and landscaping, a vocation much in demand in the Canberra region. If it is much in demand why does the Government have to support these people? Why do they not just go out and get the jobs? Another project involves research into women's unemployment issues involving $138,487 for 12 small-scale projects aimed at improving the position of women in the work force. The Press release states that only women need apply so I guess that that will achieve the objective. Mr Braithwaite —These are all coming from news releases from the Minister? Mr COBB —That is right, they are. Here is a good one. A project involving the recording of oral history of Aboriginal communities in the far north-west of Australia will have $98,057 spent on it and will employ five Aborigines to collect stories about Aboriginal experiences over the last 150 years. When they have done this they will translate the text into standard English-whatever that is-Bardii and Creole. Bardii is a local Aboriginal language and I am told that Creole is not a north American Indian tribe but pidgin English. That is one of 19 projects. I will not read the others as time does not permit, but let me mention another great one. An amount of $60,438 is to be allocated to employ some people to go along and compile a checklist of plants in the Alligator Rivers region. The Press release states: The project will provide the participants with valuable work experience- honourable members can imagine them stepping over crocodiles- which should greatly enhance their prospects of future permanent employment. I am sure that it will. A sum of $98,700 will be given to enhance the environment and appearance of the Albion Explosives Factory. An amount of $137,000 is to be given to a theatre to employ 12 people for 26 weeks to put on two plays and a community theatre play. They will be worth seeing! Here is a ripper. That Arts Council of the Australian Capital Territory-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(12.46) —I move: That this House- (1) acknowledges and applauds the Government's record in focusing public attention on the problem of road safety; (2) encourages the Australian community to join with and assist governments in fostering better attitudes towards road safety, especially amongst the young, and (3) urges all State governments to heed the federal Minister for Transport's call for the introduction of a graduated licensing scheme whereby the nation's youth might be better trained and qualified before being licensed to drive independently. Last year almost 3,000 Australians were killed on our roads-3,000 of our most precious asset, Australian people. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said, the road toll is one of our most horrific social problems. More Australians will die on our roads in the first four months of this year than during action in both the Korean and Vietnam wars combined. This is an appalling waste of life. In fact, it costs the Australian community about $3,000m every year. Each week it costs the Federal Government $3m in welfare payments alone. None of us can afford to ignore this human and economic cost, and yet we do. To keep the public aware of the war on our roads, we would need banner headlines, screaming: `3,000 Australians killed', `30,000 seriously injured'. But that type of headline would be needed at least every week. In addressing this problem of trying to keep the public continuously aware of the carnage on the roads, I would like to propose that the Government encourage and assist in the setting up of a national organisation of those who have been most directly affected by road accidents-the bereaved families, the injured and those in the community currently striving for improvements in road safety and reductions in the road carnage. Such an organisation or association could and would become a community lobby group capable of keeping pressure on legislators and keeping the public aware of the massive costs in human suffering through road accidents. Returned servicemen have the Returned Services League, consumers have consumer associations, and Vietnam veterans have their Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. Road accident victims, the injured and the bereaved, should have an organisation, a road accident bereaved and injured organisation, which could play a vital role in addressing the road carnage. Just look at these costs: In 1984, 2,812 were killed and 29,231 were seriously injured. The annual cost to the community was over $3,000m, with $3m in welfare payments each week being paid out by the Federal Government alone. All of us should be getting together as a community to put an end to this carnage. May I say how pleased I am as a member of this House to see the initiative and support being given by the current Government to the effort of saving Australian lives. It is a national issue, requiring national leadership and initiative. In saying this, may I congratulate the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) for his efforts. In the three years of this Government we have seen the most comprehensive overhaul of our national transport system. Part of this effort has been a much enhanced contribution to improved road safety. One of the most significant contributions this Government is making is in the area of research and promotion. We have in the Federal Office of Road Safety an excellent unit dedicated to identifying the elements needing attention and prescribing remedies. It is, I might suggest, a world leader. In fact, we as Australians are world leaders in road safety and we have the figures to prove it. Initiative from the Federal Office, in conjunction with some of the more enlightened States have brought us a long way. However, there is still a long way to go. Promotional activities are high on the list of Government initiatives and it is most gratifying to see the excellent material being produced, particularly for use in schools, aimed at teaching our young the fundamentals of better road safety. Recent campaigns on helmet wearing for cyclists featuring Molly Meldrum are an excellent example. Similarly, the Out and About campaign where exercise books and teachers' guides have been produced for primary school children, is an excellent product. The motor vehicle itself, for long the focus of much attention, continues to be improved in both its primary and secondary safety. Much of the credit for this is due to the role of the Federal Government. The development of the Australian design rules has given us, for the first time, a set of national standards to be followed by industry. The renovation of these this year to remove a number of small anomalies will see the finalisation of a truly national system. We are now leaders in motor vehicle safety, for not only do we have common national standards of manufacture, but we have an unobtrusive system for checking that those systems are maintained as part of the normal quality control process. There will, of course, always be some gaps in the motor vehicle safety system. Defects will always be found, but at least we now have a system whereby vehicle weaknesses can be quickly detected and rectified. While speaking of vehicle defects and weaknesses, I have been concerned for some time about the multiplicity of seat-belt release buttons and their location. Some are located on the top of the buckle, some are on the side, and some are in the centre. Surely the manufacturers could at least standardise the size and location of the seat-belt release button. One does not need a great deal of imagination to understand the type of problem that could be encountered if there was need to make a fast exit from a burning car and the seat-belt release button was not in the familiar place. Continuing on with this matter of safety systems in motor vehicles, let me say that there are a number of factors causing this road carnage. Speeding vehicles, particularly through intersections, are very high on the list of cause factors. There is currently available a cruise control option that maintains the speed set by the driver. It operates by using the manifold vacuum to pull down the throttle. This automatic control is immediately cancelled when the brake pedal is depressed and the throttle control is immediately returned to the driver. There are other variants of speed control and speed warning indicators. However, the issue I wish to canvass is a proposal that vehicles be fitted with a light on the top of the vehicle, similar to the police and ambulance vehicles. This light would come on when the vehicle went above 60 kilometres per hour. The proposal is technically not difficult and the cost would be very small. For such a safety addition to the vehicle, the driver would be seen to be exceeding the speed limit when his outside roof light came on. There is currently a requirement that a vehicle show when the brakes are applied. We call it stop lights. There is currently a requirement that a vehicle show when it is being driven round a corner or changing lanes. We call it indicators. It should be a requirement that a vehicle indicate to other road users, and to the public generally, that the vehicle is exceeding the speed limit-a flashing speed light on the roof of a person's vehicle proclaiming to the general public: `My car is speeding'. I believe such a development would be more effective than, or equally as effective as, radar traps. I hope the Minister will give this proposal serious consideration. Mr Peter Morris —Certainly. Mr SCOTT —He is a very good Minister, too. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) also deserves commendation, and I refer here to the amendments to the Trade Practices Act providing for product recall. The voluntary system we have had now for so long is clearly not good enough. Australian lives are too important to leave at the discretion of manufacturers alone. Similarly, with heavy vehicles a great deal of effort has been made, especially in improving braking, to ensure that the standard of vehicle safety is improved. In connection with this, it is worth noting that the interstate road transport legislation which passed through Parliament in the last period of sittings, will significantly boost heavy vehicle safety. Safe operations of interstate transport will be, under this legislation, a fundamental requirement for the retention of interstate registration. To move from the motor vehicle, the second important ingredient in the recipe for improved road safety is better roads. On road construction and maintenance this Government has increased funding by over 80 per cent since being elected to office. This year we have a record budget for road construction of $1,245m. This brings me to the essence of the motion, for no matter how safe our vehicles are, no matter how much we spend on better roads, it is the person behind the wheel of the vehicle who is the greatest problem. An increasing proportion of the Government's research and promotion budget is therefore being directed to the human factor. The importance of developing appropriate road safety attitudes among youth should not be underestimated. Young males under 25 represent 21 per cent of the population but 35 per cent of fatalities. In 1984, 47 per cent of those killed and 54 per cent of the seriously injured were under 25 years of age. For youth, getting a driver's licence, as we all realise from our own experience, is an exciting time. It coincides with the end of school and starting life on one's own. Driving a car is a symbol of independence and responsibility. Unfortunately, however, learning to drive and learning to drink also coincide. This is a fatal combination. Drinking and driving are simply not compatible. Attitudes must be changed. Over the last few years we have seen a concentration on the human aspects of road safety. Advertising campaigns initiated by the Federal Government and pursued by the States aimed at combating drink driving are excellent examples. Learning to drive is much more than knowing how to steer, park, reverse and perform all the physical functions to get the vehicle from A to B. This is called car craft. Learning to drive should be a process of acquiring road craft-the ability to look ahead, to anticipate and to understand. Sadly, many have never learned road craft and much work needs to be done in developing better training schemes to overcome these attitudes of `She'll be right', or `it can't happen to me'. We need to replace our impatience, aggression and frustration with courtesy, consideration and concentration. We need to anticipate better the needs of other road users. The Minister for Transport has proposed a graduated licensing scheme whereby learner drivers are subject to a longer probationary period under the varying degrees of supervision and restriction as one part of the solution. This is an excellent concept. For many, to learn to drive at a young age contradicts conventional wisdom. They mistakenly believe that the driving age should be raised. However, it is not the age at which the learning process begins that is relevant, but the quality and the length of the learning process. The basis of the graduated scheme is that over four 6-month periods a learner driver would progress through four phases, the restrictions decreasing from one to the next. While a young person might get a permit much earlier, he would, under this system, take two years to get a licence whereby he could drive without supervision and restrictions. We should be backing our young drivers more effectively than we do at present and we should also be doing as much as we can to maintain and develop higher levels of driving skills amongst those who have gained their unrestricted licence. Government action though will never be enough. As I have said, it is not a matter of `they ought to', but a matter of `we as a community ought to'. Parents, schools and community groups have a vital role to play. Mr Deputy Speaker, may I, in concluding, urge all members of this House to consider what I have said and to bring some pressure to bear on State governments so that a more imaginative and sensible system of driver training and licensing is introduced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Is the motion seconded? Mrs Darling —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(1.01) —I congratulate the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) for bringing forward this motion. It proves to all Australians that we can agree on certain aspects and we do not argue the toss about the importance of road safety. It is pleasing to see the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) at the table and to see the Chairperson of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety, the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), and the Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), as members of that Committee. We do work in harmony and we do work to try to overcome the carnage on our roads in Australia. We all know that every day 10 people die as a result of road accidents. One in 10 is a motor cyclist, usually under the age of 21. So we have a massive problem and we have to work in concert with each other to try to overcome this massive problem. Some of the points that the honourable member for Hindmarsh made today-he is not a member of the Committee-prove that he does think about road safety, that he does come up with ideas. Hopefully some of those ideas will be implemented and will be a move towards overcoming the problem that we have. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety was set up by the House well before 1975, but I would like to list a few of the reports that have been handed down by the Committee since 1975. It is not a very fashionable Committee, Road Safety- Mr Peter Morris —It is a good committee. Mr GOODLUCK —It is a good committee but it is not a very fashionable one in the eyes of some members of this House, and that is the point that I was going to make. A lot of honourable members seem to think it is far more fashionable to get on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence or some other committee that they think might be a leg up the ladder. But some members of the Committee have been with the Committee ever since they have been in parliament, for example, Bruce John Goodluck, since 1975. Sometimes I think the work of the Committee is repetitive, sometimes I think `Oh, what is the heck of going over the same old ground all the time?' and then all of a sudden I get that resurgence of enthusiasm, knowing dashed well that what I am trying to do may save the life of some Australian. We all know the misery; we all know what occurs within a family when a person loses a loved one. So we have a job to do, and I congratulate the Minister for what he has been trying to do. He has given the Committee a lot of support. He comes to the meetings and he makes us feel that it is an important committee. And that is terribly important. All of us in this place like to feel important and just because we may not have the views of other people sometimes we think that that importance goes away like a leaf from a tree. It is a good committee and we have gone through many aspects of road safety. I would like to mention a few of them. There was the passenger motor vehicle safety inquiry. Of course, the improvement of the motor vehicle has illustrated that some of those improvements have been brought into play, that recommendations have been brought down that have improved motor vehicle safety. It is up to every manufacturer to prove and make certain that he can improve the vehicle so that it is safe. Of course that does not take away the fact that there are many old cars on the road; many people cannot afford their motor vehicle for one reason or another-lack of finance, et cetera-and sometimes they allow that motor vehicle to deteriorate. All honourable members know the point that I drive at. So there is a problem with vehicle safety. I am one of those who would like to think that every State in Australia has a means of checking vehicles every year. I know it is expensive. I know some States have it. But every vehicle in Australia should be checked every year to make certain that if it is changed from wider wheels to shorter wheels, or whatever, it is safe. The point is that it is important that we have safe vehicles on our roads so that we do not worry when we let our children go out in motor vehicles. Then it would not be an horrific thing when daughters or sons first get their licence and they go out at night, with the parents lying awake waiting for them to come home, waiting to hear that car come up the driveway, to know that they are safe. There are many problems associated with vehicle safety. We know that scales of economy are such that some people cannot afford a very good vehicle. They buy the cheapest vehicle possible to get them from point A to point B. We hope that we can improve safety by compulsory inspections. In April 1977 we had a very involved hearing on heavy vehicle safety. Of course that is a very intricate one to look at because one needs to be a professional mechanic or engineer to make certain some of the modifications on those vehicles will be improvements, not just to make it safe for the driver but to make it safe for the person who may be coming in view of it. Of course we all read of the horrific crashes that occur with heavy vehicles. We brought down recommendations on motorcycle and bicycle safety in May of 1978, and many of those recommendations have been brought into play. There is a little bit of petty jealousy within the States and everybody likes to think that they did it; but we know that we brought down recommendations that some of the States have adopted. The Minister would agree that the Federal Government can only recommend to the States that they take up these good points. If they do not want to, the Government can only say to itself: `I wish to goodness that they would'. Some of them do not take it up because of their little jealousies and their little confines. That applies with many things in Australia-people are sometimes jealous to take up certain good points that the Federal Government may bring down, whether it be Labor or Liberal. The Minister knows the point that I drive at there. So we need to do a bit more work in that regard. We need more uniformity in Australia so that when a person drives from one State to another, he has an idea of what the roads are like and what the rules are. I come from Tasmania, as all honourable members know, and many times in Tasmania I have watched certain vehicles-cars that are hired from Avis or Budget, or whatever-and of course the drivers do not know the roads in Tasmania; they do not know that some of them are very narrow; they do not know certain things about one-way streets. Sometimes I think it would be a dashed good idea if all cars hired in Tasmania had a different number plate. I always look at the back of a car to see whether it has a Qantas sticker or something else on the back to indicate that it is a hire car. If it had a different number plate-it would be very easy to implement-we would know that it was being driven by a stranger and we would know that he was having difficulty finding a street. Sometimes those difficulties of finding a street or finding a way can create a massive accident, and we have all seen that. So there is a suggestion that we may take on board. Mr Smith —Good point. Mr GOODLUCK —I am full of good points, that is the trouble with me. We had an in-depth inquiry into alcohol, drugs and road safety. We all know the recommendations and we hope that those recommendations will come into play and save lives on our roads, which is the important thing. Of course we also went into the tyre safety aspect and we found that the majority of tyres in Australia are safe; it is just that some of them are not being used correctly. Some people are lazy, some people do not want to pump them up and some people do not want to look at them, and of course expense comes into it in that some people cannot afford good tyres. But of course continuous road safety inspections would pick that up and that would add to the safety. I agree with the honourable member for Hindmarsh: If it were the Korean War or any other war and 3,000 Australians were killed, there would be banner headlines day after day, but because it is a road safety matter we take the numbers involved for granted. Sometimes we take those lives that are lost each day, the untold misery to their families and the cost to the community, for granted. I support the motion of the honourable member for Hindmarsh. Whilst I am in the House I will be one who takes it on a bipartisan basis; I will always try to work with my chairman. Somebody said yesterday that I was against affirmative action. I say to Madam Chair, the honourable member for Lilley, that when the Committee has an inspection on balloons I hope she goes up in one and not me. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(1.10) —I would like to thank the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) for opening up this discussion and giving us the opportunity in this House today to discuss the initiatives of the Federal Government in the area of road safety, a subject of particular interest and significance to members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety or Transafe. I would like to identify members of the Transafe Committee who work hard in the interests of safer roads in Australia, not all able to speak today but all ready and willing to do so and, more importantly, ready and willing to do the hackwork that goes into compiling reports and recommendations that will ultimately benefit people in Australia. The honourable member for Franklin, Mr Goodluck, the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, has already spoken, but also with us today is Mr Colin Hollis, the honourable member for Throsby; Mr Tony Lamb the honourable member for Streeton; Mr Alexander Downer, the honourable member for Mayo; Mr Russell Gorman, the honourable member for Greenway; Mr John Mildren, the honourable member for Ballarat and Mr Peter McGauran, the honourable member for Gippsland-all working across party political boundaries in the interests of road safety. As Chairman of the Transport Safety Committee and its predecessor, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety, since 1983 and recalling that period, I can state quite confidently that the present Government's commitment to road safety has been unswerving and its determination to analyse broad issues of safety has led to the introduction of a range of programs and initiatives that have contributed enormously to this important community issue. No one could doubt the importance of road safety as an issue of concern. The honourable member for Hindmarsh has eloquently demonstrated his concern and the statistics which he has presented to this House are telling indeed. They tell a story of an Australian disease which claims lives and transforms, detrimentally, the lives of able-bodied young Australians, accounting for thousands of people becoming paraplegic every year. That disease is road trauma. Maybe the most poignant statistic is that of road accidents being the single largest killer of children up to the age of 16 years. Road safety is a fundamental part of government policy at both the national and sub-national level. I am pleased to say that the commitment of this Government and in particular of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), who was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety before becoming Minister for Transport in this Government, has led to workable solutions to the complexities of this formidable problem. While the problems of road safety are immense, the Government has accepted its legitimate responsibilities with a sense of purpose that has facilitated the effective promotion of safety and the conservation of our human and physical resources. This is evident in many current road safety trends. The number of fatalities per 10,000 vehicles fell by 21 per cent, from 4.3 in 1980 to 3.4 in 1985. Over the last decade this rate has halved to 3.2 persons per 10,000 vehicles, one of the lowest rates in the world. The number of fatalities per 100,000 population fell by 15 per cent, from 22.3 in 1980 to 18.7 in 1985. The proportion of road deaths involving blood alcohol levels above 0.05 per cent, one of the major factors in road deaths, has fallen from 44 per cent in 1981 to 36 per cent in 1984. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should rest on the laurels of such encouraging trends because road safety remains one of the most serious problems facing the Australian community today. People continue to die on our roads in large numbers. Much more must be done and the buck stops not only with governments but with all Australians. I feel that under this Government we are taking steps in the right direction. These directions have been established to a large extent by the efforts of the Federal Office of Road Safety and the Department of Transport, already mentioned in the course of this discussion. The problem of road safety is being addressed through the resources of the Department and initiatives in this area are manifest in public awareness and education campaigns, formal discussion and consultation, research, funding of improved road works, and other measures, in an overall commitment to lessening the tragic hardship and waste of human lives caused by road accidents. Public awareness and education is one of the particular priorities of this commitment as the Government has recognised road user attitude and behaviour as one of the key aspects of road safety. Attitude underlies safe driving. In this context several initiatives have been undertaken to promote principles of road safety among targeted groups. These targeted areas comprise those who are over-represented in road crash statistics, including young people, both young drivers and pedestrians, cyclists and road users under the influence of alcohol-one area which some people do not like to face up to but which statistics identify as the single largest identifiable cause of road fatalities. The effect of road safety measures on the young has been of particular concern to the Government. In 1984, 357 children were killed on Australian roads and over 4,000 of these youngsters were seriously injured. Although the proportion of children killed on the roads is actually declining, thank God, there is a definite need to explore all possible means of road use education for the young. This is why the Government has introduced innovative educational schemes to alert children to the dangers of road use and to encourage safety conscious attitudes and behaviour. The bicycle helmet safety promotion using a popular youth figure, Molly Meldrum, is a perfect example of how selective publicity can be successfully used by governments and this particular initiative of the Government, the Office of Road Safety and Minister Morris, was an excellent one. The Transafe Committee is now awaiting a response from the Minister for Transport to our report on the safety of bicycle helmets. One thing is certain: Use of a helmet by cyclists can save lives but parents should look for an Australian Standards Association approved helmet as some helmets on the market are little more than shoddy toys. There is another promotion I am particularly impressed by, that is, the Out and About campaign. It is targeted at school age children and incorporates principles of road safety and characterisations to which young children can relate. In recent years, the Federal Office of Road Safety has spent approximately $1m annually on road safety education and has ensured that this expenditure reflects the most effective use of the resources available through research of its programs. Other recent education and awareness programs include community liaison for safer road use by elderly pedestrians. That is another major risk group. Elderly pedestrians account for 37 per cent of all pedestrian fatalities. Included in these programs are motor cycle promotions, in co-operation with the rider associations, which have alerted motor cyclists to the dangers associated with a vulnerable means of transport offering little structural protection-another targeted area. The need to educate and publicise road safety has been evident in the Government's negotiations for advertising guidelines associated with vehicle use and road safety. This was one recommendation, by the way, of the Transafe Committee. Mention of this point draws me to comment on the quality and frequency of consultations which have characterised the Government's road safety policy. I want to make it quite clear that the Transafe Committee which I chair is bipartisan; there are people from both Government and Opposition. But I believe credit is due here and it should be stated: There has been a mutually beneficial association between the Transport Safety Committee and the Government on a number of issues and the willingness to support or adopt the Committee's recommendations has added a positive perspective to a mutually shared commitment to the problem of road safety. Consultation is an essential part of road safety policy as the effects of road accidents are felt by all sections of society. In implementing policies and programs the Government has undertaken wide-ranging consultation with governments, community groups, the police, trade unions, special interest groups, manufacturers, who come in really well, researchers and the media, all concerned and all consulting in an attempt to define accurately the most appropriate means of advancing road safety. This is the basis of our really finding an effective solution to this problem. It was exemplified by the National Road Safety Symposium. That was held in October 1984 here in Canberra and it drew a number of different people together. The same sort of consultation and comprehensive analysis will again be evident in the Bikesafe 86 campaign. A conference is planned for Newcastle in April next where the significant issue of bicycle safety will be discussed by a widely representative group. In the area of road improvement and construction, I believe the Government's record has been remarkable. Federal road grants have increased by over 81 per cent since the last full year of the prior government and I think that really should be commented upon. One thing I would like to see is the introduction of random breath testing in Queensland where, regrettably, the number of people being killed on the roads has increased a little this year. However, we in that State still hope that we will join other States which have introduced random breath testing. In closing, I would like to make a personal comment regarding the need for a mature society, that is, parents, governments, and business people, to adopt responsible attitudes towards the up and coming generation. I quote what the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare said in its 1977 report, `Drug Problems in Australia': Alcoholism among the young is increasing dramatically and as many as 10 per cent of school children between the ages of 12 and 17 get `very drunk' at least once a month. Other statistics are that over one-quarter of a million Australians can be classified as alcoholic and one in every five of our hospital beds is occupied by a person suffering from the adverse effects of alcohol. I quote from an article in a magazine of the liquor trade in Britain, the Morning Advertiser, of 1978: Ask most marketing men who they are aiming their drinks at and the answer will almost certainly be the young drinker. For some that age may reach as far as 30. For others it stops as low as 25. But it all adds up to the same thing-a ready `target' who is willing to experiment with drinks and pay the price. . . . And if he-- that is, the average young drinker- takes to drink in his youth there is always a good chance that he will stick with it as he grows older. It is this new breed of drinkers who are changing the habits of a lifetime. It is they who have boosted wine sales to 10 bottles a head and lager to nearly a quarter of the total beer market. And it is they who are now, albeit slowly, beginning to change the drinking pattern of spirits. Statistics on drink driving and the number of people under 25 involved in accidents suggest to me that it is also they who are dying on our roads. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(1.20) —I would like to congratulate the member for Hindmarsh, Mr Scott, on bringing this motion forward in General Business and enabling some of us here in the House to say a few words on it. In congratulating Mr Scott I would also like to congratulate the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety on the excellent publications it has put out over the years and on the work it is doing for road safety throughout Australia. There are some other people I would like to mention here because some of the members of the House may not know of other great work that has been done in an effort towards road safety. One member I would like to mention is Mr Tim Fischer, who is now the member for Farrer, but who was previously the member for Murray in New South Wales. Mr Fischer did a great amount of work, particularly in New South Wales and was one of those people responsible for the bringing in of random breath testing in New South Wales. Of course for that he received a great deal of flack from certain sections of the community. He weathered that and he was one of the major contributors there to saving lives in New South Wales. I am one of those people who believe that if random breath testing saves one life, it is worth having. So I congratulate Mr Tim Fischer on that. The Hon. Bob Katter, who has done so much in regard to road safety throughout Australia, also a- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Riverina-Darling will refer to members by their proper title. Mr HICKS —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Kennedy has done a great deal of work throughout Australia in regard to road safety. Peter McGauran, of course, another National Party colleague, the member for Gippsland, who is on the Standing Committee at the moment and last but not least- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not want to interrupt the honourable member again. Mr HICKS —The honourable member for Gippsland, Mr Deputy Speaker; and the honourable member for Gwydir, Ralph Hunt, who has- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The title of the honourable member for Gwydir is either the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the honourable member for Gwydir, fullstop. Mr HICKS —The honourable member for Gwydir. I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I know these people rather personally. I bow to your ruling. I would like to make particular mention of the honourable member for Gwydir for he was the man who introduced the Australian bicentennial road development program which has done so much. I have worked for many years in the road design and construction field. I do not know of any project that has done so much for our road systems in Australia as that project has done and is doing. My main reason for wishing to speak here today is that I am one of those members of the Parliament who travel anything from 50,000 to 100,000 kilometres a year in trying to cover the electorate so I would like to put to the Parliament some of my personal observations in that travelling. We all know, of course, that much more money has to be spent on roads. Certainly the bicentennial road development program is a great leap forward but it is still not good enough. In saying that, we must be realistic about the whole situation. Let us look at a section of road; for example, the State highway that has to be constructed from Ivanhoe to Booligal, which is in my electorate. To construct one kilometre of that road would cost approximately $250,000. The reason for this, of course, is that the road is so isolated that the materials that have to be put into the road construction have to be brought from great distances. We know that today the cost of fuel, the cost of labour and the cost of hiring machinery makes construction very difficult, so we find that price. One does not get many kilometres of road for $1m. I draw honourable members' attention to the Hume Highway, for example, and in particular the Tumblong deviation, which is south of Gundagai. To construct one kilometre of dual carriageways there, which is part of the bicentennial program, would cost approximately $1.5m. So one can see the problems that governments face, both State and Federal, in trying to upgrade the roads system. I would say that $1.5m would be only a minute amount compared with the cost involved in building a system within the city of Sydney or the environs of Sydney. By the time one takes into account acquisition of land and property the cost would be much more than $1.5m. So it is important in the construction of these roads that we have the maximum amount of efficiency, not only from the machines but also from the people employed in that area. I am hoping that governments, both State and Federal, ensure that this is the case. Looking at outback New South Wales, particularly in the Riverina-Darling electorate, we have many bad roads. These, I believe, are one of the major causes of road accidents in my electorate. We have the Rankins Springs to Lake Cargelligo road, which I have described on many occasions as a death trap. Something really has to be done about that because it has all the major features of those roads which cause the most accidents. It has bad sight distance; it has dips and curves; it has a bad road base; and after rain we have a great number of pot holes. It definitely is a disaster. The Booligal to Ivanhoe road is similar. The Broken Hill to Tibooburra road is not much better. The Cobar to Bourke, and Mossgiel to Hillston roads are similar. All these roads are in need of urgent attention. Of course we all know that the ultimate in road construction is to have a bitumen surface and, as I mentioned before, in some of those roads we are looking at about $250,000 a kilometre, so there is little hope in the future that they will be done in the short term. Some of the dangers on those roads include cattle grids and races, and animals-native fauna-crossing the roads. As a matter of fact, I have been told by one hire car company that I am not to call them; they will call me, because I have written off two cars in two weeks by hitting animals and other obstructions on the road. These are very real hazards on the road. I think that on many of these outback roads the only thing we can do in the short term is to fix the major trouble spots, the major safety problem areas, and hope that that will get us through until we can get these bitumen surfaces down. I would like to mention a few of the problems I have noticed on roads, particularly bitumen roads. Some shires and some organisations repair the roads or reseal the roads and do not replace the centre line. I think that is a major hazard. I think the ultimate in road construction on a bitumen road is to have an edge line as well as a centre line. I am sure that this contributes to making the road very much safer. I noticed the other day in a newspaper in Wagga that the Finemores company has suggested that on the Hume Highway we have some warning to let people know that they are on dual carriageways. Sometimes, particularly on the Hume Highway where there are four lanes-two one way and two the other-we find that if they are not in sight of each other we forget whether we are on dual carriageways or single carriageways, and that can cause very serious accidents, particularly with the number of transports going up and down that highway. The major thing I want to speak about here today is the problem of fatigue on our roads. I know that a lot of research has been done into drink driving on Australian roads, and I notice that an analysis was done in 1983 when the Committee commissioned research into the problems of road safety. A number of people were asked what they thought were the major causes of road accidents in Australia. I notice that eighth on the list is driver fatigue. Only 1.2 per cent of the people said that driver fatigue was a cause of major accidents. I would say that in outback New South Wales particularly in my area, a major cause of road accidents is fatigue. One sees accidents that just cannot be explained; where people are driving in one direction and all of a sudden they veer across the road in front of oncoming semi-trailers or buses or into each other or into trees. Recently there were four people killed in my electorate, and such accidents are almost a weekly occurrence. So I would ask the Government and the Committee in particular if they would take up this matter of fatigue on the roads. I know that alcohol is a problem but I think fatigue, when one is driving long distances-and Australia is a big country-is a major problem. Perhaps the community employment program grants we are looking at today would be a good way of obtaining some people to research this problem. Once again, congratulations to the Committee and to all those people who try to do something for road safety in this country. Question resolved in the affirmative. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(1.30) —I move: That this House- Noting that- (a) the 3 Baltic States, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, were independent sovereign republics and members of the League of Nations from 1918 to 1940; (b) in 1940, as a consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany, the 3 States were incorporated into the USSR by military force and in a manner which violated elementary principles of freedom, democracy and justice; (c) like other democratic governments, Australia does not recognise de jure the incorporation of the Baltic States into the USSR; (d) under Soviet rule, well-documented violations of human rights have occurred and continue to occur in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia- (1) acknowledges the concern felt by members of the Australian community over the situation in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, particularly the repression of individuals engaging in the non-violent expression of their ethnic and cultural identity and religious convictions; (2) commends the Government for its action in bringing this concern to the attention of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at the Commission's meeting in March 1985 and invites the Government to continue to pay attention to this important issue; (3) calls upon the Government of the USSR to end acts of repression against the Baltic peoples and to abide by the commitments which it has entered into under the various international covenants on human rights to which it is a signatory, and (4) requests the Speaker to bring this resolution to the attention of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. The motion in many ways is self-explanatory and I doubt whether there would be many members of this House-or any members of this House-who would take objection to any part of the motion. I wish to amplify it significantly, and I think it is important for people on both sides of the House to express their support for it as they did, I think some two years ago, to a similar motion in the Senate. Because an amendment will be moved-as I understand it, notice has been given by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock)-I will refer to the amendment before I go further into the motion. I regret that the Opposition is playing politics rather than giving maximum time to publicising the plight of the Baltic people, and for that matter, other inhabitants of the Soviet Union. We have, of course, brought the issue before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and that is not referred to in the amendment proposed to be moved by a member of the Opposition. We have a lot of people, and not for the first time, on the Opposition side always talking about doing things about the Soviet Union but then never taking any stand on it. I remember well when the previous Prime Minister wanted to sell his wool and wheat to the Soviet Union while at the same time getting all rhetorical and paying lip service to the lack of democracy and the sorts of things that were happening in the Soviet Union. The same sort of thing happened back in about 1974-75 when an inquiry into human rights in the Soviet Union was set up for a Sub-Committee of the Joint Committee of Foreign Affairs and Defence. The motion was moved in this House by a member of the then Opposition, but I think any person, even supporters of the Liberal Party, who looks at how that Sub-Committee went about its work would say that the then Senator John Wheeldon, Senator Sibraa, my close colleague the honour- able member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) and I were the backbone of that Committee and used to attend those Committee meetings, listen to the evidence, and do all the work. The Liberals never turned up. They just talked big about the Soviet Union. The Committee, in fact, held its hearings under the then Fraser Government, so the Liberal and National parties could have appointed a majority of members to that Committee. In fact it had a majority of Labor members. I emphasise that it not only had a majority of Labor members but a huge majority of Labor members amongst its active members. The important thing to remember is that we on this side of the House are really concerned about freedom, unlike those on the other side who promise the world and then do nothing. I regret, because I consider myself fairly friendly with the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), that he has chosen today to take the line not, I assume, to oppose our final resolution when his amendment is defeated but to go to the extent of moving the amendment. There are only two significant differences, as I see it, between our motion and the proposed amendment. One is the failure, I suppose, of the Liberal Party and Senate resolution to refer to what we have already done-that is, raise the issue-to refer to the promise that we would do so again at the current sittings of the Human Rights Commission, and to refer to an intensive process of Russification taking place in these occupied countries aimed at the elimination of the indigenous languages and culture. I think that our reference to the repression of individuals engaging in non-violent expression of their ethnic and cultural identity and religious conviction is really the same. We can argue about it, but I certainly would not go to the wall about it. It is important for me, because I have been one of the people who have been active on this issue for many years, to emphasise my point of view-and it is not necessarily the point of view of all members of the Government-with regard to the Baltic States and many of the other problems concerned with the Soviet Union. Many of the objections to the Soviet Union are fairly nationalistic objections by ex-residents, for example, or by current residents, of course, of many of the Soviet republics. That is not my main objection. My main objection-and I consider it to be the main problem as far as the Soviet Union is concerned-is that the Soviet Union is a dictatorship. If the Soviet Union were run according to its own constitution, whilst the residents of the Baltic republics, the Ukranian republic or any of the other republics might still wish to secede, firstly, they would be able to do so under their own constitution and, secondly, they might wish-and I emphasise `might'-to remain part of a union of democratic republics. We know that the Soviet Union is currently run like Tsarist Russia. The only thing that has changed is a different jargon to justify imperialism. That is the great pity about what is happening in the Soviet Union. I note the prominent members of the Baltic Council in the gallery of the House. I do not know what their view is on this, but it is my view that the best chance of getting freedom for the people of the Baltic States and, if necessary, for their national aspirations is to change the Soviet Union from a dictatorship to a democratic country. I am not suggesting for one minute that that is easy, but to my mind it would be easier to do that than to somehow persuade the current regime in the Soviet Union to give freedom to all the republics that currently make up the so-called Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I wish to emphasise-I come back now to the Government's policy as distinct from my own views-that obviously the Government, unlike a previous Labor government which made a shameful decision never endorsed by either the parliamentary Party or the Party outside, would not recognise de jure the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union. That was clearly and unanimously stated by the Federal parliamentary Labor Party. It is a matter which I know is of great importance to ex-residents of the Baltic States who are currently living in Australia. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) asked me to convey a message on the occasion of the sixty-seventh anniversary of the Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia in November last year. Inter alia, he said: In my message of greetings to you last year, I undertook that the Government would raise before international bodies its concern at violations of human rights which continue, under Soviet rule, in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The Australian representative did so before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in March this year-- That is, last year- in Geneva. The Government will continue to pay attention to this important issue. I have been assured that, in fact, it will be raised again by our delegates at the Human Rights Commission, I think in March of this year. We have expressed those concerns, and I think it important that they keep on being expressed. We are also obviously concerned at the number of prominent Baltic dissidents who are in gaol or otherwise very unpleasantly dealt with by the Soviet Union. We have been extremely impressed by the action of Baltic organisations to mark the tenth anniversary of the Helsinki Accords. The Baltic peace and freedom cruise in July of last year and the tribunal held in Copenhagen were well attended and received widespread and very favourable publicity in international news media. The Government, in its statement, also said that it supported the idea of bringing the concerns of the Baltic community before Parliament and that the Government's aim is to endorse these concerns and express its own position as clearly as possible without, however, raising unrealistic expectations about what might be achieved, for example, at the United Nations. Most of us are aware of what the numbers are at the United Nations. It is difficult to do anything at the United Nations which would significantly help the Baltic States. At the same time, it is my view that it ought to be raised continuously; it ought to be raised by our delegates to Inter-Parliamentary Union conferences; it ought to be raised by our delegates at other organisations. The main thing is to keep on pointing out to our own people, to people all over the world, that the Soviet Union is a dictatorship, that it is, I am afraid, an extremely nationalistic dictatorship and that that, in turn, creates nationalistic objections to that dictatorship. I commend the motion to the House. I would be happier if we could have come to some agreement to make some mild amendments to the motion rather than have a vote on it, which would somehow imply that there is significant disagreement on the basic points, because I am sure that honourable members on both sides of the House feel very strongly about the basic points incorporated in our motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 109 as amended for this session, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Mr Duffy) agreed to: That the time for the discussion of Notice No. 3, General Business, be extended until 2 p.m. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(1.45) —I second the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker. My time is very short. I would just like to make a few quick points. Whilst not going over what the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) said, it is worth noting that the Australian Government raised this before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights last year and intends to do so again this year, as emphasised by the letter of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 15 November that the honourable member for Prospect has just read out. It is around four-and-a-half decades since the three States of the Baltic area were overrun and we have seen the Russification of those three States ever since, with great pressure on their peoples, particularly in regard to social and cultural positions and their religious beliefs. It is a credit to the three nations of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia that they have kept their religious beliefs through great pressure and over the last four-and-a-half decades of oppression by the Soviet Union. The Hawke Government has made a number of high level representations to the Soviet Government on behalf of family reunion for residents of the Baltic States with relatives in Australia and we will continue to give priority to this matter, which we know is of great importance to the Baltic community in Australia. I have great pleasure in seconding the motion and recommend it to everybody in the House. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(1.47) —I move: That all the words after ``That'' (first occuring) be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ``this House- Having regard to- (a) the desire of all people to live in peace and freedom and to enjoy basic human rights, including the right to self-determination; (b) Australia's membership of the United Nations and regard for the principles of its Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted by its General Assembly on 14 December 1960 by resolution 1514 (XV) and the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement, and (c) the fact that, whilst the Australian people have acquired these rights and freedoms, other peoples are deprived of them, and Noting that- (d) the Resolution of the European Parliament on the Situation in the Baltic States was adopted on 13 January 1983; (e) the 3 Baltic States were independent sovereign republics and members of the League of Nations during 1918 to 1940, when they were occupied by the Soviet Union in consequence of an agreement between the then German Government under Hitler and the Soviet Government under Stalin-the so called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; (f) the occupation of these states by the Soviet Union still continues, but that in accord with other democratic governments the Australian Government has not recognised de jure their incorporation into the Soviet Union; (g) the peoples of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are being denied many basic human rights but that they have not given up their struggle for self-determination and freedom, and (h) an intensive process of ``Russification'' is taking place in these occupied countries aimed at the elimination of the indigenous languages and culture- Resolves therefore that- (1) Australia, as a member of the United Nations, fulfils its obligations to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and supports the European Parliament's Resolution in respect of the Baltic States; (2) in order to do so, the Australian Government should, on its own initiative and by seeking the support of like-minded governments, bring the question of human rights and self-determination for the Baltic States before all appropriate forums of the United Nations, and especially before the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and (3) the Department of Foreign Affairs be directed to take all necessary steps in order to implement this resolution''. In relation to that amendment I would like to make some brief comments, firstly, to enunciate the reasons for supporting both the resolution and the amendment and, secondly, to give detailed reasons why the amendment should be preferred. Before I do that, I would like to thank my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) for making time available by deferring his motion in order that this important question could be discussed and for ensuring that this matter came on today. It has been listed for discussion since 23 May last year and it is terribly disappointing to many members on this side who have taken a long-standing interest in the Baltic question that time will not be available today for this matter to be given really the detailed and comprehensive discussion that it should have. In relation to generally why the resolution and the amendment should be supported, I think it needs to be understood that each of the three Baltic countries has enjoyed freedom. Lithuania enjoyed it for most of the period after Christ, except for this century. It needs to be understood that each of those nations existed as separate states between 1920 and 1940. They were the subject of peace treaties in which the Soviet Union promised to respect their integrity forever. Of course, in 1939 Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler signed a non-aggression treaty and allotted the Baltic States into what was called the Soviet sphere. So when the Germans and the Russians were carving up the world at that time, and while world attention was focused on France and Germany, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics presented ultimatums to the Baltic States and then occupied each of those countries. Between 1940 to 1953, at various stages the Baltic people were subjected to war, mass deportations, imprisonment, executions and arbitrary terror. This had such a significant effect that 25 per cent of their populations were lost, and of the order of 14 per cent of that large number of people were the victims of Soviet executions, imprisonments and deportations. It should be understood that there have been, as has been mentioned by honourable members opposite, significant denials of freedom in the Soviet Union, and particularly in the Baltic States. This remains a significant problem while each of those countries is denied national self-determination and independence. I think it needs to be understood that some of the specific rights that Soviet citizens are denied, particularly people in the Baltic States, are the right to emigrate and visit abroad, and the right to peaceful political opposition and peaceful assembly. There is an absence of independent mass media: All television and newspapers are substantially controlled by the state. There is an absence of an independent judicial system, with coercion by the state and the possibility of arbitrary arrest. There are no free trade unions. There is a ban on business activity and business ventures generally. There is censorship of the mail, art and literature. One political ideology dominates, that is, Marxist-Leninism, which we know has had such a significant impact and which intrudes into every area of teaching, whether it be medicine, engineering or whatever. Of course, religious practices are restricted. As to compulsory military service, Balts in particular, as victims of Soviet aggression, have to undertake police action, as it would be termed I guess by the Soviets, in Czechoslovakia and also in Afghanistan today, many losing their lives as a consequence. In education we have seen a substantial indoctrination take place over time, with history being changed by the way in which the Soviets present it, particularly in relation to the occupation of the Baltic countries. We have seen also large scale immigration into areas of the Baltic States from the Soviet Union itself, such that in many of its cities no longer do the original population constitute a majority, but rather a minority of the inhabitants. What are the grounds for supporting the amendment? The amendment, it needs to be understood, adopts the words precisely of the resolution carried unanimously, that is, with all parties' support, in the Senate on 28 February, 1985. The proposition can be seen to be the collective view of the Parliament only if it is carried in identical terms in the Senate and the House of Representatives. It also needs to be understood that the Soviet Union and its supporters might well read silent messages into the changed wording that has been used by the honourable member in his motion if we do not carry the amendment. I am concerned about the solace that the Soviets might find in the significant omissions in the motion drafted by the Government and proposed by the honourable member for Prospect. What are the changes? Firstly, the preamble is deleted. It needs to be understood that the preamble uses words from paragraph 10.1 of the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence to which the honourable member for Prospect himself was a signatory. It abandons the linking of Australia to other international protests about the situation in the Baltic States. While the motion of the Government is used as a vehicle to commend it for raising this question before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights-and for this I too commend the Government-and is a far cry from the Whitlam Government's recognition of the incorporation of the Baltic States, it nevertheless offers no continuing commitment and direction to Australia's Government to continue to raise this question before the United Nations generally and the Commission on Human Rights. The Government's reason for supporting this watered down resolution is hard to understand, given the assurance by the honourable member for Prospect today and in the message of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the Latvian community that this matter would be one of continuing attention for the Government. Finally, I want to make this point: The final and most significant difference is the deletion of the notation of the intensive process of Russification taking place in the occupied Baltic States aimed at eliminating their indigenous language and culture. Given the Government's commitment to multiculturalism in Australia, one can only assume that its deletion of comment on the process of Russification coupled with only a vague reference to a concern about repression of ethnic identity and cultural identity, was effected to signal a lack of concern on the Government's part about the concept of Russification. It is not as if the honourable member for Prospect is unaware of this issue. He was a party to the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee report which I cited earlier and which at paragraph 4.30 concluded particularly-I will not read the whole quotation-that to a large degree the impact on minority cultures was due to the steady Russification of the non-Russian Soviet Socialist Republic. It is not as if the Government was unaware of the concern of the Baltic communities at this watered down proposal of the Government. The Baltic Council of Australia has had continuous contact with the Government and has put its view to it. The Council's view is that, while matters covered by the motion of the honourable member for Prospect are commendable, the form of resolution adopted by the Senate is preferable for its more detailed preamble and its stronger commitment to future activity by the Government. I put it strongly as possible that the reasons I have advanced should cause all honourable members to support the amendment and to carry it today. MADAM SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Macphee —I am honoured to second the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). Mr JACOBI(Hawker)(1.56) —It is with pleasure that I support the motion moved by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). Let me make a few observations on the remarks by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). Motion (by Mr Connolly) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Ewen McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M. Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C. Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C. Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K. Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C. Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M. Everingham, P. A. E. Shack, P. D. Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H. Hayden, W. G. Staples, P. R. Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E. Howe, B. L. Uren, T. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Madam SPEAKER —It being past 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 104, as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence to General Business has expired. The honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting. Madam SPEAKER —Before calling on questions without notice, I have to advise the House that the standard of behaviour over the past few days from both sides of the House leaves much to be desired. Yesterday's Hansard will explain exactly what I mean. In my acceptance speech to this office I made a call to all members to lift the standard of debate and behaviour in this House. Regrettably, not all members have seen fit to accept this advice. Parliamentary politics is tough and tough things will be said in the heat of debate. Honourable members recognise and expect this. While remarks may be made about a member politically, I will not tolerate, from either side, allegations or imputations of a personal nature, particularly remarks or interjections which go into the private lives of members. The Chair is particularly concerned about interjections, which often it cannot hear, and appeals to members, again, to exercise their individual responsibility to the House by lifting their behaviour and observing the standards which are expected within the House. Many members of this House have expressed their respect for the institution of parliament, for the Standing Orders and for the position of Speaker. I suggest they now put that respect into practice and avoid bringing the House into disrepute. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the honourable gentleman to his recent and highly publicised visit to three rural families in Australia. In view of the parlous economic plight facing rural Australia, is it fair that farming families such as those he visited should be forced to pay a 3 per cent productivity payment into a union controlled fund under the backroom deal made between his Government and the ACTU? Mr HAWKE —The families I visited-and I guess they are the ones best placed to make a judgment about the worth of the visit-were kind enough to say to me directly that they appreciated the fact that I had come to visit them. From my point of view I certainly found the visit informative. It fleshes out the bare bones of the statistics that come across one's desk in terms of national aggregates. As the matter has been raised, I express my appreciation for the way in which those people were prepared, willingly and quite directly, to share with me their exposition of the difficulties of the rural sector as those difficulties affected them personally. When these matters come before the Cabinet, my consideration of them will be enhanced as a result of the visits I paid to those people. In regard to the substance of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, let me make the point that, as usual, coming from him and those opposite is a quite hopeless analysis of the impact on the rural sector, in particular, and the economy generally, of aspects of this Government's economic policy in the wages and conditions area. I point out that under this Government the rate of increase in rural costs faced by farmers has decreased significantly. Mr Ian Cameron —Oh, come on! Mr HAWKE —Honourable members opposite can guffaw. Unfortunately as in so many areas of economic analysis, they are incapable of reading and understanding statistics. The fact is that the rate of growth of farm costs was significantly greater in the period when the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer than it has been under this Government. The rate of increase in farm costs under the previous Government averaged 12.2 per cent per annum. Up until this year it has been of the order of 7 per cent under this Government. One of the reasons why the rate of inflation and the rate of increase in farm costs has diminished significantly under this Government, as compared with our predecessors, is the prices and incomes accord and the way in which we have been able to get a more sensible outcome in the area of wages and conditions of employment than emanated from the free-for-all nonsense that was espoused by honourable members opposite when in government, from which experience they have not learnt and which they would seek to visit upon this community again. Fortunately, whilst those opposite have not learnt from their ineptitude, the people of Australia have. Mr O'NEIL —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Technology to the bid by the Bell Resources Group for control of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and the possibility that this could mean a transfer of ownership of the Australian steel industry. Can the Minister say whether the Government is concerned about the consequences for the steel industry plan? Is the Minister aware that there is widespread fear across the whole community of Whyalla of this proposed takeover? What can the Government do to safeguard the interests of those employed in the steel industry, particularly those in Whyalla? Mr BARRY JONES —The honourable member for Grey is notable for his advocacy of issues affecting his electorate, and I visited Whyalla with him only a short time ago. The Government is monitoring very closely the details of the Bell Resources Ltd partial takeover bid for BHP. The issue is primarily, at this stage, for the shareholders of BHP. As the Prime Minister has made clear, we are concerned that, in the event of a successful takeover bid by Bell Resources, the future viability of the Australian steel industry and the job security of its employees, including the employees at Whyalla, are maintained. A major concern in this matter is the integrity of the steel industry plan, which incorporates a commitment by government to provide assistance by way of bounties and the safety mechanism, commitments by unions on wages, productivity and dispute settlements, and commitments by industry on an investment program and job security. To date, the steel plan, promoted by my colleague Senator John Button, has been outstandingly successful. The Government is committed to the future of the steel plan and to the honouring of commitments of all parties, including industry, under the plan. Senator Button has met with Mr Holmes a Court, who has said that he is very interested in developing the steel industry with new processes and technology. He has indicated to Senator Button that his bid should not be seen as a threat to the industry or to its employees. It is too early to make a more definitive statement on this matter. However, I repeat: The Government is monitoring the situation closely and will have continuing dialogue with both parties concerning development. Mr N.A. Brown —Will the Attorney-General confirm that, after the enactment of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, the Government intends to request the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission to inquire into all State electoral laws, including the electoral laws of Western Australia, and to legislate under the external affairs power to override those electoral laws if they do not comply with the Bill of Rights? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The present position is that the Bill of Rights Bill is before the Senate and the Australian Democrats have indicated that they want an assurance from the Government as to its intention should the Bill be passed in its present form. The Government is anxious that the Bill be passed in its present form. Accordingly, it has always said-as is a matter of record in an answer to a question asked last year by a member from Western Australia-that if the Commission found that the electoral distribution in Australia contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the State concerned was not prepared to amend its electoral distribution, the Government would legislate pursuant to the external affairs power. That is a matter of record. To that extent, I am concerned to think that the Democrats are still asking for an assurance from the Government that if they pass the Bill we will proceed along that course. It is a matter of record. So at present the position has not changed. Mr Hawker —What about the Senate? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Government has the difficulty of not having the numbers in the Senate. That is its position. The Senate is asking for an assurance on a matter on which the Government has already given an assurance. It is a matter of ordinary intelligence to realise that if we pass legislation pursuant to the International Covenant, which we are endeavouring to do, and creating a commission to monitor that legislation, which is part of the package, and if the Commission, in the course of its normal duty to police the Covenant, finds that the electoral distributions in Australia are contrary to the principles of the Covenant, of course there would be a report to this Government and we would need to act accordingly. Mr N.A. Brown —Would you legislate then? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The only way to do that would be to legislate pursuant to that provision. Mr Howard —So you would legislate then? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We would legislate pursuant to that provision. That would apply in the normal sense as to the distribution we were talking about. Mr Spender —And other laws contravening the Covenant? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I gave an undertaking to the State Attorneys-General last year when I gave them the draft Bill, which I think was on 2 May, that the Bill would not apply, in the overall aspects of the law, to State administration. Honourable members know that the Bill is drafted that way. However, at all times there is a provision in the Bill that the Acts and practices of the States will be the subject of investigation by the Commission. We are talking about the obligation of the Government to an international covenant. I remind the honourable gentleman, as he would know from when he was in government, that it was his Government that acceded to the International Covenant and created the Human Rights Commission. That is the present position. It would be a bit of a sham if we did not give the Commission some teeth to work out whether the Acts, practices and laws of Australia complied with the International Covenant. In summary, the honourable gentleman knew what I would say, but I am thankful that he asked the question because, apparently, the Democrats are not prepared to accept the Government's view, which is a matter of record. A government does not legislate to introduce a national covenant and then walk away from its responsibilities-not at all. As a matter of interest, I hope that the people of Queensland start to express a view as to what they think ought to be their rights when it comes to having a State election. Mr HAND —Can the Special Minister of State tell the House what role market research plays in the work of the Australian Electoral Commission? Is such research a valuable aid to the work of the Commission? Mr YOUNG —I would like to confirm to the House that market research has been a very valuable tool in the work of the Electoral Commission since it has been established. Two major surveys have been carried out by the Commission since its establishment. One has been held recently-since the election-on the Senate ballot paper. We would hope that the results would be of particular relevance to any future elections in overcoming any problems that may have been faced by electors at previous elections. The other survey related to difficulties that may have been experienced in the various electorates. The surveys are also of very valuable use to the Commission in ensuring that all citizens take part effectively in the electoral process. Market research is so much a part of our lives, not only for the Electoral Commission but also in politics generally. I noticed a bit of research that was published yesterday in reference to Australian politics. It is becoming increasingly accurate. The Leader of the Opposition is now held in favour by 22 per cent of the electorate as against 42 per cent when he was first elected leader. The popularity of the honourable member for Kooyong has jumped from 22 to 29 per cent since he lost the job of Leader of the Opposition. Malcolm's popularity has jumped from 12 to 17 per cent since we gave him a job. The popularity of the honourable member for the Northern Territory has jumped by one per cent since he shifted. The popularity of the honourable member for Goldstein has jumped by 100 per cent-from one to 2 per cent-since he was demoted. The popularity of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has gone down by 100 per cent-from 2 to one per cent-since he was promoted. Mr Elliott now has the support of one per cent of those surveyed and he would like to thank the board of Elders IXL Ltd for its continued loyalty. Mr Hodgman has the support of one per cent of the electorate and he would like to thank his brother and his father. Here is the coup de grace of the market research surveys which are having so much impact on our lives, and it may cause some disturbance to honourable members sitting in the chamber, both to those on this side as much as to those on the other side. The survey shows that if anything unfortunate should happen to our Prime Minister-God help us-the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Premier of New South Wales, I am next in line. I do not know what Gareth thinks about this. I thank the honourable member for Melbourne for his question and I hope that I have enlightened him. Mr CARLTON —I refer the Treasurer to the capital gains tax which has been operative since 19 September last year and which is already seriously affecting the investment decisions of ordinary Australians and their families. I ask this question so that he will explain his policy in this area. If a family farm was owned by a trust prior to 19- Government members interjecting- Mr CARLTON —These matters are affecting families at this moment and we require an answer. If a family farm was owned by a trust prior to 19 September 1985 and a child is subsequently appointed as a discretionary beneficiary, will the child acquire an asset that will come under the capital gains tax? If so, how will this discretionary interest be valued? Mr KEATING —I do not intend to answer similar questions but I will give the honourable member an answer on this occasion because obviously, as I have indicated, much of the detail of the balance of the tax package pre-legislation is still in the course of being considered. The Business Council of Australia is meeting with the Department of the Treasury today. Mr Carlton —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr KEATING —There is no point of order. I am giving an answer. Madam SPEAKER —Will the honourable gentleman resume his seat. The Treasurer is answering the question. Mr KEATING —The answer is in the affirmative-yes. A capital gains tax will apply on any discretionary interest or any new interest in a trust and that interest would be a proportion of the value of the current market price of property. In other words, that amount would be assessed. Of course there would be no capital gains tax to pay until there was a built-up interest in the property. Of course that would be after the indexation of inflation was adjusted so that tax was paid on the real gain. The more general point is that if there were the purchase of an element of what was an exempt property prior to 19 September 1985, that would be capital gains taxed. Mr CLEELAND —Will the Special Minister of State comment on the final outcome on the Scullin by-election as announced by the Australian Electoral Commission? Has further analysis been carried out on the results of the Western Australian election? Mr Goodluck —What about the Tasmanian one, Mick? Mr YOUNG —Ask me a question about it, Bruce. That is what you are here for. I will write it for you. The Australian Electoral Commission has announced final figures for the Scullin by-election. The new member for Scullin received 73.17 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, a very commendable result by any standards. The swing against the Government in this by-election was 4.46 per cent. This is hardly a remarkable result for the Opposition. According to figures supplied by the Parliamentary Library, the average swing against the government of the day in by-elections has been 3.4 per cent. The average swing in by-elections against the Hawke Government has been 2.3 per cent. Against the Fraser Government it was 3.4 per cent in spite of such outstanding results as those obtained by the honourable member for Lowe, who had a swing of 8.5 per cent and the honourable member for Werriwa who had a swing of 11.9 per cent. In addition, we have substantially reduced the informal vote in the by-election compared with that at the 1984 general election. The first analysis that presented the result of the Western Australian election as a rural revolt against the Australian Labor Party has not been borne out by any later examination. Rather, it was a rural revolt against the Liberal Party of Australia. The total ALP vote in farming seats rose slightly, whereas the Liberal vote in those seats fell by over 10 per cent. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to his Government's economic trilogy. Is it true that the trilogy permits the Government to keep tax revenue as a proportion of gross domestic product at 25.3 per cent, the highest peacetime rate ever and considerably higher than the average of 23.8 per cent during the seven years of the former Government? Mr HAWKE —A statement regarding the trilogy has been made on several occasions and I think it is quite clear. The Government has undertaken that the deficit, as a proportion of GDP, will not rise. I simply again make the point to the House that I made yesterday. The people of Australia do not see this as something esoteric and assisted in any way by such silly questions as this one from the Leader of the Opposition. They simply look at the fact that before we came to office there was a Treasurer-he is now the Leader of the Opposition-who had absolutely no sense of fiscal responsibility and who, in a desperate attempt to hang on to office, allowed the deficit to blow out. We inherited the situation where the deficit, as a proportion of GDP, was 5 per cent. We have successively, by careful and responsible economic management, brought down that figure to where in 1985-86 the deficit, as a proportion of GDP, is 2.1 per cent. We will continue the responsible economic management of this country which has transformed it from the worst economic recession in 50 years to the most prosperous economy in the Western world. Ms JAKOBSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Can the Minister inform the House of the increased consumer and community participation in his Department? Dr BLEWETT —Representations were made to the Commonwealth Department of Health in May 1985 for a review of community participation in the Department. In response to that, a committee was set up involving community representation. It has now produced a report to the Department which recommends access by the community, consumer and user groups to decision-making within the Commonwealth Department of Health in areas including policy, research priorities, budget allocation and regulatory and legislative changes. This review also recommended the formation of a health forum, the membership of which would be open to all community organisations with an interest in health issues. The activities of this health forum would be co-ordinated by a core group of 16 organisations. This core group would meet four times a year and would have the responsibility once every two years of bringing together a whole meeting of the health forum and keeping the other member organisations informed. I think it is important to note that the report recommended that the Department review the relevance of all committees and working parties with a view to discarding any that did not have an important and useful role. Certainly that recommendation has my strong support. These recommendations are now before the Government and we will be coming up with a specific response to them. At this stage I anticipate real benefits from increased community participation in the working of the Department. First of all, for the first time it would give an effective community voice on health issues to balance the views of the profession, government and industry, all of which are well represented within the Department. Secondly, I think that more effective programs and services will be produced if decision-making is informed of community needs. Thirdly, I think that a more informed community would lead to improved understanding of the difficult decisions that governments have to make in the health areas. Mr NEHL —My question is addressed to the Minister for Communications. In view of the importance and great value of regional television to non-metropolitan viewers and advertisers throughout Australia, will the Minister tell the House what action he is taking to save Australian regional television from being gobbled up by the Packer and Murdoch media monsters and spat out again as mere relay stations for major metropolitan networks? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for his question. As he is probably aware, the first commitment of this Government in broadcasting is to the equalisation of broadcasting services, particularly in regional areas. At this stage how that will come about is, in fact, yet to be finally considered by Cabinet. However, I think it is reasonable to say that the justifiable concerns expressed today by the honourable member on behalf of regional television have been represented more than adequately on behalf of regional television by Regional Television Australia. Any decisions this Government reaches in relation to this matter will take all of those matters into account. Dr THEOPHANOUS —My question is to the Minister for Defence. I ask: On what basis was a decision made to close the Albion explosives factory? What is the likely future for the workers who will be displaced from the factory and what benefits will flow to the local community from the eventual release of the factory land for redeployment? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. The decision to close the Albion ammunition factory is related entirely to establishing a more effective production of explosives and ensuring an efficiency in government factories, which I would have thought would be a position shared on both sides of the House. As it happens, it appears that that is not a position shared on both sides of the House. Some quite ignorant and untoward criticism was made of the honourable member for Calwell during the course of remarks in a grievance debate last week and I think also in some public comment in that regard. It seems passing strange that, having been thrown into confusion on the question of privatisation, our opponents now appear to want to cross all the way over and will not permit us to establish effective and efficient production in government-owned factories. The Opposition has gone right across the board. There were several factors involved in the decision. That was one of them. The fact that the decision has been taken will open up substantial opportunities to the communities in both the electorate of the honourable member for Calwell and the electorate of the honourable member for Lalor. This decision has been very much welcomed by them. They both brought a delegation to me this week and I was able to give some assurances on opportunities that would be available to develop parts of the area for community use and also to put a road through, which will be of some considerable convenience. I did point out at the time, however, that those developments will have to be carefully paced because they must move in accordance with other developments that will take place, both at the factory at Maribyrnong and at the factory at Mulwala, because we are not going to place ourselves in a position where, were an emergency to occur over the next few years, an essential element of production would not be possible as a result of one element being closed down at Albion in advance of it actually being opened at one of the other two sites. The honourable member has been diligent in his concern for the workers at the factory at Albion. Some 210 workers are affected. Forty-odd of those workers will continue to be employed at the factory site for maintenance and other purposes while it is being run down. The rest will very quickly be able to take up positions at Maribyrnong, Mulwala or one of the other government factories in the immediate vicinity which employ several thousand people. These opportunities will arise for them. Of course, in these circumstances there are always cases in which a worker may well not want to shift. In those circumstances, even though we feel that we will be able to find alternative employment, we are holding discussions with the unions and with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to ensure that appropriate termination arrangements are met. The decisions this Government has taken will result in efficiencies in those areas-efficiencies which have been sought repeatedly, I might say, by parliamentary committees. They are going to be achieved with considerable difficulty in some circumstances and with sensitivity in all circumstances. However, our objective is to ensure that production in government factories is as efficient and as effective as possible, while always recognising that factories which form substantially a part of the reserve of what we might require in wartime are not going to achieve totally commercial standards, in regard to anything. However, that is still no excuse for not addressing a requirement for efficient production. I am glad that there remain at least a few people on this side of the House concerned about that, even if the concern does not spread across to the other side of the chamber. Mr SHARP —My question also is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Is the Minister aware that the Fleet Air Arm Museum has many extremely rare and valuable aircraft which are currently based at HMAS Albatross at Nowra and are left out in the open where they are slowly rusting away? Is the Minister aware that these extremely rare and irreplaceable pieces of Australia's aviation history have absolutely no protection from the weather and that, despite constant attempts to have an appropriate hangar built, this Government continues to ignore the needs in regard to these valuable pieces of Australia's history? Mr BEAZLEY —I am aware of the circumstances to which the honourable gentleman draws my attention. It would be extremely difficult to find a defence justification for constructing a hangar for those purposes. However, I think those aircraft are an important part of our national heritage and need protection. I am hopeful that, when decisions are ultimately taken on the Maritime Museum and the Aviation Museum, in one or both of those places an appropriate place will be found for those aircraft. There has been some expression of interest in the aircraft by private people. I will look into the matter again, on the basis of the interest shown by the honourable gentleman, to see whether we can do anything in the interim. I approach it from the point of view that we do not have all that much money to fling around in the Department of Defence. We have to be reasonably careful and selective about how we expend it to ensure that it is done effectively. Again, I qualify that by saying that the matter of ensuring that a very important part of our military history is preserved is also of some significance. Mr MARTIN —Has the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs noted a report that the Imam of the Lakemba Mosque, Sheikh Al Hilaly, is due to leave Australia by the end of February? Is the report correct? Mr HURFORD —I have noted the report and it is correct. Sheikh Al Hilaly arrived in Australia in 1982 on a three-month visa. He has had his visit extended four times by various Ministers from both sides of politics. The Sheikh applied for resident status in November 1984. In considering his application I had particular regard for two of the basic principles of our immigration policy, which has been developed by governments from both sides of this Parliament. First, it is fundamental to national sovereignty that the Australian Government alone should determine who will be admitted to Australia. No person other than an Australian citizen has a basic right to enter our country. Secondly, policy governing entry and settlement is based on the premise that migrants should integrate into Australian society. For a number of reasons, I decided that the Sheikh's resident status application should be refused and that he should leave at the termination of his present temporary entry permit, which terminates at the end of this month. I made this decision recently after the most thorough review of all the factors over the Christmas period. The Sheikh has given me a written undertaking to leave Australia voluntarily by 28 February. He has subsequently assured me personally on two occasions that the commitment will be honoured should his resident status application be refused, as it has been. I expect him to honour his word and leave Australia by tomorrow week-Friday, 28 February. Mr JULL —My question is directed to the Minister for Communications. It is allied to that asked today by the honourable member for Cowper. I refer to the Minister's statement on the Government's announcement that it will introduce supplementary television and radio licences. Is it still the Government's first and preferred option to continue with this scheme? If not, is the Government prepared to continue with the present monopoly policy in some radio and television markets? If so, will he pay compensation to the many small companies that have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in research and for applying for and showing interest in supplementary television and FM radio licences? Mr DUFFY —As the honourable member will be aware, the supplementary licence scheme was the policy of the previous Government and was endorsed by this Government. However, over the past year or a little longer the initial enthusiasm of the industry for the supplementary licence proposals has waned, to say the least. I well recall that in the early days of this Government there was a very strong view within the industry that this Government should endorse the policy of supplementary licences-which we did-and proceed forthwith. However, that does not seem to be the position within the industry at this stage. In relation to television particularly, one of the concerns which the industry started to feel very strongly arose as a result of the Perth hearing, which has been dragging on, as the honourable member will be aware, for a long while. As a result we have looked at the hearing procedures of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in an attempt to solve some of those difficulties. I think that will be achieved. However, which way we should proceed on supplementary licences, and particularly on the issue which is central to the honourable member's point-the role of independent applicants-is currently being examined by the forward development unit within the Department of Communications. It will come back to me, as the Minister, not with recommendations but with options. The problems that the honourable member has raised in his question are real because the independent applicants are concerned. Their representations have been put very strongly by the organisation FM Applications for Independent Radio Inc., FAIR, which is known to the honourable member. They are being considered in the overall context of broadcasting policy. On the other hand, representations from the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters, FARB, are equally as strong in the radio area. That matter relates to a problem of the availability of FM frequencies, for existing AM operators as well as independents. All the matters raised by the honourable member are under consideration. I can add very little at this stage. Mr GRACE —Is the Minister for Health aware of an article by journalist Peter Costigan which appeared in yesterday's Melbourne Herald and which suggests that the Australia Card proposal would include a huge centralised computer containing personal data under, as he states, `the secret care of the bureaucracy'? Can he inform the House what the effect would be of adopting Mr Costigan's undoubtedly expert advice that the Australia Card would not be necessary if the Government were to make tax returns public documents? Does such a system operate in Sweden, as Mr Costigan suggests, and with what success? Mr Donald Cameron —I take a point of order. Again, Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to standing orders 142 and 143, which specify that questions asked of a Minister must relate directly to his portfolio. When some journalist writes something, the Minister is not responsible for that. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Health is responsible in this area. Dr BLEWETT —I have read the article to which the honourable member for Fowler refers. Unfortunately, it typifies a number of articles written in the Press which do not seem to face up to the intellectual challenge presented by the Government in the very full reports which have now been widely distributed. It seems to me that, if people are to engage in worthwhile debate on this admittedly complex issue, those sorts of arguments have to be addressed. For instance, the Australia Card proposal will not result in the creation of a huge central database. I have assured members of the House and Australian citizens time and time again that there is no proposal to create a single information file on citizens. Nor, as alleged in the article, will there be any unrestricted access by legions of bureaucrats to the register of the Australia Card. Insofar as clerks will have access to this material, it will be simply for identifying information such as name, address and Australia Card number. That will be simply as a check on similar information provided to those clerks in offices around the country. We have made it very clear in the Government report that there is no intention of breaching individuals' privacy. In fact, with the introduction of the Data Protection Agency, we are offering better protection for privacy in relation to computer files than anything available in this country at the moment. Indeed, that Data Protection Agency is modelled on the Swedish model-it is very interesting that that is not referred to in the article but there are numerous references to Sweden-and there it has proved extremely effective over a much wider range of computer files than simply those held by government. It is true, as Mr Costigan has said, that Swedish taxpayers do have a reputation as a pretty honest taxpaying nation and their tax returns are publicly available. But he did not mention that Sweden has a most sophisticated national identification system which allocates a unique identification number from birth in that country. That means that in Sweden the tax board is effective because those numbers are used throughout the system. In fact the Swedes do not have in effect to lodge tax returns because their income from all sources is identified through the use of that single identification number. Finally, I believe that Mr Costigan's most revolutionary suggestion that we would solve most of our tax and welfare fraud problems by making tax returns publicly available, as happens in Sweden, is a nonsensical suggestion. If a person failed to declare bank interest or a dividend payment or other payments, the public availability of the tax return would do nothing to deal with those sorts of problems unless, of course, it is suggested that the banks and other financial institutions should be turned into institutions responsible for tracing tax in that way. The Government accepts the responsibility for tracing taxes. It needs that kind of number to do it effectively. Mr MacKELLAR —My question is to the Minister for Health and I refer him to the answer given by the Prime Minister to a question earlier this week when the Prime Minister confirmed that the Government had no plans to change the Medicare arrangements. I ask the Minister for Health: Will he confirm that the Medicare arrangements referred to by the Prime Minister include both the Medicare levy and the 85 per cent medical benefit rebate? Dr BLEWETT —I believe that the Prime Minister's response was completely comprehensive and I have nothing to add to it. Mr Hawke —On that happy note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Accounting Standards Review Board for 1984-85. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the guidelines on prosecution policy of the Commonwealth, prepared by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 58 of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority for 1984-85. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission on quality and equality: Commonwealth specific purpose programs for Australian schools, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education relating to the report. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Building Research and Development Advisory Committee on building research and development. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Committee of Review of the Adult Migrant Education Program entitled `Towards Active Voice'. The report has been circulated to all honourable members. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present the third report, south-east region, of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on remote commercial television services. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) — Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, I present the report of the N.S.W. Local Government Grants Commission 1985-86 which contains the Commission's recommendations for distribution of Commonwealth income tax funds to individual councils. On 9 September 1985, I approved the recommendations of the New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission and payments to New South Wales were made on 11 September 1985 by the Treasury. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, I present the report of the Victoria Grants Commission 1985 which contains the Commission's recommendations for distribution of Commonwealth income tax funds to individual councils. On 3 September 1985, I approved the recommendations of the Victoria Grants Commission and payments to Victoria were made on 9 September 1985 by the Treasury. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, I present the report of the Queensland Local Government Grants Commission 1985 which contains the Commission's recommendations for distribution of Commonwealth income tax funds to individual councils. On 3 September 1985, I approved the recommendations of the Queensland Local Government Grants Commission and payments to Queensland were made on 9 September 1985 by the Treasury. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —by leave-In May last year, I made a statement in this House on Australia's Trade Situation and Policies, accompanied by a Department of Trade background paper entitled `Australia's Trade Performance and Prospects'. The fundamental situation outlined in that statement and background paper has not changed. The terms of trade have been moving steadily against commodities over a long period and Australia is a commodity dependent exporter. Since then the international trading environment, particularly for agricultural commodities, has deteriorated further. At the moment there are particular difficulties which substantially reflect the market distortions generated by the European Economic Community's common agricultural policy practices and the accompanying surpluses of beef, sugar, cereals and dairy products that have found their way onto an already overcrowded world market. Markets have been further weakened by the reactive subsidies enacted by the United States Congress. Such a situation with its misallocation of resources is not desirable either for the world economy in general or efficient producing countries in particular. On the one hand we must learn to adapt to market realities by seeking through our trade and industrial policies to alter our trade mix. On the other, we must seek to reform the rules of international trade so that they provide the same basis of fair play for our existing agricultural commodities as applies in manufactures trade. The largest and most serious deficiencies in the operation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade are in agricultural trade. My visit to Europe and the United States of America was particularly timely in enabling me to put squarely Australia's grave concerns about the world-wide developing crisis in agriculture. In addition to pressing for urgent and aggressive reform of agricultural policies, particularly the common agricultural policy, my intent was to emphasise the need for subsidies and protective barriers in agriculture to be tackled as a prime objective in the new round of multilateral trade negotiations. The new round of multilateral trade talks provides the Government with a valuable chance to focus attention on the current bias in the rules against agricultural trade. We can encourage a climate of opinion that facilitates structural adjustment and reduced protectionism. It also provides an opportunity to create conditions for improved export performance in the fastest growing areas of world trade-manufactures and services-concomitant with the Government's industry and trade policy objectives, and to reduce the structural distortions plaguing commodity markets. I received full support from the United States Special Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter for making agriculture a prime objective in the new round. We and the United States agree that the GATT disciplines in respect of subsidy practices, particularly export subsidies, must be significantly improved. The United States Administration is determined that real trade liberalisation in agriculture is at last addressed in a substantive way. In turn this will enable the Administration to repel those forces in the United States Congress who want to fight the EC subsidies fire with fire to the overall detriment of us all. In discussing these issues in Europe with EC Commissioner for External Relations and Trade, Will De Clercq, I stressed our concerns at the distortions resulting from common agricultural policies now evident in agricultural commodity trade and our concerns at the growing use by the US and the EC of competitive subsidies. I pressed him for more urgent review and reform of their common agricultural policies, emphasising our disappointment at their failure to make any substantive reforms to these policies in their recent reviews of sugar and dairy policies. I took the opportunity to reinforce these views in my discussions with Trade, Industry and Economic Ministers in Spain and Portugal, the two newest members of the Community. Indeed, Spain has become the fifth largest member of the 12. The European Community's agricultural policies have had particularly debilitating effects on developing country agricultural producers. Although some receive access for significant amounts of their products, the price depressant effects of dumped EC surplus production on world markets destroys overall export earnings of these countries. For debtor nations the dilemma is very real. In the face of declining earnings their ability to import declines. The pressure to restrict their imports increases. Protectionist and discriminatory non-tariff barriers among major industrialised countries to their trade in manufactures further reduces their ability to improve their standard of welfare. The deepening crisis will turn the attention of these developing countries to searching for a better way to organise world trade-fairer rules, fewer subsidies-and the need to make a concentrated effort to convince the older industrialised countries of the real need for reform. The recent Bureau of Agricultural Economics study on the effects of the common agricultural policy make it plain that the costs of the policy to Europe in terms of lost employment and growth opportunities are such that they should share our desires for reform. We will continue to highlight these facts. In recent discussions with the National Farmers Federation I suggested that industry groups must also carry forward the initiatives the Government has taken to publicise amongst European consumers the burdensome costs of their agricultural support policies. For the first time in over 20 years it may now be possible to tackle agricultural trade problems constructively. Only by generating within the EC and globally recognition of the deleterious effects of the CAP will be able to achieve a change in views on subsidy practices. In the months ahead we will be working closely with the United States Administration, with affected developing country agricultural exporters and with countries in our own region to ensure that the mandate for a new negotiating round adequately addresses agriculture and trade liberalisation. Getting the issues into the open and on to the negotiating table is only a first step. We will have set the stage for a broad-based negotiation on access, subsidies and non-tariff barriers that will improve the world trading environment. But the going will be extremely tough. It is completely unrealistic to imagine that the distortions in world agricultural trade can be wiped out overnight or that radical change in the direction of the common agricultural policies will be easily achieved. Such an approach offers the prospect of replacing the threat of trade and subsidy wars with detente and mutual reduction of the arsenal of trade barriers and subsidy distortions-and the prospect of greater prosperity for all trading nations. Both US Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter and the Director General of GATT, Arthur Dunkel, share my view that we must be aggressive and creative in seeking to strengthen both the rules and the GATT institution itself. This is essential if we are to reverse the self-seeking protectionist policies that have become so much the mark of international trade practice over recent years. I believe I have developed an atmosphere within which co-operation to secure these goals will be a major element of the current Preparatory Committee discussions in Geneva. Such objectives require full and vigorous participation by all trading nations-something that Australia has not always been prepared to undertake in previous negotiating rounds. The Government has committed itself to the gradual reduction of industry protection levels in key industries as part of our strategy to secure an efficient, competitive and expanding manufacturing sector. While these policies stand on their merits they also provide us with more scope to obtain real benefits in a negotiating round. United States Farm Program A crucial point in the subsidy battle has been reached with the enactment of the new farm legislation which mandates subsidy expenditures on a range of agricultural products vital to Australia. These developments made it imperative to register our concerns at ministerial level and press the Administration to minimise the impact of these programs on Australian export markets. This was the purpose of my visit to Washington. These personal ministerial representations have been reinforced by letters from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and myself to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Special Trade Representative, and also from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to President Reagan following the signing into law of the Farm Bill, just before Christmas. There are also the ongoing efforts of Australian Embassy staff directed towards those involved in the United States legislative process. To underscore the depth of feeling among Australia's farming community, I invited Mr Michael Shanahan, Senior Vice President of the National Farmers Federation, to accompany me. I was most appreciative of his support and assistance during my discussions in the United States. As a result of my talks with five members of the Reagan Cabinet-Secretary of State Shultz, United States Special Trade Representative Yeutter, Secretary of Commerce Baldrige, Labor Secretary Brock, and Agriculture Secretary Block-there is now widespread understanding of Australia's concerns about the new United States farm legislation. I received strong expressions of support for Australia's position. More importantly, while the threat of damage remains, I received assurances that the Congress will be asked to repeal the mandatory provisions of the export enhancement program which threaten Australian wheat exports. I also received assurances that, to the extent that it was necessary in the continuing administration of the EEP, the United States Administration would do all that was possible to minimise damage to Australian interests. On wheat, I stressed at each of my meetings that the mandatory export subsidy expenditure provisions would be very damaging to Australia's interests. Our concern has been that competitive subsidisation of wheat by both the United States and the European Economic Community would simply result in world prices being forced down to levels that seriously damage efficient producers such as Australia. In this situation Australia would be forced to carry the cost of adjustment in the world market while inefficient, subsidised producers did not. The validity of these points was clearly recognised by the senior U.S. Cabinet members with whom I spoke. Indeed, President Reagan himself when signing the United States Farm Bill had expressed his opposition to mandatory export subsidies. I am confident that the Administration will, within its area of discretion, administer these programs in a rational and responsible way while attempting to change these debilitating provisions. A decision by the Administration to seek the repeal of the mandatory provisions would signal a victory for those of us seeking to maintain a more open and fair international trading situation for agricultural products. Both in my meeting with Mr Yeutter in Washington and during our preliminary discussions a week earlier, I registered strongly Australia's continuing concern at the reduction in United States sugar import quotas. I emphasised our particular disquiet that, in implementing the provisions of the farm legislation, further cuts could be made which discriminated against Australia. The severely depressed state of world sugar markets and the Australian industry, in particular, is largely attributable to the highly protectionist subsidised production policies being pursued by the European Community and the United States. The objective in Washington on sugar was to put the case for non-discriminatory application of future sugar quotas fairly and squarely before the Administration. It was fortunate that I was able to schedule my meetings with Cabinet members immediately before their Cabinet consideration of the future implementation of the sugar program. I emphasised that discriminatory action against Australia would be unacceptable and that basic quota shares should remain as they are. I am confident that our case for non-discrimination will carry the day. One element of particular concern in the United States Farm Act is the provision that 90,000 tonnes of United States beef be exported as a consequence of the dairy-herd buy-out program. While some of this beef will be used to supply United States defence establishments overseas, there is the danger that a substantial proportion of this beef may find its way into commercial markets at subsidised prices. The Australian Government is working closely with our cattle producers to try to prevent this happening. The United States National Cattlemen's Association recently told Australian cattle producers that it does not agree that United States beef should be subsidised into open commercial markets. It recognises the dangers for the stability of the world beef market of entering into subsidy-assisted trade; a market which is already being undermined by the subsidy practices of the European Community. The National Cattlemen's Association has agreed to prior consultation with our industry should exports proceed into the open market. Our cattle producers are urging United States cattle producers to make their views known to United States officials. The provisions on beef slipped through the Congress in the final hours of the debate on the Farm Bill and the potential effects on inter-national beef markets were unintended by its sponsors. While in Washington I proposed that changes in the legislation be sought or that it be administered in such a way as to prevent this beef distorting commercial markets and normal patterns of trade. In my discussions with Secretary Schultz I also canvassed these issues. Having regard to our wide spectrum of shared alliance interests I stressed, as the Prime Minister did in his letter to President Reagan of 20 January, that solutions to the problems with the European Community should not be sought on a bilateral basis but should be addressed in the new multilateral trade negotiations; additionally, that interim measures contemplated by the United States to combat the European Community's subsidies should not unduly harm innocent and efficient trading partners. I made a special effort to travel to Texas to the home town of Congressman De La Garza, who is Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, to put directly to those primarily involved in the legislative process the strength of our concerns on the United States farm program. As a result, Congressman De La Garza has written to the Secretary of Agriculture pointing to the crucial nature of agricultural export earnings to Australia's economic well-being. He has noted the concerns I raised with him on the impact of the beef buy-out program, possible discriminatory application of sugar quotas and the overall impact of the United States farm legislation on our agricultural sector. He has requested that the interests of allies, such as Australia, be fully considered in the administration of these programs. In a recent discussion with the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), Congressman Solarz has also undertaken to make similar representations to the United States Department of Agriculture. It is extremely important that the progress we have made in the United States in pressing Australia's views on these agricultural issues be followed up in the critical months ahead. This will involve continuing and intensifying our approaches to the Congress as well as the Administration. United States-Australia Trade Talks United States Special Trade Representative Yeutter and I agreed that it would be helpful to hold regular talks between Australia and the United States on trade matters. The precise format for these meetings will be settled shortly. They will provide the opportunity to discuss not only bilateral issues but also the development of mutually acceptable strategies for the multilateral trade negotiations and improvement of the world trading system. The Hawke Government is adopting an active and aggressive approach to defending our competitiveness and access to world farm product export markets. It is this competitive position that I have been seeking to preserve and improve in my discussions in the United States and elsewhere. The Government is not mesmerised by one fixed line of approach or by past practices. Nor do we pursue ideological shibboleths such as wage deregulation under the guise of producing simple panaceas to complex problems. International trade in agriculture is not simply a result of free market forces. In many areas improvements can be achieved only by the co-operation and good-will of the Governments of foreign countries. In achieving these ends both industry organisations and the Government have important roles to play. I will be developing further proposals to reinforce these activities. Both in respect of our multilateral negotiation strategies and our immediate concerns in respect of the United States farm program important progress has been made. The undertakings I have received from the United States Administration will help to ensure a better deal this year and next for Australian farmers. Also they will help us in our objective to achieve, through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations, fairer market structures for our products in the years ahead. For our part, we are endeavouring to adopt a flexible response to the most critical crisis in the world trading system since the present institutions were devised following the Second World War. We are endeavouring to create conditions within which bilaterally, regionally and multilaterally a fairer and more liberal trading environment can be created; an environment conducive to Australian export achievement across the agricultural, mining, manufacturing and services sectors-an achievement vital to our future prosperity. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —by leave-Everybody supports efforts to ensure the effects on Australia of the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community and the United States of America Farm Act and export enhancement program are minimised, and to this extent the initiatives of the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) in this area are welcomed by the Opposition as is the promise of continuing discussions with the United States and European Economic Community officials. The effects of the European Economic Community's subsidisation and dumping policies on Australian agriculture are well known. The common agricultural policy pursued by the European Economic Community has led to massive distortion of world markets, with accompanying surpluses of beef, sugar, cereals and dairy products. To take just one example, the European Economic Community's subsidisation of sugar is equivalent to $US300 or $A430 per tonne. This causes massive distortion or world sugar markets to the detriment of Australia's sugar producers, whose industry is in a parlous state, and it has also allowed sugar stocks throughout the world to grow to record proportions. The effects of the United States farm Act and export enhancement program are less well known, because they are, more or less, recent acts of the United States. The United States farm Bill, signed by President Reagan just before Christmas, will provide more than $6 billion in subsidies to United States grain, dairy, sugar, cotton and rice exporters, to enable them to compete better on world markets. There is also the possibility of a $2 billion subsidy over three years to help United States wheat producers, which would mean a drop in the world price, resulting in turn in a loss to Australian farmers of $250m a year. As far as sugar is concerned, the United States is almost certain to cut its sugar quota, with dire consequences for this beleaguered industry in Australia. I wish to say how much I appreciate the work done by the Minister for Trade in the sugar area. There is also the prospect that, under the dairy herd reduction program, the United States could flood the international market with 90,000 tonnes of subsidised beef. Today the Minister said that his Government is working closely with our cattle producers to try to prevent this happening. We hope that it succeeds. There is a clear need for a bipartisan approach on such issues, as the standard of living of all Australians depends on how effectively and reliably our country trades. As recently as January, the Deputy Leader of the National Party and shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), visited Brussels, where he urged the European Economic Community to adopt more rational pricing and export policies. In three days of discussion with senior members of the European Commission, the Deputy Leader of the National Party vigorously impressed upon the European Community the need for agricultural commodities to be included under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. On his return home he urged the Hawke Government to increase its pressure on European countries and the United States to adopt more realistic and rational agriculture pricing and export policies. In this context, the visit of the Minister for Trade to the EEC and the US is to be commended. We in the Opposition accept that. However, our support for the Minister's initiatives in this area must be qualified by some very important provisos. Before the Minister left for overseas, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) suggested that the Minister's mission to the US would carry more clout if the Federal Government were not itself severely hurting Australian farmers and exporters. He particularly drew attention to the high interest rates that are currently crippling Australia's primary producers, our miners and manufacturers. These high interest rates are discouraging our exporters from expanding and taking advantage of new export opportunities and the devaluing dollar. This is certainly true. When we ask any primary producer, any miner, any manufacturer or anyone in a service industry we are told that Australia's real interest rates are the highest they have been for more than 50 years. Let us look at Australia's interest and inflation rates in comparison with those of the countries visited by the Minister, which are our major trading partners. These are the current short term interest rates on the basis of three-month treasury bills for November-December 1985: Australia, 18.65 per cent per annum; USA, 7.26 per cent per annum; West Germany, 4.84 per cent per annum; UK, 11.01 per cent per annum; France, 8.96 per cent per annum; and Japan, 7.29 per cent per annum. Basically, Australia's rate is more than twice the average rate of the other countries. Let us compare Australia's inflation rate with those of our major trading partners. The current annual inflation rates represented in terms of the percentage change on the previous year are: Australia, 8.2 per cent; USA, 3.6 per cent; Germany, 1.8 per cent; UK, 5.5 per cent; France, 4.8 per cent; Japan, 1.9 per cent; and Canada, 4 per cent. Again, the inflation rates are about half our rate. The average for the OECD, in fact, is 4.5 per cent. Needless to say, Australia has higher interest and inflation rates than our competitors, both of which act as a major disincentive for our export industries. Thus it is all very well to go off overseas and tell other countries that they should be treating our farmers better, when the Government back home is doing all it can to drive them off their properties. I would like briefly to talk about the excursion of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) into the bush, shown on last weekend's Sunday program. Australian farmers would have been left completely unimpressed by this cynical public relations exercise, in which the Prime Minister tried to avoid his Government's share of responsibility for the current rural crisis. The Prime Minister did not want to talk about interest rates. It is no wonder, since today's crippling interest rates, double those of our trading partners, are directly due to the tight monetary policy his Government is using to prop up the dollar and maintain the accord. It is this policy which is pushing interest rates into the ridiculous 20 to 25 per cent range, while inflation is running at 8.2 per cent. Repeatedly on the Sunday program the Prime Minister tried to put the blame for the current rural crisis entirely on the EEC for its `corruption of international markets'. The Hawke Government is very keen on pointing to the corruption of international markets by the EEC, but it is doing everything it can to corrupt the domestic market-place. Its intervention in the domestic money market to support the Australian dollar is keeping interest rates 6 to 8 per cent above what they should be. Its persistence with highly centralised wage fixation is allowing exporters no flexibility to adjust to individual trading conditions and economic circumstances. Its failure to pass on the full benefits of import parity pricing is placing all Australian export industries at a competitive disadvantage with those overseas. Thus, in talking about `corruption of international markets', the Prime Minister clearly neglected to talk about his own Government's corruption of financial markets, the wage fixing process and international parity pricing, all of which are steadily eroding the competitiveness of Australian industry. Just compare the labour conditions of our overseas competitors with those enjoyed by Australian workers, who have four weeks annual leave, compared with two weeks overseas, 17.5 per cent holiday loading, which does not exist overseas, and penalty rates after 8 hours, which exist overseas only after 40 hours work in a week. Now there is the likelihood of so-called productivity based superannuation. The fact is that, since coming to office, the Hawke Labor Government has mercilessly sucked the lifeblood from Australia's rural sector. What is more, it appears that it has no intention of stopping. Despite his crocodile tears on the Sunday program this year, the Prime Minister still intends to slug Australian farmers with a new capital gains tax-- Mr Ian Cameron —Capital tax. Mr BRAITHWAITE —A capital tax, as my colleague suggests. He still intends to slug them with the quarantining of farm losses and will expect them to bear the full brunt of the Australian Labor Party-Australian Council of Trade Unions wages productivity deal. None of the details of these imposts are before this House, and that leads to uncertainty in the production place. It goes without saying that the Prime Minister does not intend to pass on to them the full 11c per litre benefit of the fall in world oil prices. Twice on the Sunday program the Prime Minister described Australian farmers as `the most efficient in the world'-a sentiment echoed by the Minister for Trade when in Europe and the United States. This being the case, the Government should get off farmers backs, and give them, rather than the ACTU, some bonus for productivity. The fact is the ALP's diabolical union with the ACTU is preventing this Government and its Prime Minister from offering anything but sympathy to Australia's exporters and beleaguered primary producers. I notice that the Minister for Trade has been pushing an education campaign for trade unions through his Department to alert them to the adverse affects of industrial disputation on international trade. Certainly something has to be done in this regard as the sort of union behaviour typified by the Mudginberri and Dollar Sweets disputes achieves nothing but the retardation of our nation's development. As a result of the Mudginberri dispute Australia lost about $4m worth of exports, some to the very markets where the Minister was speaking to overseas officials, namely, the European Economic Community. So it is not very good lecturing them about the problems they have and their effect on Australian industry when they can see how the unions and industrial relations generally in Australia are affecting our industry. At the same time, the Dollar Sweets dispute caused massive disruption to an important industry as far as import substitution is concerned. This Government is paying Queensland Mines Ltd over $100m as compensation for not exporting uranium to France-again, a member of the EEC. People must wonder how fair dinkum we are about trading our produce and resources overseas. Today the Minister for Trade has said his Government is `not mesmerised by one fixed line of approach', nor does it pursue `ideological shibboleths such as wage deregulation'. Australia's unions have their incomes protected by the accord. Australian farmers and exporters, on the other hand, have to survive on what they can get in the international market-place. Thus the accord selectively and automatically maintains the standard of living for Australia's unions, while the standard of living of Australia's rural exporters is eroded. The most telling figure to emerge from the recent Bureau of Agricultural Economics conference was that the average income per farmer this financial year is expected to be $3,800, or only 18 per cent of average weekly earnings. This is a national scandal, and it is not all associated with the corruption of international markets. As I have already said, it is little good the Trade Minister going gallivanting around the world when his Government at home is doing all it can to penalise our farmers and exporters. What about the Minister's achievements, represented in this statement while in Europe? On the eve of his departure he issued a Press release which contained promising suggestions about his proposed meetings in Spain and Portugal. In Madrid, we were told, he would be promoting Australian exports of coal and agricultural machinery. In Lisbon, we were told, he would be promoting Australian participation in the development of the proposed coal unloading facility at the Port of Sines. Since then, however, nothing has been heard, and nothing has been heard today, on that, so I ask the Minister what he achieved in both these areas which are very important to Australian exporters. In Switzerland the Minister attended a European Monetary Fund Symposium at Davos-a major gathering of world economic representatives. He apparently failed to impress chief executives of Japanese, Swiss, German, French and Saudi Arabian firms. These businessmen, as reported, were critical of Australia's high wages, high interest rates and the restrictive practices of our trade unions. All the Minister could do was recycle the prediction of a possible 4 to 5 per cent fall in interest rates in the near future, which he should know rests on the assumption of an improved current account. This would have been hard for the Davos Symposium to believe when in Australia headlines such as that in the Australian of 14 February-`Trade Deficit Blow-out Forces Down the Dollar'-were appearing with increasing regularity. Of course, now the Government is not prepared to make any predictions as far as interests rates are concerned, and the Prime Minister says that his tight monetary policy will continue as long as is necessary. Given such flimsy and hypothetical evidence for future improvement in the Australian economy, its no wonder the Davos Symposium treated our Trade Minister with scepticism. As I said, the Opposition commends the Minister's talks with EEC representatives, but the Minister has been able to give us no indication that he actually managed to do anything to improve Australia's disadvantaged position. In the Press release issued on the eve of his departure for Europe he said: . . . the comprehensive study of the effects of the Common Agricultural Policy on agricultural exporting countries like Australia, published by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics a few months ago, was having an impact on raising the levels of consciousness in Europe about the cost of the CAP. The Opposition commended this BAE study, which concluded that the EEC's common agricultural policy costs our exporters $1 billion annually. I would like to quote to the Minister the following article, entitled `Anti-dumping book dumped', from Australian Business of 15 January: The Federal Government's hopes of influencing European public opinion, in its campaign against dumping of subsidised agricultural produce on Australia's traditional markets, appears to have struck a predictable snag-a not unprecedented one-lack of funds. The Foreign Affairs Department is unhappy that its plans to promote the Bureau of Agricultural Economics' book `Agricultural Policies in the European Community' have been stymied. The government's stinginess is nicely complemented by the European Commission itself, which managed to have scrapped a planned OECD seminar on the Australian research. So much for the efforts of this Labor Government in counteracting the predatory actions of the EEC. What of the Minister's visit to America? One particularly disconcerting aspect of the Trade Minister's United States visit was his tendency to act as Foreign Minister rather than Trade Minister, a preference the Minister intimated in an interview with Michael Gill in the National Times of 13-19 December 1985. In this regard perhaps in his joint capacity acting as Minister for Foreign Affairs he might have an answer to promoting the BAE study on the common agricultural policy by transferring the $3.5m which is being spent on peace projects to this other and more worthy project. We have heard the Minister's summation of developments in agricultural and multilateral trade issues here today. What of the tangible results of his trip? I quote from an interview he gave to Jim Middleton on The World Today: Middleton: It (the Farm Bill) was opposed tooth and nail by the Reagan Administration, and the President only signed the legislation under duress, after it became clear that any veto he might impose would be over-ridden by Congress. The measure is a matter of deep embarrassment to the President who remains a committed free trader and who has promised to work to repeal both sections of the legislation necessary to give him the power to apply the subsidies more selectively. So make no mistake, the Reagan Administration was opposed to mandatory legislation before the Minister's visit. What did the Minister actually achieve? Again according to Jim Middleton on The World Today: Mr Dawkins emerged from his talks in Washington expressing confidence that President Reagan would carry out his commitment, but admitting he had no specific promises from the top administration officials with whom he'd talked. So, there we have it. There were no specific promises. This fact was confirmed by Tuesday's Canberra Times which said Mr Dawkins failed to give any assurances to Australian farmers about the threat posed to them by the US Farm Bill. Later on in the World Today interview the Minister admitted that if the United States Administration was able to prevail over a hostile Congress on this issue, it would be because of the American public's horror about extending the benefit of subsidised exports to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. The question we should really be asking is how far the American Congress has been moved by the Minister's pressure to support the Australian position. The answer is, obviously not at all. In this morning's Australian Financial Review we hear that the Minister managed to muster a letter of support from Congressman Kika de la Garza, a major power broker in deciding agricultural issues in the Democrat dominated American Congress. Who did Mr de la Garza send this letter to? It was not to the United States House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, of which he is Chairman, and not even to the members of the House of Representatives. He sent it to the United States Administration who, as we already know, were already and remain opposed to the mandatory provisions of the Farm Bill. We commend the Minister's efforts, but for the sake of all Australian farmers we hope that his letter has more value than that with which Neville Chamberlain returned from Germany before the commencement of the Second World War. There we have it. Despite all the Minister's claims here today, he received no specific undertakings or promises and, if there are going to be any changes to the United States Farm Bill and export enhancement program, they will occur anyway. We commend the Minister's efforts, but at the same time we should be under no illusion about the realities that prevail in world trade at the moment, and under no illusion about the value of his visit in the light of his Government's treatment of Australian farmers at home. We particularly wish the Minister well in his efforts, in conjunction with the upcoming round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations, to have agricultural commodities included within the GATT. But if his Government is really serious about helping Australia's beleaguered rural export industries, it should adopt the plan enunciated this week by the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Gwydir. Specifically, it should immediately pass on the full benefits of the fall in world oil prices; abolish fuel price indexation; remove all sales tax on fuel and lubricants used on farms and in fisheries; and restore a more equitable fuel freight equalisation scheme-- Mr Goodluck —Hear, hear. It is 60c a litre in Tasmania at the moment. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Sixty cents? If we are going to get exports off the ground, we have got to get some justice in that regard. Furthermore, it should scrap quarantining of farm losses and the new capital gains and fringe benefits taxes; back off from the 3 per cent productivity-superannuation deal; adopt a more flexible wages policy, taking account of industry's capacity to pay; renegotiate the accord to ease interest rates and the pressure on the dollar; provide an immediate major injection of funds for debt adjustment, carry-on purposes and reconstruction; replace the tariffs on agricultural chemicals, farm machinery and parts with bounties; abolish export inspection charges for producers; instigate steady, predictable cuts to tariff protection; and restore the tax benefits of income equalisation deposits. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker,Mr McArthur and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr Lee and Mr Maher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: Whereas space technology involves many of the very highest engineering and scientific disciplines that Australia possesses, which may be applied at an international level to reap significant economic and technological return to the nation, and; Since an appropriate space program for Australia must involve presently unco-ordinated industry, government and research agencies, united together with Federal Government funding; Your petitioners therefore pray that you will support the establishment of an Australian Aerospace Agency to manage aerospace programs under a Federal Budget, promote technology transfer, and market our expertise overseas, while ensuring the continued operation of existing space-related facilities within the nation. by Mr N.A. Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The area between Cheltenham and Frankston is lacking any C.E.S., Social Security or Medicare Offices, despite the clear need for such offices. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that an Australian Government Centre containing a C.E.S., Social Security, Medicare and other appropriate Government Offices be established in the Mordialloc-Chelsea area as soon as practicable. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Charles. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that the decision to place an Army Artillery Base in the Orange/Bathurst/Mudgee area and the manoeuvres area in the Cobar region, would cause undue hardship to the families affected. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to: 1. Abandon its decision to resume land in the Orange/Bathurst/Mudgee and Cobar areas for military purposes. 2. That no site is chosen which includes productive, agricultural and/or pastoral land. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, Parliament House, Canberra. ACT 2600. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That we, the undersigned, are greatly concerned by, and totally opposed to, paying a licence fee to operate a marine band radio which is carried in any craft, and which may be relied upon to summon assistance in emergency situations. We wish you to rescind the Regulation under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905, which prescribes this fee. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Commonwealth Government of Australia will protect us from payment of this fee. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. 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 8 cents per litre to the price of petrol in some country areas; 3. The proposed consumption tax could lead to a further rise of 6 cents 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 committment given by the Prime Minister during the 1983 election campaign to reduce petrol prices by 3 cents 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. 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 proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Howard. 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 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 principle stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that `States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women'. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26-1-85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operations of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. 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 concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House set aside a National Park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals is undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners in duty bound ever pray. by Mr Maher. 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 sheweth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And you 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. The Humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill 1. Offer nothing more than is already available under Common Law, 2. Deny some Human Rights and do not include others, 3. Give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. Could cause far more damage than they could possibly cure. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives should: Completely reject both the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the President and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government's decision to force, at the expense of viewers, the transfer of WIN TV (and any future local broadcaster) from VHF to UHF transmission, while excluding Sydney metropolitan T.V. stations from this requirement, has placed in jeopardy the future of the Illawarra and South Coast region's only local commercial T.V. operator. Your petitioners request the House of Representatives to protect the interests of the hundreds of thousands of television viewers within the area from Wollongong to the Victorian border served by WIN TV, by preventing the government from taking this unwarranted and discriminatory action which disadvantages both viewers and advertisers on the South Coast to the benefit of the metropolitan networks. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; And, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all Nuclear Weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destablising Nuclear Weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government- (A) take new initiatives to encourage all member states of the United Nations-especially the Governments of Nuclear Weapon States-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all Nuclear Weapon tests in all environments for all time, (B) Call on all Nuclear Weapon States to declare an immediate moratorium on all Nuclear Weapon Tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal members of Parliament and Senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: [a] The ready availability of X-rated videos and other pornographic material; and [b] The increased tendency to highlight so many forms of sexual activity in the media without regard to the susceptibilities of the general public; and as a consequence, Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take action to 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. 2. Require the censorship authority to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes in determining classification and suitability of films and videos to be shown to Australian audiences; and 3. Ensure greater propriety in television productions, local and overseas, telecast to Australian audiences. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has announced its intention to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, currently the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government has no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in this manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but is handing over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australians citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to prevent this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ban on negative gearing and restrictions on property depreciation will adversely affect thousands of disadvantaged people who rent their homes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: End its ill-considered and discriminatory policy on rented property and allow depreciation on all buildings used to produce rental income. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Parkes in New South Wales 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 Rights 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 inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade unions. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. Petition 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: Your petitioners pray that Your Honourable House will reject the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 for the following reasons: 1. We believe as a matter of faith and judgment that the proposed legislation is anti-God and its implementation will result in attacks on the Christian church and the promotion of a State religion based on secular humanism; 2. That there is no need for legislation of this kind since the principles of freedom are already enshrined in Common Law and that it will cause more problems than it seeks to solve; 3. That there is a potential threat to our national security through making treaties of this kind with foreign nations, many of which do not share a common heritage and do not practice many of the principles that they have convenanted to uphold; 4. The methods being used to introduce this legislation are secretive and a blatant misuse of the external affairs powers under Section 51 of the Australian Constitution and that furthermore are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution; 5. That the implementation of the legislation through a process of new educational initiatives will result in the centralised control of education and this will inevitably lead to the destruction of States' rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Sutherland Shire respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional Nuclear Reactor at Lucas Heights. by Mr Tickner. Petitions received. Assent to the following Bills reported: Judiciary Amendment Bill 1985 Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The drop in living standards and loss of security suffered by Australian families as a result of the Hawke Government's policies and in particular the broken promises of the Prime Minister. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.43) —Over the past two weeks the Opposition has sought in this Parliament to highlight the impact of the policies of the Hawke Government and, in particular, the broken promises of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who has now broken more promises than the infamous drover's dog has fleas, on the living standards and the security of Australians and average Australian families. During those debates the impact of those promises has come home to many people in the Australian community. They remember the infamous promises made by the Prime Minister which have been broken. They remember the promise on capital gains tax, which was broken. They remember the promise on the value of the pension, which was broken. They remember the promise on interest rates, which was broken. They remember the promise on petrol prices, which is about to be broken. Let there be no mistake. Unless the Australian motorist gets a cut of 11c a litre in the price of petrol the Prime Minister will be directly cheating the Australian public of the full benefit of something that he and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) promised repeatedly, both in government and in opposition, the Australian public would receive. It is, therefore, no wonder that neither the Prime Minister nor the Treasurer is present to respond in this debate. Perhaps the heat of the last two days has been a little too much for the Treasurer. He has demonstrated a tenderness, a sensitivity and an inability to take a bit of heat which has become very plain. Who has been sent in by the Government to respond to a matter of public importance dealing with the family? Apparently, the organ grinder will not come out, the monkey has chickened out and we are left with the letter writer who leaked information, along with his six mates earlier this week, in revolt against the Prime Minister and the policies of the Hawke Government. We are left with the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) whose epitaph may well have been written by none other than his factional ally, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), the Victorian President of the Australian Labor Party who made a remark that will ring in the ears of many people in the Australian community, that is, that poverty and homelessness have continued to rise under the Hawke Government. Who is responsible for that? It is the man who would moralise and hector about the impact of social security policies of former coalition governments on Australian families, the man who prides himself on having presided over policies that have reduced poverty and homelessness. One of his closest friends in the Australian Labor Party has said, in as many words, to him: `You have been a failure because under your policies the level of homelessness and poverty in the Australian community has increased dramatically'. The policies of the Hawke Government are affecting the living standards, the sense of security and the actual security of Australian families. The Prime Minister does not like to be reminded of the fact that since he came to power the real value of family allowances has declined by 18 per cent. He does not like to be reminded of the fact that since he came to power the real value of the dependent spouse rebate, which is so important to many single income families on low levels of income who have children, has also declined by 18 per cent. He does not like to be reminded of the fact that before the last election he made many promises, over and above the promises I have already mentioned. He does not like to be reminded that before the last election, in his desperate bids to validate the early election which he had called without proper reason, he said: `We expect inflation to be less than 5 per cent in the year ahead and we are determined to keep it below 5 per cent'. That was the Prime Minister's promise. It was made in November 1984. It is now February 1986 and the inflation rate has been steadily climbing ever since the Prime Minister made that commitment. It has climbed to the extent that it is now more than double that of our major trading partners. Yet the Prime Minister and his colleagues are on the brink of making that comparison even worse by their imminent decision not to pass on the full benefit of the fall in the world price of fuel. Not only will their failure to pass on the full benefit rob the Australian motorist of the 11c to which he is entitled for every litre of petrol he buys and earn for themselves the justly deserved title of the bowser bandits of 1986-not only do they stand indicted for that reason-but also, to the extent that we do not get the benefit of the fall in the world price of oil, they will make an already parlous competitive position even worse. All the other countries are going to get the benefit of falling oil prices. How will we hope to compete with the countries that get benefit and whose inflation rates are now less than half of Australia's inflation rate and, in the case of Japan, about a third of Australia's inflation rate? Apparently, the Prime Minister is as oblivious of that as he is of the impact of interest rates and the Australian Council of Trade Unions prices and incomes accord on rural Australia. When asked at Question Time whether the families the Prime Minister visited a couple of weeks ago are the sorts of Australian families who should pay a 3 per cent productivity rise into a union-dominated superannuation fund, the Prime Minister prattled on about the alleged benefits of his Government. Rural Australia is not interested in platitudes from this Prime Minister. It is not interested in gimmicky public relations stunts. It is not interested in generalisations. It wants a few answers and it wants a bit of action from a man who, since he became Prime Minister, has loaded the rural community of Australia, in three short years, with enormous additional imposts. If we go around rural Australia and talk to people, away from the glare of television cameras, and ask them what their problems are, they will tell us that they are essentially the problems of government imposed costs. They are the costs of fuel, the costs of capital gains taxes, the costs of other taxation measures imposed by the Hawke Government and above everything else they are the costs of interest rates. In November 1984 the Prime Minister said in his Adelaide address ``that we had sown the fields and we were going to reap the harvest''. It has been some harvest for those Australians who are now paying the highest interest rates that this country has suffered for more than 50 years. That is the legacy of the dishonoured promises of this man who now poses as an Australian Prime Minister who will bring the country together again. I say to the Prime Minister and to all of his colleagues that the Australian public is fast running out of faith in a Prime Minister who thinks that advertisements in daily newspapers showing the Prime Minister with headphones on a talkback radio program is a substitute for creating jobs for young Australians. Just as the farmers of Australia were not impressed by the Prime Minister's visit to rural Australia a couple of weeks ago so the young people of Australia are not impressed with Priority One: Young Australia. The only priority of Priority One was the colossal ego of the Prime Minister. There were more advertisements and more photographs of the Prime Minister on talkback radio than there have been jobs created under Priority One. The Prime Minister talks about the cynicism of the young. He got his mate Mr Young to inquire into why young people do not vote. One of the reasons why young people do not vote is that they are cynical of a Prime Minister who thinks that con tricks and public relations stunts are a substitute for job generation. This Prime Minister, along with his Treasurer, has built up an unenviable record of broken promises. The reality of those broken promises is now starting to sink into the Australian community. Over the past week in particular we have seen evidence of them on the petrol price front, on the interest rate front and on the mortgage loan front. In the last five months there has been a 25 per cent fall in new housing loan approvals. The housing figures that were released today are catastrophic in the story they tell about the impact of high interest rates. We have another two or three months of tight monetary policy up to now to be reflected in subsequent statistics. Over the past two weeks we have seen, perhaps more than at any other time over the past year, evidence accumulating not only of the wilfully wrong policies pursued by this Government but also of the deceit and the deception of this Prime Minister who promised so much before the last election, who mortgaged his political freedom of manoeuvre through all the promises he made. The Treasurer, knowing that the world price of oil could collapse within months of making his taxation statement of September last year nonetheless in this Parliament promised tax cuts in the next two Budgets. He now seeks to be excused from the heavy burden of discharging that promise by saying that he did not know that the price of oil would fall. I can say to the Treasurer and to the Prime Minister that there is no way on earth that this Opposition or the Australian public will, for a moment, relieve them of the heavy political burden of honouring all of their promises. We intend to see that this Prime Minister and this Treasurer are made accountable for the promises that they made. The reason they must be made accountable for them is that their deception and their policies have affected the living standards of average Australians. The Government should ask a Sydney family what it thinks of the rate of inflation. In Sydney over the past 12 months the price of bread has increased by 11 per cent, the price of cereals by 9.9 per cent, the price of petrol by 11.7 per cent, the price of coffee by 11.7 per cent, the price of detergent by 14.2 per cent, the price of soap by 13.5 per cent, and so the list goes on. This is why more and more Australian families are starting to believe that this Prime Minister and this Government have lost contact with them. A Government which claims to represent the interests of ordinary families, of ordinary people, presides over the highest interest rates for more than 50 years, presides over a fall in the real value of family allowances of 18 per cent, presides over an inflation rate which is double that of our major trading partners and presides over a youth employment scheme that is nothing more than an expensive public relations gimmick to feed the ever increasing ego of the Prime Minister. In the area in which the Government has claimed to have achieved so much-that is unemployment-despite all that it claims to have done, despite all of the benefits of world economic recovery after the Government came to office, despite all the cyclical benefits of the breaking of the drought after it came to power, all that the Hawke Government can boast of in comparison with the unemployment figures under the former coalition Government is that the current rate of unemployment in Australia is higher than the rate was for all but four of the 86 months that the coalition Government was in office before the Hawke Government was elected. For somebody who for three years has gone around this country saying that he has wrought economic miracles and that Australia has the greatest economy in the world it is a pretty sorry legacy. No person is more responsible for that than the Prime Minister. This Prime Minister has made so many promises that his day of political reckoning is fast approaching. Over the past few weeks we really seen the totality of those promises and the impact of the breaking of those promises on average Australians and their families. I say to the Prime Minister and to the Treasurer that over the weeks ahead we have no intention of allowing them to forget all the promises that they made to the Australian public, because there is more to come. More promises will be broken. The Premiers of the six Australian States will find that out at the next Premiers Conference. How cynical can one get with that promise? The Prime Minister has broken so many promises that he deserves to be censured by this House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(3.58) —What we have just heard is a dog's breakfast of a speech if ever there was one. It is interesting that, having chosen the next best thing to motherhood, that is families, as the subject of today's matter of public importance, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) talked about everything else but the situation of the family within Australian society today. He failed to develop any of the points that were scattered through the speech we have just been listening to. The vaguest reference was made to inflation, unemployment, petrol prices, income support, you name it, but nothing subtle was said. There was no perception, no ability to discipline himself into making a speech that would influence this House in any way whatever. This Government has nothing to apologise for to the Australian electorate either with respect to broken promises, as they affect the Australian family, or with respect to its overall performance in relation to economic and social policy. I know that the Opposition likes to run away from this but the Government began its period in office in a context in which we were experiencing some of the worst economic circumstances in the post-war period. It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that somehow unemployment just happened to be temporarily out of control when the former Government lost office. The reality is that when we went out of office in 1975 we were spending something like $250m a year on unemployment benefits and when we returned to office the bill had gone well over $3 billion. What happened in the intervening period? Was there a whole set of extraneous circumstances which were responsible for the fact that the Fraser Government administered the economy in a way that was more debilitating for the Australian family than under perhaps any other government since the 1930s? When the Leader of the Opposition says that we on this side of the House have no monopoly on compassion, he forgets the fact that hundreds of thousands of young people throughout the Fraser years had their lives brutalised by a government that did not have the compassion to take a single initiative to relieve the tremendous problem of unemployment that afflicted the Australian people during those years. Unemployment is not a nice experience; it is a very nasty experience. And undoubtedly the scale of unemployment in this country has to be attributed to the previous Government. It is all very well for the Opposition to say that it is concerned; but the evidence of concern is, after all, economic and social management. The economic and social management of the Fraser-Howard Government was disastrous in terms of its impact on so many thousands of young people and on so many thousands of people who suffered from unemployment. In terms of our record, within a relatively short period we have reversed the trend in a quite dramatic way. We promised to create 500,000 new jobs in our first three years. In fact, we have created 608,300 new jobs. The percentage of people unemployed in Australia has come down from 10.1 per cent in January 1983 to 7.8 per cent in January of this year. We have sought not only to increase employment and to reduce unemployment but also to address the social problems which are a reflection of the insensitivity of the administration of Malcolm Fraser and John Howard. In the area of social security we have introduced new initiatives which have cost something like $1.4 billion since we have been in office. We have increased payments for those families which everybody recognises are the worst off within the Australian community. We have increased additional pension for children by 60 per cent, the mother's guardian's allowance has been doubled, the single adult unemployment benefit has been lifted by 40 per cent, we have introduced a new carer's pension, and so on. A number of initiatives have been taken. Initiatives which will come into effect later this year in a major attack on poverty traps include the abolition of a separate test on rent assistance, increases in allowable income for all pensioners, particularly increases in allowable income for sole pensioners and pensioner families, and so on. The Government has, in fact, taken a number of initiatives and those initiatives are very much in line with the commitments we have made. There being difficult economic circumstances, there have had to be priorities. It was made clear in the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) what we were going to place the greatest emphasis on after we came into government in 1983. We promised that pensioner fringe benefit levels would be indexed. They have been. We promised a zone allowance for social security beneficiaries living in remote areas, and that allowance is now $7.50 a week. We promised to increase progressively the single adult unemployment benefit, to close the gap between the benefit and the pension created by the previous Government. Successive rises have halved the gap and continuing rises will close it in the next year or so. We promised to increase the junior unemployment benefits, and so on. Rent assistance has been provided to the long term unemployed. We have a commitment to raise pensions, as economic circumstances permit, to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Some progress, although limited, has been made in that area. In terms of real changes in the disposable income of pensioners, under the Fraser Government we saw an 8.8 per cent reduction in the real disposable income of a sole parent with two children. Under our Government there has been a 7.4 per cent increase. For a married pensioner couple with two children, under the Fraser-Howard Government real disposable income decreased by more than 4 per cent-particularly for married couples with children in private rental accommodation. Under this Government the increase has been more than 6 per cent for the married couple with two children and 8 per cent for a married couple renting privately. The real standard of living of people who are in the lower income groups has substantially increased since we have been in office. Expenditure in the family allowances area is where the priority has been. We do not make any apology for that. The people in those situations were the very worst off in Australian society and that is where family payments have increased. However, we recognise the need, in terms of the taxation system, to provide assistance more broadly to Australian families. So, in September this year there will be a tax cut of more than $7 a week for more than 1.2 million taxpayers with children. That is not simply a promise that will be thrown away when it suits us. That is a commitment that is planned for and that is a commitment we will carry out in September this year. Smaller decreases in tax paid will be available to the balance of Australian families-a considerable contribution towards ensuring that the living standards of Australian families are sustained. The Leader of the Opposition made some reference to housing policy. It is extremely unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition chose to make any reference at all to housing policy, because if there was an area of social policy which was butchered by the Fraser-Howard Government it was the area of housing policy. Since we have been in office there has been a massive increase in housing starts and tens of thousands of young people have had an opportunity to get into their first home. Between October 1983 and October 1985, 167,000 payments were made to tens of thousands of young people, which cost the Government of the order of $519m. In the current financial year we will spend $290m assisting first home owners through that scheme. On the other hand, we recognise the fact for low income people, particularly during a period of high unemployment, public housing, is extraordinarily important. So, in 1985-86 we will be spending $654m, with 16,600 new housing units being provided to assist low income people across Australia. In 1982-83 the Liberals spent $406m and there were only 8,700 new houses in the public sector. That is only half the level that is currently being achieved by this Government. What could be more important to the Australian family than the commitment this Government has made in terms of expenditure and the development of policy in the housing area? I finally make reference to an area that the Leader of the Opposition did not mention, although I believe that it is an area that is critically important to Australian families. I am interested that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) is in the House, because I remember being with him some years ago at a public meeting at Northcote on the subject of child care. Child care is crucially important if one analyses the situation which has occurred, particularly with the growth in supporting parents and pensioner families headed by women. The only way that women will get out of a poverty situation in the long run is if they are able to get into the work force. The most critical factor, particularly for women with young children getting into the work force, is the provision of child care. We have made a major commitment in that area. In our first term in government, we allocated $40m for new child care services initiatives-eight times the amount allocated in the last Fraser Budget. In 1984 we introduced a more generous fee relief system for lower and middle income families. Child care for families is one of the fastest growing programs of the Government-over 25 per cent per annum. This clearly demonstrates our priorities. The number of day care places for children has increased from 37,580 in June 1982 to 63,535 in June 1985, an increase of about 70 per cent. We have entered into new cost sharing arrangements with State governments to ensure that new centres are established as quickly as possible and to overcome the backlog of need created by years of neglect. Prior to the last election, we promised to provide a further 20,000 child care places, and plans are well advanced to meet that election undertaking. Most State governments have agreed to assist the Commonwealth by continuing the cost sharing program. It will cost an additional $107m to establish the new centres and services under this three-year program. Once established, the cost of recurrent funding is estimated to be $50m per annum. Let us consider the Government's record in child care. Expenditure on children's services increased from $65m in 1982-83 to about $150m in 1985-86. By the end of our current three-year program we will have expanded the number of child care places from 4.5 per cent of the under five-year old children to 10 per cent-a record in commitment unmatched by any previous government. The difference between this Government and the Opposition is that we have been careful about what we have said and about our commitments. In the social security area we have spent additional money but we have also made some savings. They have not been easy but they have been important so that we can provide assistance to Australian families, particularly low income families. Before the Leader of the Opposition spoke, the shadow spokesman on trade, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), listed about 15 elements for the rural sector that would have to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. There was no reference to cost. He said that just had to be done. When it suits the Opposition electorally it will spend hundreds of millions of dollars. When it suits those opposite to say that things ought to be chopped back, they will do that. But there was no reason, no rationality, no logic, and certainly no compassion, sympathy or understanding in the policies of the Opposition when in government. The contrast is clearly there in the figures to which I have referred. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That the following orders of the day, Government Business, be discharged: 28 Japanese Tuna Long-Line Fishing-Subsidiary Agreement between Australia and Japan-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 35 Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 38 Australian Biological Resources Study Advisory Committee-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 48 Aged Migrants to Australia and Ageing in a Multicultural Society-reports by Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 58 Poultry Research Advisory Committee-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 62 Administrative Review Council-Report-Review of Customs and Excise Decisions: Stage 2-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 63 Australia's Population Trends and Prospects 1985-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 64 Industries Assistance Commission-Report-Motion to take note of paper; resumption of debate. 65 Remuneration Tribunal-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 66 Academic Salaries Tribunal-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 67 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 68 Australian Dairy Research Committee-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 70 Apples and Pears-Report by Industries Assistance Commission-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 78 Rainforest Conservation in Australia-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 79 Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 80 Economic Planning Advisory Council-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 81 Mount Allan Land Claim-Report by Aboriginal Land Commissioner-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 82 Gurindji Land Claim to Daguragu Station-Report by Aboriginal Land Commissioner-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 83 Film Censorship Board-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 84 Remuneration Tribunal-1985 Review-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 85 Aboriginal Employment and Training Programs-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 87 Legal Needs of Institutionalised People-Report by Commonwealth Legal Aid Council-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 88 Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 89 United Nations-Commission on Human Rights-Report of Australian Delegation-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 90 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 91 Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 92 Commonwealth Ombudsman-Special Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 94 Cox River (Alawa/Ngandji) Land Claim-Report by Aboriginal Land Commissioner-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 95 Australian Capital Territory-Registrar of Co-operative Societies-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 98 Law Reform Commission-Interim Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 99 Cost Allocation Review-East-West Airlines (Operations) Limited-Independent Airfares Committee-Report and Determination-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 100 Health Insurance Organisations-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of Debate. 101 Institute of Freshwater Studies-Report of Interim Council-Government Response-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 105 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 106 New Directions-Report of Handicapped Programs Review-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 107 Australian Capital Territory-Community Housing Expansion Program-Ministerial Statement and paper-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 108 Budget 1985-86-Initial Expenditure Savings Measures-Ministerial Statement-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 109 Foreign Affairs and Defence-Joint Committee-Report on the Australian Defence Force-Government Response-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 110 Australian Defence Force Academy-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 111 Nuclear Fuel Cycle-Australia's Role-Report by Australian Science and Technology Council-Government Response-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 112 Taxation Statistics 1982-83-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 113 Aircraft Accident Investigation-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 114 Town Campers Assistance Program-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 115 Expenditure-Standing Committee-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 116 Arbitration Inspectorate-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 117 Edward River Crocodile Farm-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 118 Nicholson River (Waanyi-Garawa) Land Claim-Report by Aboriginal Land Commissioner-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 119 Aboriginal Development Commission-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 120 Human Rights and the Migration Act-Report by Human Rights Commission-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 121 Queensland Electricity Supply and Related Industrial Legislation-Report by Human Rights Commission-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 122 Commonwealth Grants Commission-Special Assistance for the Northern Territory-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 123 Electoral Reform-Joint Select Committee-2nd Report-Government Response-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 124 Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 125 Science and Technology Statement 1984-85-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 126 Budget Outlays and Staffing-Forward Estimates-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 127 Royal Australian Air Force-Special Purpose Flights-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 128 Informal Voting 1984-House of Representatives-Reports by Australian Electoral Commission-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 129 Security of Wharves and Containers-Report of Commonwealth-New South Wales Joint Task Force-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 130 Financial Assistance for Schools-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 132 Aviation Industry-Outlook-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 133 National Aboriginal Conference-Report of Auditor-General-Paper and Ministerial Statement-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 134 Human Rights of Australian-born Children-Report by Human Rights Commission-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 135 Human Rights of the Terminally Ill-Report by Human Rights Commission-Motion to take not of paper: Resumption of debate. 136 Overseas Student Policy Review-Statement-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 137 Planning and Funding Policies for new Non-Government Schools-Report by Commonwealth Schools Commission-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 138 Nugan Hand Group-Interim Report No. 2 of Royal Commission of Inquiry-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 139 Special Prosecutor R. V. Gyles-Final Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 140 Freedom of Information Act-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 141 Independent Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 142 Australian Electoral Commission-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 143 National Aboriginal Conference-Role-Paper and Ministerial Statement-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 144 Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 145 Department of Defence Support-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 146 Aviation Cost Recovery-Report of Independent Inquiry-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Debate resumed. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(4.14) —I offer my congratulations to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on achieving your position, although I often do not envy you the task. I rise to speak in support of the Community Employment Amendment Bill 1986 with pride and appreciation. The appreciation is on behalf of all those individuals and organisations in my electorate that have benefited from this program. The pride flows from belonging to the Government that not only developed and implemented this policy but also recognised the need to keep it going. The Newcastle area was particularly ravaged by the economic vandalism practised by the previous Government, the failed ideology, the lack of industry policy, and the inhuman neglect of the current and future circumstances of hundreds of thousands of Australians. The generation of a large pool of unemployment as an aspect of Liberal Party economic and wages policy had the effect of generating a huge volume of long term unemployed Australians who were virtually taught how not to work. The community employment program specifically targeted the long term unemployed and those with employment disabilities. It is a savage indictment of our predecessors that the average period of prior unemployment of CEP participants Australia-wide has been 57.9 weeks and in the Hunter region this figure is 61.3 weeks. The community employment program has been a huge success in the Newcastle area. To date almost $13m has been committed to projects in my electorate, providing employment for almost 1,200 unemployed. Whilst the program has been extremely successful, and for that I congratulate the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), the fact is that this success is due in a very large part to the efforts of our project officer, Mr Gavin Farley, and his State counterpart, Mr John Othergee-I offer them my congratulations-and also to the organisations that have worked so hard to develop submissions and then to manage the ongoing projects. I would like to emphasise the point that the community employment program is one that offers wonderful potential for communities all around Australia, but it also poses a very great challenge. The Government alone cannot make the program successful. For those members of the House who may be critical of this program, I suggest that the answer is in their own hands. If they are so lacking in concern for the long term unemployed and so unable to mobilise their community organisations to reap the very great benefits the program offers, I would question their justification for being members of this House and claiming to represent their communities. Innovation is the key to CEP. As a program its guidelines relate primarily to the unemployed. It allows itself to be mobilised for as wide a range of activities as there are needs in the community. Whilst the prime objective of the program is to assist the long term and disadvantaged unemployed, the achievement of this objective can provide substantial and long term benefits for the community as a whole. I can best demonstrate this by outlining just a few of the projects in my electorate. One of the most exciting is the conversion of an old hotel to a hostel for unemployed youth. This project, sponsored by the Newcastle Youth Service, has received grants in the vicinity of $280,000-the most ever provided for any single youth project in Newcastle. It will provide accommodation for 16 of our unemployed young as well as house parents, together with space for a library and training facilities to help its occupants and others to learn new skills. Another project has involved the establishment of Rainbow Recycling, which collects industrial waste and recycles it for use in school arts and crafts courses. This project has worked in closely with the New South Wales Department of Education and the eventual objective of the project is to establish a continuing and viable business, after the CEP grant concludes. The conversion of an old picture theatre into a community centre is a project that proves how the wider community can and has benefited from CEP. Organisations as diverse as surf clubs, kindergartens, a maritime museum, ethnic groups, Parents Without Partners, environment groups, and churches can and have utilised CEP to help their communities while they help the unemployed. The vast majority of people who have been employed under the community employment program do not want handouts or payment for digging holes and filling them in again. They want to work and they want to feel a sense of pride and achievement in the work they do. The CEP can provide meaningful work the participants can look back on with pride and satisfaction in the years ahead. It is important for us to understand that the problem of long term unemployment has effects and implications that are not well understood. The CEP has been a pioneering program in this field and whilst it has been of enormous benefit in assisting communities and unemployed it has also been of great benefit in teaching us a great deal about the nature of long term unemployment. The success of CEP in assisting previous long term unemployed into the regular work force is now well established. The results of studies show that a significant number of CEP participants are in full time employment some six months after their CEP involvement is concluded. This shows us that for very many of the long term unemployed the experience of a reasonable period of proper productive work is more effective than courses and theory. The work experience is in itself a training. The CEP has been training people, firstly, how to work and, secondly, to re-establish faith and pride in themselves. The amendment we are debating today is a clear indication that the Government recognises this fact. By extending CEP beyond the three years of its initial legislation the Government is recognising that there is a continuing role for this program in the armoury of Government weapons used in combating unemployment. It is important that CEP be kept flexible and that we increasingly monitor and analyse its performance. I believe that as we learn more about the effect of long term unemployment on the unemployed, CEP will need to flex and adjust to that understanding. There is another aspect of the application of the CEP that the Government is addressing that I believe is important; this relates to invalid pensioners. Currently the criteria for receiving the invalid pension is an 85 per cent incapacity. Whilst we have various rehabilitation programs wherein we attempt to help people with disabilities to return to the work force, in general these have limited success, partly because of the very nature of the work experience they offer. The CEP specifically targets the disabled as a group and attempts to place them within CEP projects. Cases have occurred where invalid pensioners have been accepted into a CEP project only to find at the end of the project that they have lost the invalid pension completely and then have to spend months being re-evaluated for pension eligibility. This experience has undone much of the benefit that they have received from their CEP involvement. The Department of Social Security is now reviewing the work test for CEP participants with the possibility of extending the work test period for CEP participants on invalid pensions to six or 12 months. This would mean that an invalid pensioner could enter a CEP project in the hope that the experience gained would enable him to compete in the normal work force but knowing that, if it did not he still had the security of the invalid pension. In effect, the CEP experience would serve as an extensive, real life rehabilitation program for such people. I believe that there is a very real opportunity for a number of disabled within our community to minimise the impact of their disability on their employment prospects and return to a much more normal lifestyle. In other words the CEP allows them to spend six months or a year working on a project that allows them to use and develop whatever ability they may have. There is a real possibility that many such people will be able to develop their ability to a degree adequate to allow them to compete, within that specific skill area, with people who suffer no disabilities. In this context the CEP can be regarded as a rehabilitation program offering serious work, including job satisfaction, self pride and all that flows from this. I have listened with some interest and, I confess, some horror, to the debate on this legislation. For example, a previous speaker spent virtually all of his time listing projects from outside his electorate, from all over Australia. He seemed to suggest that somehow or other the only people who pay taxes in Australia are the people with whom he agrees, understands or feels close to. The fact is that, if one wanted to make the kinds of stupid, cynical suggestions he made, one could do the people of Brewarrina a great disservice by, for example, listing the arts skills development program costing $64,000 and employing five people which was put forward by the Brewarrina community development committee in his electorate. The fact is that Brewarrina has such a need. I, as the honourable member for Newcastle, could stand here and scoff at such a project. If I did so, I would be doing what that previous speaker, the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) has done. It is very easy for members of this House to isolate projects and groups in the community. It is easy to pick out a minority group and say that it does not have any right to any form of service. There will always be arguments about specific projects in any program of any government. It behoves us not to isolate those or to judge programs on those results. The fact is that in an electorate like Newcastle, which is part of the heartland of Australia, we have received very great help. The projects have been good. Those who have come out of the unemployed groups-on average they have been there for 61.9 weeks-have been good people who have shown that they can make those projects work. That is what the program should be judged on and not by the very cynical superficial efforts of people like the honourable member for Parkes. In concluding my remarks on this legislation I would like to indicate my very strong support for the community employment program. It is a program that offers each and every community in Australia and hence each and every parliamentarian an opportunity to design and develop their own program, their own solution to assist their own long term and disadvantaged unemployed and their own community. It is flexible, creative and decentralised and there is now overwhelming evidence of just how effective it can be. For any who see individual failures or weaknesses, I suggest they lay the blame with the application or the appliers rather than with the overall program. I urge all members of the House not only to support the amendments in the legislation but also to support actively the community employment program in the towns and cities for the benefit of all. Dr WATSON(Forde)(4.24) —I rise to speak on the Community Employment Amendment Bill 1986. I recognise that the community employment program is by no means a permanent answer to unemployment but it gives many participants a sense of self respect after a long period on the dole. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) recognised this when he reiterated research undertaken by the Bureau of Labour Market Research which showed that participants in this type of program experienced a continuous improvement in psychological well-being and are more able to cope with any subsequent period of unemployment than are non-program participants. In essence, it gets them back into the habit of working again. It gives them a sense of belonging to the local community because there is a local job for them. It gives them a sense of achievement and contribution. They can look back on the project and say: `I helped to build that'. The scheme also allows local authorities and community groups the opportunity to complete projects which otherwise may have taken years to initiate because of a shortage of funds. Taxpayers can see their money being spent locally to provide additional facilities and to employ local people. Unfortunately, the trouble is that patch-up schemes such as the CEP eventually run out. What we have to do is to search for permanent ways of dealing with the problem of unemployment. During this debate I would like to address three issues. First, I will deal with some local issues related to the operation of the CEP in the division of Forde. Secondly, I want to address the issue of unemployment, particularly some of the Minister's comments on it. Thirdly, I want to comment on the evaluation of this program which was provided in the report of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations on the community employment program for the second year 1984-85. I will deal with some of the local issues: In an answer to a question on notice last year, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations revealed that the area covered by the Woodridge Commonwealth Employment Service office received only 2.5 per cent of Queensland CEP funds for 1984-85. He also revealed that 5.6 per cent of the State's unemployed people were registered with the same office. This is one of the most disadvantaged areas in Australia with unemployment running at approximately 15 per cent. I hoped that by asking this question the Government's neglect of Logan City would be drawn to the Minister's attention. It appears that this was successful. At a subsequent meeting, the Queensland CEP secretariat made a conscious decision to allocate half of its available funds to Logan City, most of which is covered by the Woodridge Commonwealth Employment Service. My understanding is that this has never happened before. At the time there were many local applications which had been deferred because of a lack of funds. These included an application to build a community hall at Woodridge High School and an application by the Woodridge and District Committee on the Ageing to purchase a bus and employ two drivers to transport the aged people to the centre. They were both very worthwhile projects. Logan City lacks many facilities that other areas take for granted. It was intended that the hall would be used by a wide range of groups. Logan City has a high proportion of aged pensioners but public transport is one of their biggest problems. I found it appalling at the time that the Government could provide the left wing People for Nuclear Disarmament with about $80,000 to purchase the now infamous peace bus, which has been mentioned by a number of my colleagues, but could not find $43,000 to help Australians who had paid taxes throughout their lives to make their old age a little more enjoyable. I am reminded that boy scouts help old ladies across the streets, but this Government was more interested in assisting the minority group to peddle its propaganda in schools than in helping the old ladies of Logan City to get to their senior citizens centre. Government members are not good scouts. The bus was also to be used by such commendable groups as Meals on Wheels. Has anyone ever criticised Meals on Wheels? Of course not! But many people are opposed to People for Nuclear Disarmament, and a lot more people were disgusted by the Government's decision to allocate CEP funds to that group. I am pleased to report that both the community hall and the senior citizens bus were approved after the Government had suffered considerable embarrassment. Naturally, I was delighted. However, there is only a certain amount of money available for such projects. It upsets me to think that other deserving groups have missed out because of the Government's irresponsibility in providing funds for items such as the peace bus and funds to other left wing organisations already specified in detail by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) and, of course, the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb). Under the guidelines laid down for the CEP, a number of target groups are given preference when labour is allocated for programs. In general terms 50 per cent of the participants must be women, while Aborigines, the disabled and migrants with English language difficulties are also preferred. The requirement concerning female participation has caused a great deal of resentment in the Logan City area within my electorate. Certainly there are a lot of unemployed women in Logan City but the biggest problem is the large number of men with families who cannot get jobs. They are honest toilers and believe that families have just as much right to assistance as specific individuals. Perhaps the system could be altered to provide for a ratio of male to female unemployment equal to the ratio in the relevant Commonwealth Employment Service office. I understand, for example, that about 25 per cent of the total unemployed people in Logan City are females. Another preference I would question relates to migrants with English language difficulties. This preference discriminates against migrants who have come to Australia from non-English speaking countries and who have gone through the hard slog of learning our language. The Government is creating a disincentive for migrants to learn English. Another guideline I would like reviewed is the requirement for community group sponsors to contribute 20 per cent of the estimated cost of a project. The requirement for a contribution runs parallel to the Liberal Party's philosophy of encouraging people to do something for themselves. If there were no requirement for a contribution, every club with more than one member would be seeking government assistance. My complaint concerns the rigidity of the requirement. In the Logan City area many community groups cannot afford to raise the 20 per cent of funds necessary to qualify for CEP funding. The strict enforcement of this guideline is discriminating against the very people the program is supposed to help. I believe I have covered the rights and wrongs of the community employment program adequately in terms of the extension of the proposed Bill and its effects on my electorate. Yes, the program does have some advantages for the community; but, no, it is not as good as it could be. As I said earlier, CEP is simply a patch-up scheme. It is not designed to create permanent employment for the participants. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is fond of citing figures which suggest that 46 per cent of former participants were employed six months after working on a CEP project. Even on his figures-I will return to the veracity of them later-54 per cent were not employed. I believe that today we should be focusing on why they are not working. We should be looking at the causes of long term unemployment. It is the primary responsibility of governments to create an economic climate in which adequate jobs exist-real and permanent jobs, not temporary government props. During the 1950s and 1960s, Australia's unemployment averaged less than 2 per cent under Liberal governments. People had permanency in their jobs. School and college leavers could obtain the jobs of their choice. There was an incentive to acquire additional skills and a reward for those skills. Where have all the jobs gone? Predominantly, they have gone out of manufacturing and agriculture. In the past 15 years, employment in manufacturing has fallen by 11.3 per cent, from 1,301,639 jobs in 1970-71 to 1,154,400 in 1985. This is a loss of 147,239 jobs in a period when the overall population increased by 20.7 per cent. Of these jobs lost, no fewer than 138,000 disappeared in the last two years of the Whitlam Labor Government, during the two years 1973-74 and 1975-76. If manufacturing growth had followed the population increase, there would have been 252,000 more jobs in this sector, not an 11.3 per cent decline, and unemployment would have been contained at a low level. In the same period agricultural employment declined significantly. Unlike manufacturing, farming is not labour-intensive. The farming sector, in its battle to contain costs and to improve productivity, has shed labour and has become increasingly mechanised. The rural decline in employment is continuing. Currently combined employment in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting amounts to barely 400,000 jobs, or only 6.1 per cent of total employment. For many years rural exports provided more than 80 per cent of Australia's overseas earnings; today they yield about 40 per cent but remain a vital economic asset. Mining now competes with agriculture as our export earner, however mining is not labour-intensive. It employs very little labour compared with its earning capacity. It is a highly mechanised industry, and increasingly so. Its percentage share of the Australian work force has been virtually static over the past 15 years. In 1971 mining employed 76,020 people. In 1985 it employed 95,900-a marginal gain of 19,880 in a period when the Australian population grew by 2.7 million. Manufacturing has been traditionally the main source of employment and the demand for skills. It had an upsurge in the 1950s and early 1960s when a succession of Menzies Liberal governments sought to overcome the vulnerability which Australia faced at the outbreak of World War II. Mr Slipper —Liberal-National Party govern ments. Dr WATSON —In deference to my colleague the honourable member for Fisher, Liberal-National Party governments. Since the mid-1960s concentration on developing significant industries has largely dissipated. Cost pressures and failure to modernise have taken their toll. There has been a growing reliance on imports and greater emphasis on assembly rather than basic manufacture. Increased technology and structural change have brought with them greater mechanisation and less labour-intensive needs, but these do not effectively explain the shrinkage of jobs. Manufacturing has failed to expand and to keep pace with world trends. Australia has become increasingly dependent on the farming and extracting industries-industries which require very little labour and universal skills. We have everything going for us-the physical resources, the climate, the land and the human potential-but only if we switch on the vital motivation and if our goals are clearly defined and understood. If we are to be able to trade competitively on world markets, we must get our costs down and our quality up. In other words, we need increased productivity. If we are to create more jobs and protect and raise the living standards, increased productivity is the answer and the Government needs to ensure it provides the appropriate taxation incentives. Finally, I would like to examine the methods used to evaluate and monitor the community employment program. I wish to go into some technical detail because the Government wishes to make evaluating statements on the basis of research. I refer particularly to the Minister's statement on page 6 and following pages. I want to say from the outset that the experimental design is so poor that no substantive statements can be made on the basis of the design adopted. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations did recognise in paragraph 4.3 of Chapter 4 of its 1984-85 report the absence of control groups. What it failed to say was that the absence of control groups makes any conclusions from the evaluation virtually useless. The Department argued that resource constraints stopped it from interviewing matched control group samples. The Department should have saved additional funds by not doing the review at all, as what it has done is essentially worthless. The design adopted-I hate to get too technical-could be loosely called an ex post facto one group design with a repeat. I am sure that a former colleague of mine, Professor Donald Campbell, who is recognised as the world authority on experimental design and program evaluation, would agree that such a design is so poor that it is hardly worth including it as an experimental design at all. It is not far from useless when it comes to drawing conclusions from it. However, the Minister would like us to believe that CEP has positively affected the ability of long term unemployed to obtain a job after entering the program. Unfortunately, since there is no comparison between the unemployed who undertook CEP employment and those who did not undertake such employment, no differential rate of employment data is available. Thus, there is no way we can objectively decide whether the program has had any positive or negative differential impact. The Minister attempted to argue that the better results for the program were obtained by the July 1985 survey as against the March survey. Unfortunately for the Minister, no such conclusions can be reached because of the problems I outlined earlier. There were other changes occurring in the economy during that period. It is well known that seasonal variations affect employment-I am sure the Minister is aware of that-and that these may have influenced the results of the survey. There was no attempt in the methodology to control for exogenous effects. However, if anything, the evidence provided by the surveys refutes the Minister's assertions on page 6 of his statement. For example, on page 81 of the 1984-85 report, the survey results show that those who withdrew from the program did not have substantially different post-employment records from those who completed the program. Of the persons surveyed in March who completed a CEP project, 35.4 per cent were in employment at the time of the survey, compared with 32.4 per cent of the persons who left early. In the July survey, there was a reversal of these outcomes with 36.6 per cent of completing participants in employment and 42.9 per cent of those who left early holding a job. Contrary to what the Minister has said, these results imply that completing the program has little effect on the probability of obtaining employment. Finally, the survey results demonstrate that some six months after completing a CEP project, over 50 per cent of the participants were either unemployed of had left the work force. Because of the methodological problems I outlined earlier, I do not want to belabour this point. But it is worth noting because, viewed objectively, the survey results do not support the Minister's assertions which are contained in his second reading speech. While recognising that community employment program projects are not the answer to long term unemployment, I have attempted to provide some constructive comments on the implementation of the program and, I hope, in the longer run, on the evaluation of the program. I hope that, the Minister, who is at the table, considers some of them worth implementing. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(4.43) —The Community Employment Amendment Bill puts into effect an announcement made by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) on 10 December last year that the Government proposed to continue the very successful community employment program for a further three years. Despite the remarks that have been made by several Opposition speakers who have sought to denigrate the scheme and who have been rather unjustly critical of it, I want in the main to express my appreciation for and satisfaction with the great benefits that have come from the scheme, specifically to many locally unemployed people in my electorate. Naturally, of course, a great number of community programs have proceeded simply because of the opportunity that existed through this program-an opportunity that otherwise would not have given the community the benefits of these projects. We inherited the unemployment problem from the former Liberal-National Party coalition Government. The issue of unemployment and the ways of overcoming it have been a top priority of this Government. Of course, foremost among the successful schemes that have been put into effect is the community employment program. As far as my electorate is concerned, the scheme has been very welcome and extremely successful, in particular in the Redland area of my electorate. The Redland Shire Council has taken every opportunity to capitalise on the opportunities available through the scheme and many worthwhile Council and community projects have been carried out. I take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation to the Chairman and members of the Redland Shire Council for the excellent way that they have co-operated in utilising the benefits of this community employment program to upgrade many of their facilities and to create many new facilities throughout the Redland Shire. In excess of $2.8m of CEP funds has been committed to create more than 265 jobs for locally unemployed people in some 38 projects in my electorate. The current Budget provides some $290m for the Community employment program at a national level. Of this, $42.1m is to be used in Queensland and $10m is to be made available to the Queensland Government for projects which it will sponsor. I want to concentrate for a few minutes on that aspect of the scheme as it is one aspect which I am far from happy with. I was pleased to note that the Minister said in his second reading speech: The Government is currently in the process of consulting with those administrators and sponsors who have participated in the CEP in order to gain constructive input into the formulation of the new program. We believe that it is necessary to undertake this process of consultation before final decisions are taken both on the program and financial guidelines which determine the structure and administrative arrangements for the new program. I strongly urge the Minister to ensure that the officers of his Department, those associated with the secretariat in Queensland and those who sit on the advisory committee, will look very closely in the future at some of the projects that are submitted by the Queensland Government. I am aware that the guidelines for funding require 65 per cent of Commonwealth funds to go towards labour costs. I believe that the Queensland Government would certainly abide by those regulations. However, my concern is that the State Government is applying for CEP funds for projects that should ordinarily come within the normal range of departmental activities and, in that regard, should be funded from normal budgetary sources rather than through the utilisation of CEP funds. In that way the Queensland Government is using the community employment program incorrectly; it is using it to balance its Budget. I believe that such action is contemptible but it does not surprise me that the Queensland Government should take such contemptible action. I have quite a number of examples of how the Queensland Government has carried out maintenance work on a variety of projects, under quite a range of different government departments, utilising CEP funds. I say once again that the Queensland Government should be funding those projects from its own budgetary sources and not from CEP funds. I give as examples the cleaning up of the railway yards at Bowen and the cleaning of machinery in storage sheds-work which was carried out through the Department of Primary Industries. The Department of Transport has provided a number of worthwhile park and ride facilities in some of the suburban stations of Brisbane. That has worked well with the introduction of the electric rail system in that area. But, once again, these projects could well have been funded from Queensland Budget sources rather than from CEP funds. I give an example of how the Queensland Government uses these projects for its own political purposes at every opportunity. During a recent by-election campaign in the Redlands seat in the Queensland Parliament the Queensland Government staged the opening of the Thorneside railway station park and ride station that had been constructed from community employment program funds. Some 30 jobs had been created by the project and $182,000 of CEP funds had been expended. All the news media were there and in attendance was the National Party candidate for the by-election. State Minister Lane declared officially open the car park constructed with CEP funds. He unveiled the plaque with his name on it, saying how great was the Queensland Government for providing this facility for motorists to park their vehicles, enabling them to travel to the city by train. Neither in his speech, nor indeed on the plaque he unveiled was any mention made of the fact that the community employment program facilitated the provision of those facilities. Ms Jakobsen —What deception. Mr KEOGH —Absolute deception, as the honourable member for Cowan interjects helpfully. I understand that Queensland is not the only State guilty of this practice, but let me assure honourable members that from my observation in Queensland it occurs with a regularity which I am sure is not matched in other States. It is an outright abuse of CEP. It is regularly nothing more than an arrogant misuse of Commonwealth Government funds to carry out work which should be undertaken by the State Government with funds from a source other than that. I strongly urge the Minister to ensure, when these guidelines are being re-examined, that if this practice is not discontinued by the Queensland Government the $10m that is to be allocated to that Government is reviewed and withdrawn from the scheme and allocated to other areas, which I can assure the Minister will be very grateful to receive the funds. The State Government should show a genuine concern for creating job opportunities and should create them from its own Budget. If it were to do that, all funds that are available through the CEP could be allocated either directly to local government or to community organisations, which often lack the funds to carry out desirable projects. The CEP funds would then be of more substantial benefit to the various local communities. I congratulate the Government on its decision to continue the program. For many unemployed people it provides an important step back into the work force. Through the program many long term unemployed who have found it very difficult to get a break enabling them to regain their confidence and to secure a job have been able to learn new skills and often to gain work experience, probably providing them with a reference from recent employment. All these things are definite advantages when these people apply for jobs in the future. I just comment in closing that the youth traineeship scheme, which is also an initiative of this Government, initially will concentrate on assisting young 16 or 17-year-old school leavers to secure job training. There is certainly a need also for a scheme that caters for the unemployed older youth, those beyond the 16 to 17 year old age group. I am sure this also should receive the attention of the Government and a scheme similar to the CEP introduced to create opportunities for those people to have the type of training that very often has been denied them because of the severe lack of job opportunities in recent years. I compliment the Minister and am very pleased to support the legislation. Mr COBB(Parkes)(4.57) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. Mr COBB —Earlier I was giving some examples of where I thought there was waste in the community employment program. I will conclude my speech by mentioning just two more. I see that the New South Wales National Aborigines Day Observance Committee will receive $10,904 to employ a co-ordinator for 18 weeks to promote and organise activities and assess applications for funding from groups wishing to participate. I may be wrong, but I do not think the taxpayers would view this as a very productive contribution towards the welfare of Australia. Finally, I was amazed to see the Arts Council of the Australian Council of Trade Unions will receive $31,563 to employ four people for 18 weeks to train and work with a professional clown. So there we have it-a litany of waste of taxpayers' funds amounting to over $1,100m in just three years. No doubt a number of projects that have been funded have some merit-with the thousands funded it would be remarkable if that were not the case-but those more benign ones it appears are being used as a cover for the Government to carry out its funding of left wing and ratbag groups. Mr Slipper —A disgrace. Mr COBB —It is a disgrace. It seems they are intent on bankrolling and nurturing every anti-Australian group imaginable. The community employment program has become a joke across large areas of Australia. Wherever one travels nowadays there are stories of rorts and waste. The Government trumpets the virtues of this program for the long term unemployed; however, it overlooks what the figures show. In July 1983 the average length of time a person was unemployed was 39.9 weeks. A year later it was 47.8 weeks. It is now around 52 weeks-hardly something to skite about. The extra taxes the Government has had to collect to fund the program, some $1,100m, must surely have contributed to the malaise in the economy that is preventing unemployed people from getting a job. In my area shire councils are dissatisfied with how the scheme must work and are now making little or no use of it. Mr Slipper —The guidelines are mad. Mr COBB —They are. Let us look at it from the point of view of the shire councils. First of all, they cannot hire who they want. There have to be so many very long term unemployed-who incidentally are often the poor workers in the community-so many women, so many Aborigines, so many migrants, so many who cannot speak English, so many this, so many that. Specific jobs require specific people, and if the Government dictates who they may or may not hire for the job half the time it is not really worth the effort. Shire councils have not only a contribution cost of 20 per cent with the projects but other costs as well. Capital equipment is but one of them. On top of that is the higher than normal supervision costs because of the nature of these people, their inexperience and so on. It is also par for the course to have 30 to 40 per cent of the participants in these programs drop out, which may even require fully paid labour to be employed to get the job finished. The deal is not quite the giveaway some think it is. Some shire councils have also had difficulties because of tight budget restraints resulting from the rural depression. These CEP projects can look very enticing mid-year when there are a number of odd job projects that could be done, but because of the outlay of shire money and staff required even permanent jobs can be at risk as the end of the year looms up and the figures are added up. This is not to say that there are not elements of the scheme that have merit. Also I believe that if the Government is to pour money into the CEP program, each electorate is entitled to its fair pro rata share. What I do object to is the waste and inefficiency in the scheme. The CEP job subsidy scheme is a roundabout way of the Government admitting that wage levels are too high. It is nothing more or less than a wage subsidy pitched at a level to make unemployed people employable. The number of CEP participants who get full time work even six months after they complete their CEP jobs is relatively low, at 35 per cent. When one subtracts the percentage of those who would have found work anyhow, even without the dubious work experience benefit of the CEP scheme, the figure is much lower-probably closer to 20 per cent. One cannot help but be very sceptical of the benefit of the whole program. I suspect if one were to lower taxes to employers by the $1,100m that the scheme has cost, they would have been able to employ a similar number or even more people anyhow. As well, they would provide more permanent employment and in jobs that are far more productive to the community as a whole. In the Government's quest to do something about the unemployed in our society, we often overlook the fact that it is government taxes and regulations on employers that cause unemployment in the first place. Further taxes to create make-work jobs will destroy at least as many jobs as they create. I suggest that if the Government is genuinely concerned about unemployment, it should look to treating the cause of the disease and not its symptoms. When the dead hand of government is lifted from those who can employ people in real jobs, the problem will solve itself. Perhaps a placard I read at the Dubbo rally summed it all up. It simply said: `Unemployment Isn't Working'. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(5.02) —Despite the rather extraordinary remarks made by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), I must point out that I applaud the decision to continue the community employment program. In my electorate it has been responsible for providing employment in many useful and creative areas. Although I can go into the amount of money-over $3m-which has gone into the electorate, providing benefits in all sorts of ways, and the number of jobs created, I want to talk about the effect of the program on the community organisations which have been so generous in their sponsorship. Many services have been provided, work experience and training have been made available to people who needed them, and a great deal has been accomplished in a very economical way indeed. The barrier of long term unemployment has been broken for many people who have spent long soul-destroying hours in job seeking queues at local Commonwealth Employment Service offices. Because the employment is community based, community controlled and subject to carefully scrutinised guidelines, the work made available has lasting beneficial effects for the community as well as for the employees. The training experienced through the ambit of the CEP has greatly encouraged many of the unemployed in my community and has given them the taste of a regular income. This in itself is a positive directive which helps to provide personal confidence and a commitment to the training for future full time work. The target groups have been well represented. Women workers have obtained 47.3 per cent of the jobs, under 25 year olds have obtained 51 per cent of the jobs and over 60 per cent of the work has gone to long term unemployed. I hope everybody realises that those are not cumulative percentages but illustrative. This was the first labour force program to pursue the Government's equal opportunity policy and it worked brilliantly. Major CEP projects currently running in my electorate of Chisholm are sponsored by the cities of Box Hill and Camberwell, the Mitcham Special School, the Graig Community Centre, the Box Hill College of TAFE and the DOME Association. Other projects have been sponsored by the Royal Horticultural Society of Box Hill, the Mission of St James and St John and various similar organisations. Because we have heard so much nonsense about where the money has been going for CEP, I decided that it was worth while explaining in some detail the nature of the organisations which have sponsored projects in my electorate. It is fanciful to describe those organisations as left wing politically, or even political at all. Those sponsor organisations, which have demonstrated real responsibility to their community, may look upon some Opposition members with distinct cynicism, deservedly so. It seems a pity that the Opposition can only approve of sponsors who have political motives to suit their taste. The CEP project which demonstrates the value of the program quite clearly, is the support of the DOME Association. The letters `DOME' stand for `Don't Overlook Mature-age Expertise'. The Association provides a service for unemployed mature age people. People of 45 years or over can suffer very great personal pain and dislocation when, after having worked for many years, they find themselves without work. DOME is a self-help association which, with the aid of CEP funds, assists its members to cope with their situation and to find employment. Such a project, with its proven worth is typical, not atypical, of CEP jobs in which the benefit of the funded jobs reaches far beyond the actual employment into a permanent benefit for the community in which the projects takes place. I listened to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) earlier in this debate giving some attention to his fanciful notion of the nature of the community groups which have sponsored employment. We have heard this over and over again. I think it is a matter of trying to discredit anything that it is initiated by a Labor government, determined as we are in a realistic and thoughtful way to counter with dignity the problem of long term unemployment. The remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were more a mirror reflecting his own character than a sensible contribution to this debate. I would like to say a few words about those who work behind the scenes administering CEP in regional areas across Australia. This support system is both highly qualified and industrious as it sets about its task of providing advice to members of parliament and those wishing to lodge applications under the scheme. The two project officers working in my electorate have, from the outset, provided careful scrutiny and good advice in relation to all aspects of this program. Their conscientious approach to providing this assistance as well as the thoughtful explanation of the CEP guidelines have given many an interested would-be sponsor the opportunity to produce a realistic and, eventually, successful application. The end result of all this is, of course, the placement of unemployed people in job-training positions which look to future worthwhile employment. A most innovative and successful program, evolving from CEP funding, is that sponsored by the Mission of St James and St John, known as the CONJARA project. CONJARA means `Creation of Nursery Jobs and Related Activities'. Under the scheme, a wholesale nursery was established which has diversified to offer a service designed around a `Goodness in the Garden' concept-specifically, mulching of garden waste. Many in the community have taken advantage of this service and learnt from it. Initially, the project got off the ground with funding of $131,000 which provided training for eight long term unemployed people. I am pleased to say that half of those placed in training were young women. Another most worthwhile project has been that sponsored by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to construct an animal shelter and a see-and-touch animal nursery. The RSPCA is a highly respected organisation with headquarters based in my electorate. Through this CEP project, the RSPCA has received funding to provide the local community with a much needed facility for injured animals, while at the same time educating the community to a better understanding of all animals. In terms of funding, my electorate has received $3.5m which has provided for a variety of exciting projects, some of which I have described. The myriad of interests emanating from the CEP concept adds to the colour and flavour of this genuine Government commitment to alleviating the problems associated with unemployment. The CEP is another of the Labor Government's successful attempts to curb long term unemployment and the stigma it produces. This Labor-intensive program has as its dominant aim the promotion of greater equity in the labor market through the provision of employment and work experience to those least likely to find jobs in the course of the general economic recovery. This group was made up, to a large degree, of victims of recession and structural change who had subsequently become unemployed for a long term, as well as certain groups who were seen as experiencing special disadvantage in the labor market. In particular, women, the disabled, Aboriginals and migrants were seen as needing assistance along with the long term unemployed. The honourable member for Parkes had a pleasant sounding solution to unemployment-namely for the Government to stop doing anything at all. Had that been a successful solution to unemployment, it certainly would have worked for the previous Government, which did nothing at all and produced an unemployment level of 10.3 per cent. That figure has now fallen to 7.8 per cent under this Government and a great deal of that fall has been in full time private employment. All in all, the CEP program in my electorate-and that is the one of which I have detailed knowledge-has provided benefits to the community. It has provided benefits to the sponsoring groups and to those who are unemployed, and has provided in a variety of ways services which have been very much needed and very useful. Many of those services continue after CEP funding has run out because their value to the community has been demonstrated and other funding has been found to keep them going. I believe that the continuation of the CEP program will be a significant factor in my electorate for the next three years. Once again, I applaud the Government's decision to continue the program. Mr SMITH(Bass)(5.11) —I note that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is in the chamber. I am pleased to see that. I hope that he is not just about to leave. Mr Willis —I'll be back. Mr SMITH —I will certainly send the Minister a copy of my speech. The Community Employment Amendment Bill 1985 seeks to extend funding for the community employment program for three years. The Opposition supports in principle the extension of the program, as it did the principal Act in 1983. We recognise, however, that the CEP scheme is not the cure-all that the Government, the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) and many other honourable members opposite would like us to believe it is. The CEP was only ever to be a short term approach. This Bill entrenches it as a permanent part of the labour market. One should ask whether that is a recognition of failure. Unemployment relief schemes serve a purpose. No one would doubt that. There is no general disagreement on that point. However, unemployment relief schemes do not lead to a great boost in overall employment. Levels of employment and unemployment are consequent upon many factors, such as labour market regulation, centralised and rigid wage fixing, high levels of employer on-costs, international competitiveness, overall economic performance and the capacity of industry to pay-all points that have been made by other speakers during this debate. There is no doubt, however, that unemployment is one of the principal economic and social ills besetting not only this nation but also many nations throughout the world. Australia's unemployment rate has remained constant at 7.8 per cent for a period of four months since October last year. It has even been suggested that Australia's natural rate of unemployment has stagnated around this high level which, if it were true, is a damning indictment of this Government. This high level of unemployment is higher than it was for 82 of the 86 months of the Fraser Liberal Government. Of even more concern is the fact that the average length of unemployment has increased significantly during the term of this Government. In March 1983, the average length of unemployment was 33.2 weeks. In July 1984 it was 47.8 weeks. By July 1985 it had increased to one year-52 weeks. Unemployment among the youth of this nation is also at an unacceptably high level. Currently, the rate of unemployment among 15-year-olds to 19-year-olds is 21.4 per cent. They are the people who, all would agree, are the future of this nation. There are 583,000 Australians who cannot find employment. The incentives for employment are no longer there. Employers have been constantly battered by the deal this Government worked out with its masters in the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Recently, it was interesting-I was amazed-to hear the Minister's answer when he was asked on television what he thought about youth wage rates and whether he believed that there should be a youth wage rate. He agreed that there should. However, when he was asked what he was going to do about it, he said: `At this point, nothing'. The irresponsible mandarins in the union movement have, by their collective actions, harmed irreparably the employment opportunities of a great many young Australians. More than 220,000 people are currently unemployed for a period, on average, of greater than 36 weeks-the length of unemployment which is used as a guide by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations when assessing eligibility for employment under the CEP program. According to the Government's guidelines, those most in line for employment under the scheme are those who have been unemployed for more than nine months, migrants with English speaking difficulties, Aboriginals and the disabled. Whilst it is generally accepted that people in these categories are affected adversely by generally high rates of unemployment, the guidelines need to incorporate a greater flexibility so as to reflect in a more realistic manner the quite often great demographic differences that are in employment. I note that the Minister's second reading speech, almost on the last page, states that the Government believes that it is necessary to undertake the process of consultation before final decisions are taken on both the program and financial guidelines. I hope that, when consulting, he will take note of the remarks I have made and also of some made by honourable members opposite. Some of the remarks I want to make a little later are in agreement with what some of them have said about setting out the new guidelines. For example, in my electorate of Bass in Tasmania there are, as there would be in other electorates, towns such as Georgetown which unfortunately have very high levels of youth unemployment. The youth unemployment level in Georgetown exceeds 20 per cent and the prospects for funding long term, sustainable employment are not great at all. Short term unemployment relief schemes serve a purpose and, in fact, can serve a very good purpose. Unfortunately, the benefits available under CEP in Georgetown are not as freely available as perhaps would be desirable. On a number of occasions I have received expressions of concern from local councillors at Georgetown who say that they have the projects, they certainly have the labour, but they cannot get the funding they require from the CEP. I have communicated these concerns to the Minister on a number of occasions during the past 12 months. Only recently I received a response to my last letter-a little card saying that my letter had been received. Now some months have passed by. I guess that adds credence to what the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) was saying in this chamber the other evening about how long it takes Ministers to respond. I would have thought that, on an issue as vital as youth unemployment, the Minister would have ensured that his administrative staff answered promptly. In any event, I hope that he will take my remarks into account in his review. The question is: Is the CEP scheme a simple pandering to minority groups as a vote catching exercise? The guidelines need attention. CEP is in real danger of being seen as a facade for the Government to appear to be doing something about structural unemployment. Alice in Wonderland's cheshire cat may not be an unfair analogy. The program must have substance. The guidelines, therefore, must take account of demographic variations. Whenever one discusses the CEP scheme one is always forced to return to the basic question: How effective is the community employment program? In Tasmania, just last week, another 95 people were employed on approved projects. The cost to the Commonwealth of these projects is $816,000, bringing the total allocation for CEP funding in Tasmania to $26.3m. There have been 1,003 projects approved, leading to temporary employment of some 3,481 Tasmanians. The average cost per job has, therefore, been in the order of $7,500. The average cost per project has been $26,220. The average duration of employment has been in the order of 21 weeks. The average number of people employed per project in Tasmania has been three. So, for $26,220 we get only three people employed for only five months. All of this calls into question the worth of the program. Nationally, the Government has expended over $1 billion on the CEP in its first three years of operation. By anyone's criteria this constitutes a massive financial commitment. By and large, the Opposition is of the opinion that such a commitment has not been irresponsible. Whether or not the benefits that have accrued under the CEP are all the Government claims is an entirely different matter. For instance, some projects which have been approved for CEP funding I am doubtful about, to say the least. We have to be careful that this scheme should not be seen to be a honeypot for left wing causes. Many examples of this have been quoted in the chamber for the last two days. I would like to mention two programs in Tasmania. Interestingly, I found mention of one program tucked away in the back of the report of the Department of Aviation. The Department of Aviation received CEP funding for a study of the role of women in Australia's aviation history. Whilst I do not doubt that that would be an interesting study, I question whether or not CEP should be funding work within the Commonwealth Department of Aviation. In Tasmania the National Parks and Wildlife Service has received CEP funding of $13,324 to employ one person for 48 weeks to undertake a survey of Cape Barren geese and potoroos on Flinders Island and to implement field trials to test target specificity of certain poisons and baits. The Launceston City Council, another example, received $6,240 to employ one person for 16 weeks to compile a directory of recreational facilities and inspect and report upon the suitability of further sites. In each of the above cases some questions as to the desirability-indeed, the propriety-of such projects being funded by CEP grants must arise. The matter of inappropriate projects receiving funding under CEP is one which I have long held to be a major flaw in the conduct of the program. It is a matter which directly relates to abuses of the program which have been perpetuated by State governments and local councils using CEP funding in order to fund the capital works commitments of those organisations. Interestingly, the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) made this very point. We are saying that when the Government looks at the guidelines it must look much more closely to make sure there are not abuses of the scheme. There needs to be greater scrutiny of programs approved for funding in order that the abuses which have been illustrated do not continue, or at least are kept to an absolute minimum. Let us leave aside for a moment the abuses of the scheme. I would like to return to the issue I raised earlier concerning the guidelines under which employment of CEP funded programs is gained. The Liberal Government in my home State of Tasmania-a government which was recently resoundingly re-elected under the fairest electoral system anywhere in the world-has instituted a remarkably innovative scheme to assist the unemployed youth of George Town. The scheme is to be known as the Tasmanian community service program and will essentially operate as follows: The State Government will pay young unemployed under the age of 21 the equivalent of the unemployment benefit in return for two days of community service. On the other five days of the week, those unemployed will be free to engage in whatever leisure or work activities they so desire. Technically, these people will no longer be regarded as unemployed as far as the Commonwealth Government is concerned. The possible impact on CEP funding for George Town could be serious. I have asked the Minister to consider altering the criteria on which some regional organisations and local government authorities are assessed in order that their eligibility for CEP funding is maintained at current levels. The work undertaken must be additional to the work that local council employees normally perform. Mr Lee —Hear, hear! Mr SMITH —I am glad to hear the honourable member for Dobell say `Hear, hear!' because I know he is to speak next. I would like to quote what the Premier, Robin Gray, said when he announced this innovative pilot program pertaining particularly to George Town. I do not believe that there is a program like it anywhere else in Australia. The Premier stated: It will give them a sense of community responsibility, self pride and a feeling of identification with their local environment, in addition to providing them with valuable work experience. The present system of allowing unemployed people to earn only $20 per week before reducing their entitlement by $1 for every $2 earned is ridiculous and does nothing to encourage the person to help himself or herself. This initiative shows the way and puts the onus on the Federal Government to do more to help unemployed young people to become actively involved in community work while receiving unemployment benefits. I note with interest that the Minister in his second reading speech referred to the Bureau of Labour Market Research, which shows that work experience-that is what this program is aimed at trying to achieve-for young people has a positive psychological effect on them. I am sure that all of us would agree with that. The unemployed youth of this nation have been sold down the drain by this profligate Government, which deludes itself that $1 billion and a whizz-bang advertising campaign can help the long term unemployed gain employment. The Priority One: Young Australia campaign gets 10 out of 10 for pandering to the enormous ego of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and zero marks for effectiveness. I note that even this morning the Australian Democrats, through Senator Mason, agreed with this assertion. To my knowledge not one person has been placed in employment under the Government's much-vaunted youth traineeship scheme. If we stand for anything in this place we stand for the future of Australia, and what more important future element is there in the Australian community than youth? Until this Government faces the economic realities of the factors which cause unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, no amount of expenditure by it will result in substantial gains being made in long term sustainable employment growth. In summary, whilst the Opposition supports the extension of the program by three years, it does so with the conviction that this Government is seeking to use an essentially short term relief program in an effort to disguise the fact that it is doing nothing to effect major improvements in Australia's unemployment levels. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(5.25) —I join other members on this side of the House in welcoming the extension of the community employment program for a further three years. When I was elected to this Parliament in 1983 the area I come from, the Illawarra-the great industrial hub of Australia, the area that keeps Australia's industry moving-was reeling after seven disastrous years of Liberal-National Party rule. Mr Lee —Who was the local member? Mr HOLLIS —He is now a member of the other House and is still making a lot of noise but doing very little. The steel industry was devastated, as was the coal industry, with all the endemic consequences of mass unemployment and social disruption. Although shortly after coming to office the Hawke Labor Government stepped in with a steel industry plan and saved the steel industry for Australia, the Illawarra still suffers above average levels of unemployment, especially youth unemployment. I have listened to what members of the Opposition have said. No one on this side would argue that the CEP was a panacea for all the unemployment ills of Australia. We know that unemployment is a serious and complex issue. I have never argued that the CEP was a panacea for the unemployment problems of this country. It gives those in the community who are most difficult to place in work an opportunity not only to obtain skills but also, and often of equal importance, to obtain self-esteem and confidence and thus go on to be gainfully employed. The figures show that something like 46 per cent are in full time employment six months after they have participated in a CEP scheme. Many young people have come to me, many women, many migrants and many Aborigines, some months after they have participated in the CEP scheme. Through that experience they have gained full time employment and they have told me that it was their participation in the CEP project that enabled them to get a job. At the outset, I pay a special tribute to those who have been in charge of the CEP in the Illawarra region. The three Commonwealth organisers are Steve Jolly, Graham Call and Robin Bird. Today it is very fashionable to knock public servants and to make a lot of unfounded criticisms. One often hears this in the House from members of the Opposition. I must say that I have never met three more dedicated people than the three I have mentioned. Over the time the CEP has been operating, I have had a lot of contact with the three officers and they each have a genuine concern for the unemployed and have worked hard for them in the Illawarra. If other members speak to the Federal Government officers who are in charge of CEP in their areas they would echo what I have said. I have listened to many of the speeches in this debate. I did not think that anything would shock me, but after listening to many of the speeches from members on the other side I have been shocked at the attitude that had been exhibited. The speech by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) revealed nothing but his own ignorance and prejudices. He read a list of projects that he did not particularly like. I wonder whether he checked out any of these projects. I venture to say that he did not check out any of them. Has he followed through any of the CEP projects to see what has been achieved? Has he spoken to any of the people involved? I put this to the honourable member for Parkes and indeed to members of the Opposition: If they are so opposed to the CEP, why do they not have the money returned? But what do they do? They beat a path to the door of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), asking for more and more CEP funding. If the CEP is such a dreadful scheme- according to honourable members on the other side-why are they involved in it at all? Why do they not just send all the money back if they do not want any of these dreadful socialist CEP schemes in their electorates? No, they beat a path to the Minister's door. They are hypocrites because they will come in here tonight and vote for the Community Employment Amendment Bill because they support it. It will reveal them for exactly what they are-nothing but hypocrites. What they have been saying in the chamber for the last couple of days is nothing but a sham. We on this side of the House know that it is a sham, so do honourable members opposite and so do the people of Australia. As members of my own political Party know, I have been known occasionally to question some aspects of the CEP, especially as it applies in New South Wales. I might add that I have never questioned the scheme itself. I have always been one of the strongest supporters of the CEP scheme. It has my unqualified support; but like all schemes-- Mr Lee —There are hiccups. Mr HOLLIS —As the honourable member for Dobell has said, there are a few hiccups. We on this side of the House have done our best to iron out these hiccups and I believe that we have done so. I admit that I have been known to say in the past that there have been a few too many surveys. In my view, one of the problems with surveys is that they build up in the community expectations that cannot always be fulfilled. We might give a grant of, say $10,000, $12,000 or $15,000 to carry out a survey which rightfully reveals certain deficiencies in the community, but to remedy those deficiencies might take another $200,000 or $300,000. When, for reasons of budgetary constraints, we cannot always come up with the $200,000 or $300,000 we are often criticised for that. I also sometimes question the amount of money from the CEP which goes to State government projects. I do not have any evidence to support this, but I suspect that some of our State governments use these funds for services that they should provide out of their own Budgets. Mr Lee —Queensland and Tasmania. Mr HOLLIS —Especially Queensland and Tasmania, as I have been reminded. The problem is that they employ someone who is justifiably needed in the community and then, if that roll-over money is not there, they criticise the Federal Government for not continuing the project. My response has always been, whether in respect of the New South Wales Government or any other government, that if this service is so vital in the community the State government should be providing it. I do not believe that it is the role of the Federal Government to provide money to State governments to do work that the State governments should be funding out of their own budgetary allocations. I would like to see more money going into community projects because I think this is the real benefit of the CEP. As people in my Party know, I sometimes worry about the credit claimed for many of the schemes. I must admit that it has not been unknown for even my own Party in New South Wales to claim credit for schemes that have been fully funded by the Federal Government. I think that is a slight oversight on its part, which is being rectified. If it continues to happen I will draw attention to who is providing the funds. Just before Christmas I happened to go past a scheme in Wollongong and I saw a huge sign that the project was funded jointly by the NSW Government and the Wollongong City Council. However, the project happened to be funded jointly by the Federal Government and the Wollongong City Council. I must say that I did have that sign changed within two days. Having said that, I must say that in my electorate of Throsby there is not one project that I cannot stand up in this Parliament and fully justify. I can justify every project into which money has gone under the CEP scheme in my electorate. I have no problem at all in justifying it, be it a government project, a local government project or, most important of all, a community project. Each project has my strong support. I do take a great interest in the CEP projects. I examine the projects that are submitted through my electorate. I encourage community groups to give me a copy of their submissions and I follow each of them through. I suspect that that is what is missing on the other side. I suspect that honourable members opposite do not follow the projects through, because if they did they would not come in here today and make some of the inaccurate statements that they have made. Another thing that has not been stressed enough by members on the Opposition benches is that it is not only the individual who benefits from the CEP, it is the community. In my electorate the community has been provided with many, many facilities. Also in the electorate of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) many, many excellent facilities have been provided. These community facilities would not have been provided without the CEP projects. In my electorate of Throsby I have had 147 projects. I hope that my colleagues on this side will not be envious when I tell them the amount of money which has gone into my electorate. They should remember that my electorate has above average unemployment. It is an area that was devastated by the previous Government and left with high unemployment. Since the Hawke Government came to power $6,710,825 has gone into the Throsby electorate. Mrs Darling —How much? Mr HOLLIS —Almost $7m. It has been a very generous allocation and I do thank the Minister most sincerely for that. Among the projects in my electorate there has been the usual street beautification-which we needed. There was a small group called Smart which built a mud brick workshop, an excellent project, at Kiama. An old pilot's cottage that was going to be turned into a fish and chip shop has been restored. Mr Martin —No! Mr HOLLIS —It was going to be turned into a fish and chip shop but the local historical society came to see me about it and it eventually got the money out of the Council. The historical society told me that it required funds for this building program. I suggested the CEP project, it put in for it, and I think it got $180,000 to restore that cottage, which is now a showpiece in Kiama. It is floodlit in the evenings. It has been restored and it is now used by the community. Without the CEP, that would not have occurred, because the local council would not have had the money to do it. The Council could not have afforded to do it. Now we have this wonderful pilot's cottage in Kiama. It is a gem in a town full of gems. Under the CEP we have put a lot of money into the grounds around Bowral Hospital and into cycleways. I have heard a lot of criticism about cycleways. Indeed, in the early days I questioned them until I saw how people used them. I do not know about other members, but the people in my area actually use them. People cycle on them with their families. They cycle all through Kiama and Shellharbour, all the way from Albion Park across to Warilla-- Mrs Darling —Do they wear helmets? Mr HOLLIS —With helmets, but not enough of them, I am afraid. Many of them use helmets. The families use these cycleways. That is another thing. The Opposition talks a lot about the family. One of the great things we have done under the CEP is bring families together out cycling on these cycleways that we have put in. We have put money into the Illawarra light railway museum-a particular interest of mine-to preserve part of Australia's heritage. There they are preserving early engines and things like that. I am sure that the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) would be very interested in that. Only the other week it was announced that the Kiama pony club was to receive $20,000 to do some work there. The pony club does a lot of work providing riding for the disabled. All these schemes in my area and in other members' areas have a tremendous community benefit. I am very sorry about the attitude of the Opposition. Whatever schemes its members do not like they immediately label as left wing. I have never heard of so many left wing projects as I have over the last couple of days. I noticed the other day that the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson), who has now left the chamber, claimed that the money would have been more effectively spent by the private sector. I do not know how he can make that claim. The CEP has been the biggest job-generating scheme in Australia. I urge honourable members opposite to follow through their schemes more closely. I know that the honourable member for Parkes said that the councils in his area were not in favour of the CEP. They are certainly different from the councils in my electorate which are all very much in favour of it. Perhaps the honourable member should have discussions with the councils in his electorate and see what their opposition is because if the councils in his electorate do not want the money, the councils in my electorate most certainly can do with it. I compliment the Minister and his staff for what has been achieved with the CEP. I am proud to be a member of the Government that is trying to do something about the unemployed in this country. We have never claimed that the CEP is the panacea for all unemployment problems, but at least it is doing something about them. It is giving the unemployed the confidence, skills and self-dignity to take their place in the work force. I commend the Bill to the House. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(5.42) —The honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) throughout his speech overlooked whether the community employment program was successful in terms of its objectives. I make it very clear that the Opposition will not oppose the Community Employment Amendment Bill. We have said that we would not tackle unemployment in this way but in other ways. Since this is a government program, the Government can continue to tackle it in this way if it wishes, but we shall point out the failure of the program. That is the general thrust of the Opposition's contribution to the debate. Naturally, if a group of my constituents come to me with a project which they hope will attract CEP funds, I will support that group because that it is the way that funds are made available. If my local councils come to me for support, I will support them, the more so since the Hawke Government took away from local government the automatic 2 per cent share of income tax that it had under the Fraser Government. It is not surprising that local governments have to resort to this sort of program, given their treatment from the Hawke Government in general financing. This Government came to power in 1983 on a slogan of jobs, jobs, jobs. The people have been given words, words, words. The community employment program was supposed to tackle long term unemployment. It was a make-work scheme, particularly for those who had been out of work for some time. The actual success of this scheme is revealed in the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) which shows that in the terms that the Government has set for itself, the scheme has been a failure. The Minister referred to the community employment program as a highly successful one. He referred to the large number of people who had been unemployed for nine months or more in November 1983. He then said: This represented a tragic waste of human and economic resources which the Government was determined to address through special measures designed to improve the employment prospects of these disadvantaged job seekers and enable them to share in the benefits of general economic recovery. The community employment program was our major response in this area. At an earlier stage in this debate, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) had incorporated in Hansard a table which referred to the average duration of unemployment by age in Australia. That table appears on page 775 of the House of Representatives Daily Hansard of 18 February 1986. It shows that from June 1983, three months after the Government came to power, until June 1985 when it had been in power for more than two years, long term unemployment had risen on average from 41.4 weeks to 50.3 weeks, an increase in the average duration of long term unemployment of two months. This scheme had then been in effect for two years. It shows that the position for youth had improved only marginally and that for those aged 15 to 19 years, the number of weeks unemployed on average had dropped from 31.9 to 30.3-a welcome drop, but small. It shows that in the next age group, those 20 to 24 years, the number of weeks unemployed on average had risen from 41.9 to 46. Worst of all, it shows that for those aged over 25 years the number of weeks unemployed on average had risen in those two years of the Hawke Government from 45.5 to 60.5 weeks. That was some achievement, some result, for the Government's major response to long term unemployment. One would not even have to rely on the honourable member for Tangney to supply those figures. The Minister gave us figures in his speech and made statements which damn the success of this program and damn the Government and its major response to long term unemployment. I refer further to the Minister's speech on this Bill to continue the CEP program for another three years. He says: The decision to continue CEP is based on both evidence of the continuing need to assist the long term unemployed and other disadvantaged groups- a continuing need, after three years in government. He goes on: The continuing need for assistance for the long term unemployed is reinforced by short term projections undertaken by my Department which show that even under optimistic scenarios- and heaven knows the Government is pretty good at inventing them- for economic and employment growth the total number of long term unemployed persons is not expected to fall significantly as a percentage of total unemployment over the next two to three years. It has had three years in government, we have had three years of this so-called major response to the problem of long term unemployment, and according to the Minister the figure will not fall significantly for another three years. The dramatic facts are contained in this part of the Minister's speech: The average prior duration of unemployment amongst all CEP participants to date is 58 weeks and 70 weeks for those placed during this financial year. If this program were having any real effect, we would expect the average length of prior unemployment to drop. Instead, as the figures in the table that the honourable member for Tangney had incorporated in Hansard show, the average length of hard core unemployment in this country is rising dramatically under this Government. That is the response to the major response of the Government. The length of time unemployed people spend in the queue to get employed under CEP projects is growing despite the program. One would think that the Government would look at this program and the $1.1 billion allotted to it and think that perhaps this has not been the appropriate result. That is what the Opposition has been saying; I point that out to the honourable member for Throsby. In its own terms, the program has failed to reduce long term unemployment. Mr Hollis —But you take the money. Mrs SULLIVAN —Of course I take the money. I care about the unemployed in my electorate. If that is all that is offered, of course I will help people in my electorate to get it. But I would rather they were offered goods that were not so shoddy. The situation is that 47 per cent of those who have been employed under this program are still in work six months later. Some skills they have been equipped with! Some state of the economy! The honourable member for Throsby would be wise to remain silent. At the beginning of his second reading speech the Minister referred to the CEP as `the highly successful program'. But the facts show otherwise. He said in his speech: The success of the CEP has ensured that it will remain an important part of the Government's overall strategy for assisting unemployed persons. That should make unemployed people's blood run cold, particularly if they are in the average category of having been unemployed for 60.5 weeks-the average at June 1985, more than two years after the Hawke Government came into power. More and more unemployed people, as their length of time unemployed lengthens, will remember that this occurred entirely under a Labor government. We have heard much from other Government Ministers, notably the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), about education programs that are supposed to do something about employability. The effect, if it is there, has been marginal. If it is there, it is only for those now in education and training; it is not there for those who are older and might need to seek it. I have to refer, if only briefly, to another part of the Minister's speech in view of the things that this Government keeps saying about its policies on women. Yesterday, an affirmative action Bill was brought into this House and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) praised himself at great length for his attitude and the Government's attitude towards women. However, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations stated in his speech introducing this Bill: One of the most outstanding achievements of the CEP has been its success in meeting its objective of equal female representation in jobs created under the program. The CEP was the first labour force program to take up the challenge of the Government's equal opportunity policy in this way. I interpolate that it is the first Labor Party labour force program to take up the challenge in that way. The work creation program that was under way under the Fraser Government as a result of the wage pause program had the same objectives. Mr Willis —But not the same results. Mrs SULLIVAN —As the Minister knows very well, it was not in force for very long. We will see how long it has taken this Government to make some progress. It has been in office for three years. The Minister's speech continued: To date the overall participation of women in the program has been 38.6 per cent. This includes the Jobs on Local Roads component which initially did not have a target for women. If this component is excluded then the overall participation rate for women on projects approved to date is 42.7 per cent and on projects approved in 1985-86 it is 52.6 per cent. In 1985-86 the target of a 25 per cent placement rate for women on the Local Roads component is actually being exceeded by 5 per cent. To that I say: `Hip, hip, hooray!'. Why did the Government not do it in the first place? If the Government has that attitude towards women and claims that the objective has been there from the beginning of the CEP, why did it not have an objective in the initial program? The female employment figures were so bad in the early program that it has to take out that part to lift its female employment figures up to target. The increase, the excess over target that the program is now achieving, shows that it should have been there all the time. My local authorities have talked to me about the subject of female employment in their works programs, which include roads. They have had no difficulty in meeting their quotas. I am surprised that Senator Ryan had the difficulty she obviously had to get the Government to live up to its fine words of March 1983. However, the improvement is welcome. Let it not be said that the Opposition does not care about long term unemployed people; that it did not have policies on employment and training in the last election to meet the problems. They are detailed policies, real policies, on training programs. They are spelled out in detail. The objectives of those programs are very different from the objectives of the Hawke Government and its make-work program under CEP. Our objectives are to give young people basic competencies, if they lack them, in literacy and numeracy if that is needed, in work skills and even in such basic things as how to present oneself for a job interview. It is a long range program. It could be long term, tailored to the needs of the individual person. I said in my maiden speech that one of the things that concerns me about CEP is that, whilst it certainly takes young people off the dole and puts them on to wages and gives them work habits, which is good, it is not necessarily giving them training that is worth anything to them after the project finishes. By its nature, projects are required to be as labour intensive as possible. I say to the honourable member for Throsby that, whilst there are projects in my electorate that are very worth while, they are being done in a way that no contractor would proceed if there were any competitiveness about it and if cost containment were an object. Those involved in the projects say that they are being forced to employ techniques and to train young people in techniques that are no longer used and have not been used for years and years. Mr Donald Cameron —Since they built the pyramids. Mrs SULLIVAN —It is a little more recently than when the pyramids were built, but some decades in some cases. It would be far more to the point if the Government looked at this aspect of the program and made it more effective in terms of giving young people training for employability after the project has finished-something higher than the 47 per cent who are still in employment six months after finishing the program. The Opposition supports the Bill. It hopes that it will do some good. It believes that it is not doing the good that it should be doing and certainly rejects totally that it is doing anything like the job claimed for it by the Government. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(5.59) —I rise to support the Community Employment Amendment Bill 1986 presented to the House by the most successful Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in the post-war era, Ralph Willis. The honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), who has just concluded her remarks, destroyed her credibility somewhat when she said early in her speech that the Government had talked of jobs, jobs, jobs but with no result. The result is that, since the Labor Government has been in office in the last three years, over 608,000 jobs have been created by the Government. The community employment program, since its inception in the 1983-84 financial year, has been one of the most important and successful initiatives of this Government. It is one of the initiatives which have turned the atmosphere of doom and gloom in employment in the Fraser years to a situation in which the Government has managed to reduce the level of unemployment in this country from the double digit figure of 10.4 per cent in 1983 to the current rate of 7.8 per cent. Mr Fitzgibbon —They were incompetent. Mr BLANCHARD —As my colleague says, they were incompetent. Mr Fitzgibbon —They still are. Mr BLANCHARD —They still are; that is why they will remain in opposition for a mighty long time to come. This figure of 7.8 per cent is still much too high. We on this side of the House recognise that; we want to reduce it and with our policies we will reduce it. But we must remember that when we came to office in March 1983 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised that we would create 500,000 jobs in the first three years of office. Members of the Opposition, bereft of both ideas and talent, scoffed at the Government at that time and ridiculed the promise. Now, as I have said, they can eat their own words because this Government has not only exceeded that 500,000 jobs in less than three years but also exceeded the target by something like 108,000 to the end of January 1986. These figures show an employment growth of 3 1/2 per cent in 1985-86. They clearly illustrate the strong economic growth in this country. The target of 500,000 jobs has been exceeded by more than 20 per cent in less than three years. There is no doubt that the community employment program has played an important role in assisting the creation of jobs, thus reducing unemployment. The projects themselves-this has been spoken of by a number of my colleagues on this side of the House and, in fairness, by some honourable members on the other side of the House-have been of social and economic benefit to the community. In my own electorate of Moore in Western Australia-which I repeat is the fastest growing electorate in Australia-- Mr Fitzgibbon —With a good member. Mr BLANCHARD —And it has a good member; I accept that. Mr Hollis —Modestly. Mr BLANCHARD —Very modestly, I add. The electorate of Moore has received community employment funds of the order of $5 1/4m. That is not as much as the amount received by the electorate of the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) but obviously, with a higher rate of unemployment in this area, his electorate must take precedence over mine. These funds have benefited the shires in my electorate as well as the newest city in Australia, the city of Wanneroo-a city with a population of 128,000 people. I take this opportunity of publicly thanking those officers and councillors in the shires and that city who have co-operated with me and my electoral staff in expediting these projects. We have heard quite a lot of names from various electorates mentioned in the course of this debate. I mention Mr Norm Wallace, who is the Shire Clerk of Gingin. Gingin is a very small shire, with only 2,000 or 3,000 people, but Norm Wallace is a man of initiative. He saw the benefits to be gained from the old regional employment development scheme and he used funds from that scheme to benefit his community. Today we see a lovely park in the centre of Gingin which is a credit to his imaginative nature. He has continued to use these funds to benefit the shire and he deserves to be congratulated. Importantly the number employed through these initiatives in the electorate of Moore totals 489 persons, of both sexes, some of whom were in the long term unemployed category and/or were suffering from social and other disadvantages. A number of these persons have been offered full time employment at the completion of the projects. A recent survey of participants in the program showed that 40 per cent of a sample of 600 people had a job six months after leaving the program. Of these, 82 per cent had full time jobs. These figures prove that the community employment program does more than provide temporary work for the unemployed. It is more than a band-aid; it gives the unemployed a real opportunity to obtain full time employment. The Bill before the House implicitly recognises the worth of the community employment program by the simple expedient of increasing its life by three years. It would be quite easy for the Government in a cost cutting exercise to say: Right, we have given the program a try and that is the end of it. Mr Donald Cameron —You ripped $200m off in the mini-Budget last year. Mr BLANCHARD —Just listen, my friend. What we have is a government that does care about the unemployed, a government that is prepared to accept that the CEP has been successful in its first three years and is extending its life for another three years. No doubt in 1989 a further decision will have to be made as to whether to continue the program or to wind it up. My preference at this point is for the program to continue because I consider that the community-I repeat, the community-has benefited from the program in so many diverse ways. Whilst I am a strong supporter of the community employment program, I support those honourable members who feel that not enough recognition has been given by State governments to the fact that this is a Federal Government funded initiative. I have heard in the past from my colleague the honourable member for Throsby how frustrating it is for members of this House to hear of initiatives in which they played a part in bringing to fruition being claimed by State governments as State government initiatives. But as the honourable member for Throsby said in his most excellent speech, this matter is being attended to. I know that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who is at the table, is looking closely at this problem. Another problem of a quite different order relates to the duration of projects. One of the criteria states that the projects must create positions for a minimum period of three months and a maximum period of one year. This criterion creates two problems, the first of which is a build up of expectations in the community if the project is related to social welfare and the person is employed to provide a service. At the end of the 12 months, unless the project sponsors can continue to employ that person out of their own financial resources, that person loses the position and his or her expertise is lost to the community and the service previously provided ceases unless alternative funds are provided. The other problem relates to fairly big projects which cannot be completed in 12 months. This often leads to a project being split into separate parts and the sponsoring organisation seeking funding for one part and then on completion seeking a grant for the next part. I do not see anything wrong in that approach and in fact have urged sponsoring organisations to do just that. However, because of the limited funds available, alternative worthwhile projects may miss out. I appreciate that the only answer to that problem is to increase the funds available for community employment programs. However, in view of the tight budgeting considerations for the coming financial year I am sure that that is not likely, although I am sure that the Minister would like to see it happen. I have agreed to curtail my remarks to allow other members to participate in this debate. I wish to say once again that I strongly support the Bill and I commend the Minister for his initiative in this direction. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(6.10) —It is probably appropriate to remind the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) that the Government slashed $200m of the community employment program expenditure last year. That very act in itself was a form of judgment on its effectiveness. It has always been my philosophy on these types of projects and programs that, while it is there, be in it. I was in this Parliament in the days of the regional employment development scheme. The Whitlam Government introduced the scheme and abandoned it after one year because of what was going on. A lot of creative things were left in the community as a result. That is happening now and I do not dispute that for one moment. I lend my entire weight to groups in my electorate who make applications for a grant because that is not inconsistent with my view that, while the scheme is there, be in it. The community should get as much out of it as it can, whether it be a new library building, halls, or beautification programs. If the scheme gives people employment, that is a good thing. My own record in this field was my suggested work program, which unfortunately the Fraser Government decided to implement in mid- December 1982 and a month later abandoned. It was a scheme whereby the Commonwealth would pay an unemployment benefit direct to a local government authority and that local government authority would match the unemployment benefit. They would take the hourly wage rate applicable to the type of job that a person undertook and divide it into the total amount of money. If it provided a person with 24 hours or 25 hours work a week, it was far better for that person's morale than to be sitting at home doing nothing. I have always subscribed to the view that it is better for people to be out there doing something than doing nothing. I also accept that it can be very demoralising to be out of work for a long time, and that is why this program is being retained. The very fact that the Hawke Government is bringing in this legislation to extend the program for another three years is an admission that it does not see itself as being able to beat long term unemployment. The fact that the Community Employment Act has been in place for three years and will go for another three years is really the Australian Labor Party Government saying: `We cannot beat it'. We sit in this chamber day after day and listen to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-and occasionally, when he is asked a question, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who is at the table-haranguing us and telling us how well the Government is doing in terms of unemployment. I will give the Government some good marks. It is able to claim that over 600,000 new jobs have been created. That is a fact, but when we examine the jobs we find that a lot of them are part time and, furthermore, a lot of them are in the public sector, whether they be doctors, nurses or just plain public servants. The well-being of this nation, the future of this nation, and the elimination of unemployment are more bound up in the recovery of the private sector, where real jobs are created, than simply in the creation of jobs in the public sector. This nation's recovery will be in the private sector, whether in the manufacturing industry, out on the farms, or in the little corner stores where additional people are taken on. That is where the recovery lies. The Government should not simply pluck out a figure and say: `We have created over 600,000 jobs'. I am about to show that this Government is really being very loose with the truth in terms of its performance in the unemployment arena. I see that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is smiling. I give the Minister his due; he has a reasonable sense of humour. I concede that the number of unemployed people has fallen; that is indisputable. What is the history of unemployment in this country? In 1981, 400,000 people were out of work for an average of 34 weeks. In 1982 that figure had risen to 480,000 and that is why the people got so restless with the performance of the Fraser Government. But they were still out of work for 34 weeks. Come 1983, when there was a change of government, that number had rocketed to almost three-quarters of a million, or 725,000. Ms Jakobsen —Ha, ha! Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member should not laugh; it was not funny for the people who lost their jobs. The unemployment figure had rocketed to 725,000 and, worse still, the average number of weeks for which people were unemployed had grown to 40-39.9 to be exact. This meant that in 1983, when the Fraser Government was turned out by the people of Australia and the great white hope, Mr Hawke, came marching in, 29 million weeks work had been lost by the nation and by the unemployed in this country. The smugness that we see on the faces of honourable members on the other side of the House as they push down people's throats how well they are doing is ripped apart as we examine the figures for the following year. In 1984 the unemployment figure of 725,000 had fallen to 630,000. Great! The Government had created jobs out there. The facts are that the weeks for which those people were out of work had grown from 40 to 48. Instead of a loss of 28 million weeks work we had a loss of 30 million weeks. As at 30 June last year the number of unemployed had fallen to just below 600,000 but the number of weeks that people are out of work has increased to 52 weeks per person on average. This means that the number of weeks unemployment that people are suffering has grown to in excess of 31 million in total. Let me tell those people who do not know where these figures come from that they come from the Bureau of Statistics. I must acknowledge the Bureau in view of the fact that I give it a touch-up from time to time. Some of its work is most useful. This exposure of the figures really tears apart the claims of the Government that it is doing so well. Certainly the numbers of unemployed are down, but people are out of work for longer. It is almost as if it is easy for the Government to forget them, to no longer worry about them, because the figures are looking good. Members of the Government can get up and beat their chests and say `600,000 new type jobs have been created and unemployment is down', but the truth is that the level of suffering for those who are unemployed in this country is greater than it has ever been in this nation's history. Ms Jakobsen —What about-- Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member will get a go later tonight. I ask her to leave me alone so that I can continue with my effort. I will be a little more detailed on just what is happening across Australia. Incidentally, all the figures to which I have referred previously are as at 30 June each year. The following figures have come from the Bureau of Statistics in the last day or so and are for the period November to November. I shall deal with figures for each of the States for November 1983 to November 1985. In Tasmania-no wonder the Labor Party down there was annihilated-the average number of weeks of unemployment has gone from 53 weeks to 64 weeks. In South Australia, where unfortunately these types of figures were not used, the number of weeks unemployed has grown from 52 1/2 to 56 1/2 in those two years. In New South Wales, the State with a number plate that calls itself the `Premier State', the number has gone from 48 to 56 weeks a year. In Victoria, it has gone from 42 to 46 weeks a year, in Queensland from 35 to 39 weeks a year and in Western Australia it has stayed the same at 38 weeks a year. All these figures lead to an average across the nation of 52 weeks a year out of a job, compared with 39 weeks a year when the people thought the Fraser Government was doing so badly that it had to go. The Government indulges in the approach: Forget about how much misery those who are unemployed are actually suffering, forget about the fact that their misery is compounding by virtue of the fact that they are unemployed longer term; just beat the drum on the number of new jobs. As I pointed out earlier, those jobs include a great number of part time jobs. The Government grabs at anything to bolster its case. That is understandable. It is no wonder that the public is cynical about politicians. Day after day they get examples of behaviour which allow them to see through the veneer. Occasionally they need a little assistance. We can look at tonight's Sydney Sun headline: `Petrol, save $520 a year'. These are the things that will save this nation. If the Government gave people back their money and stopped this game of trying to tell them how to spend their money, the economy would recover far better than it will with some of these band-aid schemes we are forced to resort to because of the continuing misery being suffered out there in the community. This newspaper article points out that because of the way the price of oil has fallen around the world, the Hawke Government now has to give back to John Citizen, not five or six cents a litre, but 11 cents a litre. The price of oil has gone down so far that the average person should now be refunded 11 cents a litre- Mr Gear —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I realise that in debate we do allow a bit of flexibility, but certainly the price of petrol has nothing to do with the CEP and I ask you to draw the speaker back to the substance of the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Yes, I must say I had some doubts about the relevance of the material the honourable member was raising. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I can well understand that, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is a fairly long bow, but I did not wish to miss the opportunity to explain that if the Government gives people back their money instead of adopting this policy of high taxation, a lot of the unemployment we are trying to alleviate with this program will correct itself. Mr Gear —Very tenuous. Mr DONALD CAMERON —It may be tenuous, but it is true. If we were to take a poll on the popularity of my views and those of the honourable member for Canning and I were to tell the people out there driving their cars home that the honourable member for Canning is against people getting back 11 cents a litre, I will bet I would win the poll hands down. Mr Punch —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I understand that the use for display purposes of implements such as newspapers is contrary to the Standing Orders and I ask you to ask the honourable member to withdraw that newspaper from use in his speech. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I withdraw my newspaper. On the community employment program, we all recall how the regional employment development program finished ingloriously in 1975-in about November, I think. The Minister then was Clyde Cameron, a predecessor of the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, who is at the table. Clyde Cameron was a man much respected in this place, even feared by members on both sides of the chamber. The RED scheme fell to pieces because of extravagances and too little accountability. I simply draw that to the Minister's attention. I know that there have been a lot of good CEP projects, well policed and well run, but lest the Minister think that every project was without warts, I have a letter from Queensland which I wish to read into Hansard. I do not think I will achieve a lot by naming the project concerned, so I will not even though the person who wrote the letter would be happy for me to do so. When I received his letter I wrote back to him and asked him whether he was prepared to let me use his name. He said that he would not have written to me in the first place if that were not so. This is what I hope is a rare example of the other side of the CEP. He wrote: It is not my intention to complain frivolously or maliciously, nor is it my intention to allow inefficient finance and engineering practice to pass unremarked. A bright young lad of 56, I have been self-employed most of my working life, and having employed others, I am acutely conscious of the sink or swim necessity of correctly costing work, seeing it efficiently performed, and a margin of profit achieved. I acknowledged profit motive is a doubtful consideration in CEP work, and the efficiency aspect may not be considered as vital. Simply put, the Government may consider its role is to inject the community with funds allocated to CEP schemes, regardless of other considerations. In this case the thoughts, health and feelings of the employees of such a scheme are given lip service only. Efficiency, training, inspiration and long-term job prospects are mostly, if not entirely, absent. This is the view of a 56-year-old man. He continued: I am in no position to give chapter and verse as to monies misdirected, having worked on one scheme only, and not being privy to the costing of same. However, the following information may be of interest and use to you: He then gave the name of the job, which I cannot see any point in giving here, but the Minister can learn of it from me privately later. The place concerned employs seven persons, two female and five male. That is very unusual these days. The employees are aged 20 to 56 years. He goes on to say what the wages are. He says what the foreman gets. He notes that only two members have experience at the work, that none have had training on the job, that morale is low and that absenteeism is high. The letter continues: Immediate past employment history: All except one on social security up to 18 weeks. Planning errors as seen by those on the job: Job started too early, i.e. before other contractors had completed preparatory work. Probably this originated in the allocation of a grant, which had to be taken up on or before a certain date. The result being that the CEP team had to fill in time while preparatory work was done. Actual instruction was ``go down in gully and hide.'' Total man days lost because of this and wet weather: 7 persons X 15 days = 105 days, give or take. I will not read the rest but simply say to the Minister that it is not all silver lining and roses out there. In the last couple of minutes available to me I want to become a little parochial and relate the figures I referred to earlier to the situation in my region of south-east Queensland. As I said, the Government tells us how marvellous the unemployment situation is. The reality is that the level of unemployment has gone up. I have here figures for weeks lost through unemployment as recorded at CES offices as at September 1983 and weeks lost as at September 1985. The figures for the Annerley CES office in my electorate show that in September 1983, 98,000 weeks were lost through unemployment and this has gone up to 107,000 weeks. At Coorparoo also in my electorate, it has risen from 57,000 to 67,000 weeks. At Mount Gravatt, it has gone up from 117,000 to 129,000. Woolloongabba is the only bright spot but it is an area where the population numbers are dwindling, people are moving out. There the number has gone down from 120, to 105,000 weeks. In Cleveland, in the electorate of the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), that we heard so much about before, it has gone from 64,000 to 76,000 weeks. In Woodridge it has gone from a massive 201,000 to 260,000 weeks. In Wynnum it has gone from 75,000 to 85,000 weeks. In South Brisbane it has gone from 53,000 to 59,000 weeks. Even in Warwick it has gone from 60,000 to 62,000 weeks. In Ipswich it has gone from 175,000 to almost a quarter of a million, and that is in the electorate of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). If he stayed home he might see what is happening in his home town of Ipswich. In Inala the figure went from 92,000 to 104,000 weeks lost and in Indooroopilly it went from 76,000 to 109,000 weeks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —During the debate a point of order was taken by the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) in relation to an exhibit that the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) was using. While I ruled against the relevance of some of the material used by the honourable member, as I understand it, exhibits can be brought into the chamber for the purpose of emphasising points in debate and, unless they are contrary to the Standing Orders or demonstrate some disloyalty, Speakers have previously allowed such exhibits to be used. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(8.00) —I take this opportunity, Madam Speaker, to congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker of this Parliament. It is an excellent effort for a woman to be so appointed, and I hope that we shall reach the time when it will not be necessary to point to the fact that a woman is Speaker and that it will become common-place. The purpose of the Community Employment Amendment Bill is to extend the highly successful community employment program for a further three years from 1 July-a very sensible decision. It is important from the beginning to put the community employment program into context. The CEP is just one of many programs introduced by this Government to attack the high level of unemployment caused by the restrictive economic policies of the Fraser Government, which brought this country to its deepest recession for some 50 years. The Government was elected to turn around the economy, to create employment through growth without inflation-a promise we made and, as I will point out, a promise we have kept. It is through our expansionary macroeconomic policies that we have created employment and turned the economy round. In fact, we set out to create what seemed to be an impossible target-certainly the Opposition criticised us for having an impossible goal-and that was to create half a million jobs in three years. The results are well known: 600,000 jobs indeed, 100,000 more than our target, have now been created and we are still two weeks short of the end of our third year in government since 5 March 1983. Employment has grown 3.8 per cent, which is the best of any Western industrialised country. Unemployment is down from 10.2 per cent at the end of the disastrous years of the Fraser Government to under 8 per cent. Inflation has been reined in from more than 12 per cent to around 8 per cent. All this has been achieved without industrial unrest. In fact, disputes are at their lowest level for 17 years. We have always said that economic growth and activity were the answer to unemployment-the generator of jobs. Yet not all these jobs have been made in the public sector. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) alleged that we had created jobs in the public sector and not in the private sector. I would point out that after the kick start with an increase in infrastructure spending in the public sector by the Government the private sector gained confidence. Now more than seven out of 10 new jobs are indeed created in the private sector. The honourable member for Moreton also said that most of the jobs created were part time. In fact, eight out of 10-80 per cent-of the jobs are full time. It is not good enough for the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) to bleat, as he did in this House on Tuesday, that it is the private sector that creates employment. These are words, words, words. It is rhetoric without any sincerity. It is this Government that has the runs on the board. It was the Liberal-National Party Government which sacked worker after worker in the private sector, sending thousands of workers on to the dole as the private sector suffered at the hands of these economic vandals. The Opposition has never accepted that Australia is a mixed economy, that the private and public sectors are synergistic-that is, they help and reinforce each other. Neither can get our economy going on its own; each needs the other. In fact the community employment program recognises this fact. The funds that come through this program go to local government, State government and community groups, and the private and public sector. It is a tragedy that the honourable member for Tangney, when in 1983 the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) gave him an involuntary holiday, did not gain in that 18-month holiday some empathy for the unemployed and a greater understanding of the causes of unemployment. The community employment program has a specific function: It is to zero in on the long term unemployed, to tackle the special difficulties facing long term unemployed people. Those people were almost forgotten by the Opposition when it was in government. Let us go back to when the Opposition was in government. At the end of its term, in mid-1983, a quarter of a million long term unemployed-that is, 41 per cent of the total unemployed-had been out of work for more than nine months. It is well known to anyone who has bothered to stop, talk and discuss the problems of the long term unemployed with them that the longer a person is out of a job the greater the loss of skills and confidence and the more reluctant are the employers to take them on. Their low self-esteem slumps further. Employers treat them almost as a dead loss if they should ever make a face to face interview. The purpose of the community employment program is to break the unemployment cycle prolonging the misery and bleak future of the long term unemployed by employing these people-often women, Aboriginals, disabled and mature age people-on community based projects for a period of six months so they can acquire skills, regain their confidence and be able to approach an employer with a recent job record and references. That is what employers are looking for. That is what CEP is all about. That is why people go on and get jobs. The Opposition wants the guidelines to be changed. The National Party said that we should not be looking at the long term unemployed-the women, Aboriginals and so on. We should be looking at able-bodied people so that the projects can get off the ground. That is not the purpose of the CEP. The results have been outstanding. Over three years, with the $1 billion committed, we have had 16,000 projects creating job opportunities for 87,000 people. Sixty-two per cent of all the program placements were long term unemployed; that is, people who had been unemployed for more than nine months. In the year past, the figure increased to 77 per cent. Almost four out of every five people have been long term unemployed. The average length of their prior unemployment was 58 to 70 weeks-that is, 13 to 18 months without work. The people we are looking after are those who have not had a job for over a year. I believe that is the reason the program is reaching the core of long term unemployment. Despite our economic upturn, our successes in getting unemployment down, there are still 92,000 people who have been unemployed for more than two years and 210,000 people who have been unemployed for more than nine months. The program has helped to achieve a reduction of 50,000, or a quarter of this category, over the last two years. This is why the program must be extended for three more years. That is the purpose of this legislation. That will mean new job opportunities for many more; another 75,000 if the success rate is continued. The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) tried to argue that the community employment program had failed because the average duration of unemployment had increased from 40 weeks when the Opposition left office to 52 weeks two years later. That allegation was repeated by speakers on the other side time and again, with particular ferocity by the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) and the last speaker before the suspension of the sitting, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron). There is a saying that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. I want to spend one moment on explaining how the statistics the Opposition has used have been misrepresented in this Parliament. In fact, I will take the Opposition's statistics and show that they are proof that the unemployment defeating policies of this Government are working. The figures demonstrate the success of the Government's overall employment promotion policies. As the economy prospers more and more people, mainly those who have just left school or have recently been unemployed, are snapped up by employers. Unfortunately, those who have been unemployed the longest are not so successful, even though the program is assisting them. As the total number of the unemployed drops, it is obvious that the average length-this is what the Opposition is concentrating on; the average length, not the individual length-of unemployment increases dramatically. It does not fall, as honourable members opposite would like it to. It increases when there is success. The sign of success is our overall attack on unemployment. We should not look at averages, we should look at the absolute inroads we have made into long term unemployment. The increasing duration of unemployment exposes the statistical legacy of the previous Government's policies, which resulted in an unemployment rate of 10 per cent in February 1983-a mammoth increase. The absolute number of long term unemployed-those unemployed for nine months or more-has fallen by around 50,000 since December 1983. The honourable member for Menzies also used a spurious argument on statistics-lies, damned lies and statistics-when he said that in 1980 the unemployment rate for teenagers was 16.6 per cent, but that we had increased it to 18.2 per cent by 1985. That is the second time in this debate that the Opposition has used statistics in a spurious manner to mislead the Parliament. Let me explain. What the honourable member did not say was that the previous Government was still in office in 1983 and had increased the rate of teenage unemployment to 28 per cent. We have reduced it from 28 per cent to under 20 per cent, according to his figures. `There is a need to cut wages for youth'-this is the catchcry of the Opposition. The honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) said it. This morning he said that the best gift we could give our youth would be to cut their wages, that is, to employ them at slave rates, to tell them that they are not worth a proper wage. No wonder the youth of Australia are turning away from the Liberal and National parties. The answer for youth is not underpayment, but job opportunities. That is what the CEP Priority One program and the general increase in economic growth are achieving. Is it any wonder, when the Opposition's only contribution towards solving the unemployment problem is to call for a deregulation of wages, to drive them down, that the business councils of this country have turned their backs and given the thumbs down to the Opposition? Sixty-seven projects for my electorate of Streeton have been approved, at a cost of $6.2m, and 485 jobs provided. That means that nearly 500 people whose job expectancy was virtually nil will now have a chance. It means that $6m will be injected directly into the local economy. People spend where they live and work. So we get the multiplier effect, which is that the extra employment created by these jobs when the employed spend their incomes in turn employs other people. The Opposition tried to discredit the projects funded under the CEP, picking out a minute number of the total of 17,000 and alleging-to quote the honourable member for Menzies once again-that `the money is being used simply to promote a cause, and one side of the cause at that'. The cause that Opposition members derided, the cause that worried them the most and gave them nightmares, was, of all things, peace and disarmament. National Party members particularly were worried about a peace bus. It really sent them mad, made them angry. If they want the opposite side, the reverse, they must be arguing, therefore, for war and an escalation of the arms race. How out of step they are when this year is the United Nations International Year of Peace and Gorbachev and Reagan are seeking ways of reducing the arms build-up. Peace, I remind the Parliament, is not a left wing cause. It is everybody's cause. Honourable members opposite are so out of step that I suggest it is they who have missed the bus. Where the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson) got the delusion that all CEP money goes to radical groups, I do not know. I can suggest only that it was an invention of his fertile imagination. The facts are that, overwhelmingly, the funds have been channelled to State governments and local governments, and about 20 per cent of the funds have gone to responsible and worthy community groups. I had intended to outline some of the projects in my electorate but I will skip that because the time is passing. One of the most successful CEP projects is the restoration of the railway line between Lilydale Coldstream and Healesville in my electorate. That railway line passes through not only my electorate but also that of the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson). Yet in the debate this morning he said that he thought that the money spent on the CEP since its introduction in mid 1983 would have been much more effective in creating jobs had it been provided to the private sector. His Government never did that when it was in power. It set up the wage pause, but he wants to discredit even that. Yet after meeting with the Healesville Council he was persuaded-and I do not know whether it was arm twisting or reason that got him to do it-to support the program's fund for the restoration of the railway line. Does he now, in this Parliament, deny that support? Does he stand with his colleague, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), who said that it would be better to have these long term unemployed people on the dole in order to save money and that it was cheaper to forget their plight? Does he agree with the honourable member for Tangney that job creation schemes are morally corrupt? The honourable member made that statement to the New South Wales University in July last year. Where does the honourable member for Casey stand? He stands up here and ridicules the program, yet when he comes face to face with councillors he supports it. Indeed, it is puzzling why the Opposition is nit picking with this Bill. Opposition members say they will not oppose it. According to the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), they agree with it in principle but all they have done is attempt to discredit the scheme. Have they forgotten that the Fraser Government, in a death bed conversion, introduced the wage pause program as a job creation scheme? Perhaps that Government was guilt ridden over the number of people it had put out of jobs with its disastrous economic policies. Do Opposition members not realise that the CEP is a great improvement but nevertheless is of the same ilk as their job creation scheme? There is no doubt that the community employment program is worth while. Rather than disparaging it with erroneous references and spurious statistics, honourable members opposite would be well advised to strongly support it. I will correct a quote made at the very end of the speech of the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb). He should have said that the CEP is a program that is working and that goes on working. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(8.18) —I know that things have changed a lot since Madam Speaker took up the chair, but I think it is going a bit far to take the hand off the clock. Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, we could have that reinstalled at some time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Perhaps the honourable member would care to glance at the clock on the other side of the chamber. Mr SHARP —Perhaps we could have a CEP project to reinstall the hand on the clock. That would employ a lot of people. The Community Employment Amendment Bill commits the taxpayers of Australia to a cost in excess of $1 billion over the next three years. I believe that the cost of this commitment indicates why such serious consideration has to be given to the reasons why we need a community employment program at all. This program, which is costing well over $1 billion, would not be necessary if unemployment were not as high as it is today, particularly among the youth of this country. The Labor Government has had three years to improve our economy. It keeps returning to comparisons between today's unemployment figures and those of the Fraser era. Apart from the fact that everyone in the country is thoroughly sick and tired of hearing this Government drag out figures from the past and compare them with today's, I think it is worth pointing out that the overall economic conditions prevailing today are totally different from those which prevailed in the Fraser era. The previous Liberal-National Party Government had to suffer the worst drought in living memory and this was coupled with a world wide recession. These factors added greatly to the unemployment conditions at the time. Since the Labor Government has been in power the drought was broken, the world economy has picked up and the recession has faded away. To make claims that Labor policies have improved the economy is not entirely correct or fair. Suppose we adopted some of the techniques that the Labor Government has been using and compared figures that went back a little further than just the end of the Fraser Government. In 1979, prior to the drought and the world recession having their effect on unemployment, during the Fraser era unemployment was 5.8 per cent. In 1981 unemployment was 5.7 per cent and in 1982 it was 6.8 per cent. All these figures are better than anything this Government can produce, despite the fact that the drought has broken and despite the fact that the world wide recession has lifted. If one looks back over the years one sees that Labor's unemployment figures today, assisted by the stimulus of the breaking of the drought and assisted by the stimulus of the lifting of the world wide recession, are dismal. An unemployment rate of 7.8 per cent is 2 per cent higher than the Fraser Government's figures before the drought and the recession. Let us look back at the reduction in unemployment since Labor has been in power. Undoubtedly there has been a reduction in unemployment; there is no doubt of that. The CEP has contributed significantly to that reduction in unemployment. However, not only has the CEP assisted the reduction in unemployment but the Labor Party's philosophy of big government-bigger government-has also helped. Since Labor has been in office we have seen the size of the public sector increase quite alarmingly. What is blatantly obvious, despite the improved economy during the term of this Government, is that the taxpayer has created many of the jobs that the Labor Government is now taking credit for. The Government should not think that it is fooling anybody by making claims that Labor policies are the sole reason why unemployment has been reduced. Often as I travel around the electorate of Gilmore people say to me that most of the jobs that the Government is taking credit for are artificially created; most of these jobs are being paid for by the taxpayer. They are being paid for out of the taxpayers' pockets. Just the other day I was reading through the February-March 1986 issue of a publication called Budget Profile and I noticed an article by Mr Bob Ansett, who is the principal of the firm which, I believe, produced the publication. Mr Ansett is recognised throughout Australia as being one of our leading businessmen. He is also recognised as being one of the greatest job creators in this country. Jobs that he creates are real jobs, jobs created not at taxpayers' expense but out of his own initiative, ingenuity and capital. In the article he says that Australia is not doing all that well taking into account that over half of the jobs created over the last few years were in the public sector. Mr Ansett continued: This of course adds to the tax burden of the private sector and goes part way to explain why business was hit so hard with entertainment, fringe benefits and capital gains taxes at last year's summit. Not all people are being fooled by the claims of the Labor Government. Some people can see, some people do realise that Labor policies are not creating all of the jobs; it is taxpayer's money that is creating them. How much longer does the Labor Party expect the taxpayer to continue to fork out money to boost its employment figures? All members of parliament must remember that the preservation of the private sector is crucial in any job creation project. By introduc- ing a capital gains tax and a fringe benefits tax and such things as quarantining farm losses, introducing a 3 per cent productivity case and a superannuation scheme to handle that 3 per cent productivity case, which is managed by the union movement and operated by the union movement, the Government is damaging the private sector and will limit the nation's chances of creating real jobs at no cost to the taxpayer. Conversely, we see jobs being created by this Government at the taxpayer's expense. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) freely admits that it costs about $20,000 a year to create a job through CEP. The taxpayer is being hit very heavily by all the jobs that we hear honourable members on the other side of the House claiming are a great boost to their electorates. When we look at the community employment program I guess, at the very least, we must congratulate the Government for maintaining one of its election promises. Since the Government has been in power we have rapidly got used to the Government not keeping its election promises. It seems that every day we hear Ministers and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) saying that the Government will do something and the next day we hear them saying or doing the exact opposite. Broken promises have become the order of the day for this Government. One of the best examples of the standards of honesty which we can expect from this Government is that of a statement made by the Prime Minister in the Labor Party policy speech on 16 February 1983. I think this is one of the best examples of the lot. Mr Hawke 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. That is what he said. Now we have a capital gains tax. That was a promise made by the Prime Minister; it is a promise broken by the Prime Minister. We have also heard the Prime Minister repeat that performance on several occasions. For example, in November last year the Prime Minister said: Australia and Australians will during 1985 reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from the successful policies of the past 20 months. What has happened since then? Interest rates have increased. We have record interest rates. If interest rates were to go down as a result of the successful economic policies of the last 20 months the fact that they have gone up surely must indicate that the economic policies of the previous 20 months have been bad and have created the scenario for high interest rates. Petrol prices also have been the subject of a great number of broken promises. One of the best quotations to use is from a statement on 9 February in 1983 by Mr Hawke. He said: Petrol prices will be immediately cut by about three cents a litre under a Federal Labor Government. So much for promises! What have we seen? We saw petrol prices increase last year by between 20 to 25 per cent. We saw the fuel freight equalisation subsidy scheme scrapped causing fuel prices in rural parts of Australia to increase by up to 4 cents a litre. All of these broken promises are costing Australians-especially rural Australians-dearly. Rural Australia is in crisis. Mr Lee —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 81 concerning relevance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I must say that I think it is appropriate to argue by reference to some comparisons but they should not dominate the speech. I ask the honourable member to come back to the discussion of the Community Employment Amendment Bill. Mr SHARP —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will return. In fact what I was doing was building up the reasons why unemployment is being generated in the rural areas and why the CEP is needed. The crisis in rural Australia is creating unemployment and immeasurable hardship. The CEP will have to be directed more and more towards country areas as unemployment grows in the bush. The Government's refusal to pass on cheaper fuel prices to Australian consumers-reductions in the price of fuel are being enjoyed by people all around the world-is denying Australians the opportunity of cheaper fuel at 11 cents a litre less, I am told. This robbery from the Australian public by this Government is critically wounding the rural industries that rely so much on petrol for their survival. I think there would be a saving of $204m if fuel price reductions were passed on. I ask honourable members to imagine how many jobs could be created by having an extra $204m in the rural economy. That could create a lot of jobs and a lot of prosperity. The robbery which this Government is undertaking in regard to fuel prices is critically wounding the rural industries that really rely so much on fuel prices for their costs of production. The Government must pass on these reduced fuel prices to Australians immediately. The Government's broken promises on such things as interest rates are doing just as much harm to the rural economy. If the Government were out of the interest rate market and if it were not playing around with the economy and keeping interest rates up, there would be more jobs in the bush as farmers would have more money to spend. Mr Punch —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. It is quite clear that the honourable member for Gilmore is raising matters that are not related to this debate. They are well outside the Community Employment Amendment Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —In an earlier ruling I made reference to some arguments by way of analogy, but one should, in fact, connect those to the topic that is under discussion, the title of the Bill being the Community Employment Amendment Bill. That is the matter that is to be discussed and the comments should be much more closely related to it. Mr SHARP —CEP is a band-aid attempt by the Government to overcome the problems of unemployment. If it is just going to continue to treat the unemployment problem with a band-aid, it is never going to get there. I am trying to point out the real reasons why we need CEP. The reasons why are that this Government is not treating the real issues of unemployment properly. The real issues are that we have a rural crisis and that interest rates are 7 per cent higher than they ought to be. That is taking money out of the productive sector of our economy, a sector which could create real jobs and give real futures to our young Australians. That is what we should be talking about when we talk about unemployment programs for Australia, not about giving band-aid treatment by way of the simple measures proposed by the Government. Interest rates are costing people who are farmers, small business people and people who are trying to build homes a lot of money. Someone who has borrowed $100,000 is paying $7,000 a year extra because of the Government's economic policies. That is $7,000 for every small businessman, every home owner and every farmer that could be used to create a job. Without the high interest rates the CEP budget would not be as high as it is today. We could create real jobs and real futures for young Australians so that we do not have to be here in a few years time talking about the same sort of budget, perhaps even an increased budget, for the same sort of program. The Government is just going for short term political gain at the expense of long term growth and, as I have said, long term real job creation. If the Government wishes to wind down the cost of CEP in the future, it must reduce those interest rates, it must get fuel prices down, it must scrap such things as capital gains and fringe benefits taxes and it must do away with the quarantining of farm losses. All of these things are going to make the job of creating opportunities for employment in the bush that much harder. The Government must realise this. I know that the people of Australia realise this. If the Government does not follow this course the unemployment situation in rural areas will grow as the rural crisis heightens. I must admit that it is pleasing to see the CEP has had some positive influence in the cities, towns and communities within the boundaries of the electorate of Gilmore. A number of very worthwhile organisations have benefited from funding under CEP. One which immediately springs to mind in the fair city of Goulburn is a small theatre company called Mustard Seed Productions which has provided a great deal of pleasure to a number of people who have been involved in it-a number of people who, I might add, have some disabilities. The Young Community Arts Centre will benefit from renovations and improvements. In Cowra, the Lachlan Steam Railway Society will continue providing a unique tourist attraction with its beautifully kept steam locomotives. In the Shoalhaven region, a number of projects have helped improve standards of living. One readily thinks of the tennis courts at Lake Conjola, which not only add to the enjoyment of locals but also add to the tourist potential of that region-a most beautiful part of the Australian coastline. Residents of the Royal Australian Navy Base at HMAS Albatross will also enjoy improved landscaping at the cost of $214,000 to the taxpayer. In mentioning HMAS Albatross, I cannot let this moment go past without pointing out that I am extremely disappointed with the Government's refusal so far to provide adequate funds to put a protective cover over the Navy's Fleet Air Arm museum. As I mentioned in Question Time this afternoon, when I put a question without notice to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), a number of these extremely rare, unique and irreplaceable aircraft are rusting away because there is no roof over them. I am pleased to say that the Minister will look into this matter. I was disturbed to hear that some people have been offering to buy some of those aircraft. The Sea Fury, for example, is worth in excess of $1m. I hope that the Government decides not to sell these aircraft. I hope that it decides to continue to maintain the museum at HMAS Albatross because it provides a wonderful tourist attraction. It provides millions of dollars worth of tourist income to the Shoalhaven region. As a consequence, the Fleet Air Arm museum will provide many jobs not only to the Shoalhaven region but also to the Illawarra region. When talking about HMAS Albatross I must mention that the air museum exists only thanks to the dedicated services of people such as Lieutenant-Commander Bob Gale and Lieutenant- Commander Ken Alderman and his good wife Judy. They have helped to create this museum and make it a major tourist attraction for the Illawarra and Shoalhaven regions. The Government must realise that it has a responsibility to protect this valuable part of our history. It must also realise that if it does not do so, we will lose one of the biggest tourist attractions in the Shoalhaven region. Whilst I am sure that the people at Albatross appreciate the grant of $214,000 under the CEP scheme for landscaping, I wonder whether they would have preferred the air museum to get its hangar first and have the landscaping project follow second. The aircraft are rusting away now, whilst the landscaping project could perhaps wait another year. I fear that we will all be back here in three years time debating the same issue but instead of an outlay of $1 billion-plus we may be debating an outlay of $2 billion-plus for a CEP scheme unless the Government realises that it has to live up to its promises. It has to cut the price of fuel. It has to cut interest rates and get them down to their proper level. It has to allow the dollar to float freely and it has to scrap such damaging legislation as that relating to capital gains taxes, fringe benefits taxes, entertainment taxes and quarantining farm losses. If it does not, we will find in three years time that not only will we have high unemployment and a rural crisis, but also our whole economy will be mortally wounded, and whether we want to or not we will not be able to afford to give any of our young people a job or a future. Mr SNOW(Eden Monaro)(8.38) —If the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) had spent four of the last five minutes of his speech on the Community Employment Amendment Bill in elaborating on the theme he dealt with in the final minute, his speech might have been more sustainable and I might have been presented with a larger listening audience as well. Mr Lloyd —Would you like a larger audience? Mr SNOW —I mean the radio audience. Before the honourable member for Gilmore leaves the House, I feel that I should mention that his electorate has received just over $6,649,830 in community employment program funds and 730 jobs have been approved under the community employment program. Yet he tells us that that program is not creating real jobs. If, based on the national average, half of those 730 people are now in full time work, that would mean the creation of 365 real jobs. Of course, the members of the National Party of Australia cannot go too far in criticising projects in their own electorates. We have seen evidence of that tonight. That would be the last thing to expect from agrarian socialists. The community employment program is a major part of the Government's plan for employment growth. It is also a manifestation of the nation's economic recovery. A wide range of schemes that have been put into operation in south-eastern New South Wales in the electorates of Gilmore, Throsby, Eden-Monaro and the surrounding electorates manifest the nation's economic recovery. Let us consider the Garden trout hatchery in the Snowy Mountains which, not so long ago, was a part time hatchery operated by the New South Wales Government. That Government put a proposal to the Federal Government. Now the Garden trout hatchery is working full time under the community employment program. It created a tourist attraction as well as a hatchery which made trout available to farmers all over Australia. It created real jobs in tourism. One can go there any day, summer and winter, and find large crowds looking over the trout hatchery. Let us consider the Bermagui water supply. Ten years ago, I was involved in a regional report to a south-east strategy committee set up by the Federal and State governments. The report said that water supplies along the south coast would be severely taxed if something was not done. The Bermagui water supply, as it was operating two or three years ago, was almost non-existent. Tourism was badly affected and Bermagui began to get a bad name, not only with the people who lived there, but also with tourists. Under the community employment program a water supply from Brogo was established. Now the little community, as well as the nearby communities of Quaama and Cobargo, have adequate water supplies from the Brogo scheme. Aboriginals and women who were employed under that program were taken up full time. One woman has taken up an apprenticeship with a plumber as a result of her work. Four Aboriginals were taken on by the shire council full time. That is creating real jobs. The Wyndham local community decided that it could put in a certain amount of money for a water supply. It came up with a labour intensive program for its development and its program was adopted. It has just been announced that a water supply will be given to the little town of Wyndham. Water supplies have been upgraded at Captains Flat and Bungendore. A power augmentation scheme was adopted in Cooma under the community employment program. Again, this created real jobs. Honourable members opposite have been telling us that the community employment program does not create real jobs. Every one of these examples has created real jobs following the community employment program. The Aboriginal people at Twofold Bay near Eden came up with a proposal for a strawberry farm. The community employment program has finished, but the strawberry farm is still going, creating real jobs-a real business. Mr Free —It is bearing fruit. Mr SNOW —It is bearing fruit, as my friend from Lindsay said. The Narooma community stadium and the Milton basketball stadium were created-real jobs-under the community employment program. Other proposals are coming up. I hope to hear an announcement from the NSW Department of Agriculture about the setting up of a feral animal task force for this region of NSW and eastern Victoria. I am also trying to encourage the Federal Government to come up with a national program for feral animal control. That program creates not only real jobs, but also services. We all know that if exotic diseases get into Australia and come in contact with our fast-moving population of feral pigs-rabies in the case of wild dogs-our primary industries, particularly our meat export industry, could be devastated. If foot and mouth disease came to Australia our meat industries would be virtually stopped. I hope that the Federal Government will adopt that matter as one of its national community employment programs. The main aim of the CEP is to help the long term unemployed. I believe that it has done that. This is the most important thing about the community employment program. It has shown long term unemployed people that they can work without problems of absenteeism and unpunctuality. They can overcome defence mechanisms which they have naturally built up over the years, particularly under the Fraser Government's record of 10 per cent unemployment, defence mechanisms which have almost convinced them that they are unable to work. This has been overcome in so many people through the community employment program. Their self-esteem has been restored. It has created almost 1,000 jobs in the electorate of Eden-Monaro. Not only have a substantial number of the long term unemployed been given a chance to gain essential work experience and skills; in my electorate over 60 per cent of people have gone into permanent employment. As I said, projects of a lasting benefit have resulted from the program. I believe that the success of the CEP is a tribute to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the officers in his Department, who have devoted their time and energy beyond the call of duty to ensure its success. I could mention people in my own community-the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) has mentioned some of them-Graham Gall, who has been the Area Project Officer, Robyn Bird, who has taken his place, and officers in the Department in Canberra and Sydney, who have shown that they are concerned and that they are always willing to discuss any technical or policy problems. I believe that local community employment services have made a great contribution to the prestige of the community employment program in Eden-Monaro. They have gone carefully through the people available with the sponsors of the program. That brings me to the sponsors. I know that in many cases the sponsors have found it difficult. Sometimes they have taken a little while to adjust to government policy on employing the disabled, Aborigines and women in what seemed to be manual tasks. Generally they have adapted, and in particular local government has adapted, and I praise local government engineers as well as the other sponsors for the way in which they have adapted to the Government's program and in the end have recognised its value. Some misconceptions have been raised by Opposition members in this debate. I noticed that one honourable member mentioned that in the three years of the Hawke Labor Government the numbers of long term unemployed have increased. I point out that in regard to people who have been unemployed for nine months or more, the numbers have actually declined by 24 per cent to November 1985. They have not increased; they have declined. Admittedly, the numbers of those who have been unemployed for two years or more have increased, but this has been due to the large number of people held over from the 1982-83 legacy left by the previous Liberal Government, the 1982-83 blowout in unemployment, when the rate of unemployment was 10 per cent. In 1975 the Whitlam Government handed over an unemployment level of below 5 per cent. The Fraser Government handed the Hawke Government an unemployment level of 10 per cent. No wonder a large number of people have been unemployed for two years or more. The fact that the Hawke Government is showing improvement in this area is indicated by the numbers of those who have been unemployed for nine months or more, which have declined by 24 per cent. I believe that the Liberal Party and the National Party have been unable to dent the armour of the Hawke Government on this issue. Their weapons are blunt because their record was bad. I commend the Community Employment Amendment Bill to the House. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(8.50) —On 26 August 1984, in an address to the Economic Society of Australia-- Mr Punch —I wish to take a point of order. I am sorry to take the time of the House but I will not be long. Before the dinner break, I took a point of order on the honourable member for Moreton-- Mr ROCHER —I interrupt, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is not on in my speaking time. The honourable member may take that at some appropriate time, but not when I have the call and the clock is running. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Perhaps the honourable member will take his point of order at the conclusion of his speech. Mr Punch —I am happy to do that. Mr ROCHER —On 26 August 1984, in an address to the Economic Society of Australia in Perth, the then Minister for Finance, now Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins)-he was referring to the Hawke Government-said: . . . the Government came into office at the bottom of a recession riding on the coat tail of the previous Government's wage pause initiative and at a time when the rural sector was about to swing into a boom year. The Minister's frankness serves to put his Government's economic performance into a proper perspective today. The Government makes much of its so-called creation of jobs since coming into office. However, the Hawke Government neglects to mention that in the period between September 1978 and September 1981, the Fraser Government added some 466,000 jobs to the economy, and did so without massively increasing government spending or our overseas borrowings. The reality of the situation is that, while some of the credit for the improvement, after a cyclical low in employment figures, is due to the policies of the present Government, and some as the Minister for Trade acknowledged in 1984, is due to the policies of the previous Fraser Government, by far the greater part is the result of climatic, domestic and international developments beyond the control or influence of either of those two governments. That having been said, there are a couple of aspects in this Bill that are particularly relevant for our consideration. The first aspect is the mechanics of this proposal. I note that there are still areas of concern about the adequacy of the community employment program in ensuring, first, that projects aid those to whom they are primarily directed, that is, the unemployed, rather than merely those who are responsible for the particular project proposals. Secondly, there are the continuing difficulties in integrating effectively training projects with the CEP. There is also the difficulty involved with the creaming-off at the top as it is described of the unemployed, leaving a substantial number of hard core unemployed people without much hope of CEP assistance. I must also note my reservation about some of the projects, especially those that come under the community organisations criteria for CEP grants. Many odd groups indeed have been on the receiving end of the Hawke Government's generosity. These have apparently included the Campaign for International Co-operation and Development, People for Nuclear Disarmament and a front group for the Italian communist party. Others have been mentioned by my colleagues in the coalition parties, particularly my colleague the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) earlier today. Some concern has also been expressed about the management of some local government projects under the CEP. I note that Senator Jim Short highlighted one such case on Thursday of last week in another place. The second aspect goes beyond the band-aid approach adopted by this Bill and into the structural problem preventing a return to full employment or something like it in Australia. Let us remember that it is the level of unemployment which is the catalyst for this Bill. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. Even if the most optimistic predictions of economic growth are fulfilled, the labour market will not permit a rapid return to the low levels of unemployment experienced in the 1960s and early 1970s without major adjustments to current practices. One of the important areas on the agenda for reform, and there must be reform, is certainly or surely the labour market. As an interim measure, the CEP may be all right, but it is to be continued under this legislation for another three years without tackling the causes of unacceptably high levels of unemployment in general and youth unemployment in particular. All the available economic evidence goes far beyond doubts about youth and adult wages relativities and into an issue at the very heart of Australia's economic and industrial relations system; that is, the regulation of wages by governments and government instrumentalities. The evidence for the proposition that State regulation is an inefficient instrument which has adverse effects on the economy is overwhelming. John Stuart Mill wrote: If law or opinion succeeds in fixing wages above the rate which results from competition, some labourers are kept out of employment. The modern treatment of minimum wage laws and their effects has crazy implications for employment and leads to this sort of legislation. The truth is that managing the wage rate through law is an inept device. Nevertheless, empirical research systematically confirms the inevitable outcome of that sort of approach. This shows through time and again when economists come to consider specific issues. For example, researchers have found that increases in the minimum wage affect workers in that they lose more from reduced employer fringe benefits and better working conditions than they gain from higher wages mandated by wages laws. That should be kept in mind in the context of new taxation laws to be framed by this Government in relation to fringe benefits, but that is not central to the point I want to make this evening. Further research has established that minimum wage standards imposed on the United States retail trade industry in 1981-the study was in 1981, but related to 1961-raised that industry's average labour costs by as much as 5 per cent during the late 1960's resulting in a loss of between a third of a million and half a million full time jobs in that market. This narrowing of labour market opportunities affected teenagers, most severely reducing employment amongst 18 and 19-year-olds in that country by some 9 per cent. There exist irresistible indications that minimum wages do not necessarily result in an increase in the full rate of pay. Fringe benefits tend to be reduced and the training values-this is the point-of jobs is largely eliminated as employers adjust to the rising labour costs. There can be little doubt that minimum wage legislation impairs the employment and compensation opportunities of inexperienced or lower skilled workers, spreading and exacerbating conditions detrimental to the maintenance of minimum standards of living. Lower skilled workers tend to be disemployed when minimum wages are applied uniformly to all industries, as we see in Australia. When minimum wages are applied only in selective industries, higher skilled workers tend to flow into jobs in the covered industries, while lower skilled workers flow into the uncovered industries. The net result can be a mere switching of workers employed in various industries without any overall effect on employment or earnings. The CEP legislation and the Hawke Government's policies run directly counter to the prospect of higher job opportunities. Minimum wages deprive low wage earners of an opportunity to earn on the job experience by making it illegal for them to receive the lower wage that an employer might offer them, together with training. Our rigid centralised wage fixing system is literally pushing Australians on to the dole queues and into a reliance on contrived stop-gap schemes such as the CEP. In the real world that exists outside sociology seminar rooms, employers are faced with increasing cost pressures and other diverse economic forces. They cannot afford to hire unskilled staff and train them when they are expected to pay wages far in excess of the actual worth of the employee to the business. On the job training, which is traditionally the most acceptable method-because it works-is thus subverted. Wage subsidy schemes of whatever form are a perverse recognition of this reality. After all, if the Government provides $50 or $100 a week subsidy to employers or provides a lump sum through CEP organisations or to State or local governments to hire unemployed people, all it is really doing is subsidising wages downwards to meet the capacity and the willingness of those employers to pay-an action based, I might add, on the utility of the potential employees to the potential employers. The real answer in the majority of cases is to free up the labour market. If this Government cannot bring itself to do that there must be, at the very least, a sub-minimum wage structure for the young seeking to enter the work force. This is essentially relevant to young people applying for their first job. They lack experience and a proven record in the work place. Employers faced with cost pressures they cannot control have little choice but to minimise their costs by either substituting technology or choosing older workers whose experience has already been demonstrated, or might reasonably be expected, and whose immediate productivity is far higher. Despite the efforts of the Minister for Employment and Industrial relations (Mr Willis) to highlight in his second reading speech the positive aspects of the CEP, there is only limited support for the notion that those employed under the CEP are gaining the necessary experience or obtaining long term work. Far too often experience gained is of doubtful benefit both to the employed and to future employers in the market place. Yet I suppose it must be better than nothing, in the short term, given the Government's unwillingness to tackle key reforms in the labour market that would provide genuine opportunities to the unemployed. The conventional measure of the minimum wage is distorted and, in my opinion, underestimates elasticity. That is the ever-increasing view of contemporary economists. Although recent studies have focused on minimum wage effects on different types of workers, recent research in the United States presents empirical evidence of the effects on industries showing that the new measure works better than the old one. With the modest minimum wage levels historically imposed the economy-wide disemployment effects are barely discernible. When broken down by industry, however, the employment losses show up more clearly for low wage categories especially in the retail trade. The retail trade is a significant employer in Australia. Within the high wage manufacturing division there are adverse employment effects in the six lowest wage industry groups all over the United States of America. The laws of economics do not respect international boundaries. Professor David Metcalf, of the University of Kent in England, in his 1981 study found through statistical analysis that British efforts over a 70 year period to establish egalitarian pay policies have done little to improve the lot of low pay workers and have not substantially altered the distribution of earnings in the labour force. Two thirds of the men who were in low paying occupations in 1965 were found to be still there a decade later. Among teenagers, however, less than a fifth failed to improve their occupational status over the decade. One in six full time workers in Britain is lowly paid, as defined in the publication to which I have referred. Most low paid workers are young, single people or married women who typically live in United Kingdom households with more than one earner and are not living in poverty. While these and other studies show the sort of thing I have been saying, they are independent studies and they confirm the essential point I made earlier; that State regulation is an inefficient instrument which has adverse effects on the economy as a whole and the workforce in particular. If government intervenes to enforce a wage that is higher than that which would appear in competitive markets, a small quantity of labour will be employed in industries in which this higher wage is enforced. The inevitable outcome of that is that sooner or later, for political reasons, that same government will have to subsidise some wages, or finance make-work programs such as CEP, to partially counter the growth in unemployment levels. I believe that it remains extremely unlikely that the CEP can possibly provide an answer to the problem of long term unemployment. That is despite the claims made for it by the Government and its supporters. As the elected representative of a metropolitan Perth seat it would be easy for me to wax lyrical, as other speakers have done in this place, and quote the amount spent in my electorate. I notice that this has been a device used by speakers from the other side, so I will do it and that will save the next speaker the trouble of doing it. Within Curtin $6,350,993 has been spent and 602 jobs have been provided in 110 projects. I might add that that works out at $10,549.82 per job. That will put that to rest and will save the next speaker from getting up and engaging in the ploy that previous speakers have adopted. That said, however, I am not confident that enough is being done to foster an economic climate which will see the underlying causes of unemployment successfully tackled. CEP legislation gives the Government a straw to grasp at while doing little to meet longer term needs. Although I have to say that the CEP is infinitely better managed than the Whitlam Government's infamous regional employment development scheme, the CEP can be compared with it in that it involves throwing copious amounts of taxpayer's money at a problem while ignoring the demands of the future. I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will recognise that this is a political ploy of some merit, but it is hardly likely to quell the fears of thinking Australians. In this regard, as in so many other unwise measures that the Government has adopted, it has set out its priorities. I believe the Government to be wrong, but at the same time I believe that it deserves to be allowed to make its own mistakes. The way that the Government has chosen-the CEP legislation is but one of its measures-is not, in my opinion, the preferred way. The Government has not adopted the right priorities. The coalition would adopt the right priorities and it will be, and is, more concerned with long term meaningful solutions to unemployment in this great land. I recommend to the Government that it address itself to economic measures which are designed to meet that end and to meet the long term needs of this country. Mr Punch —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I raised a point of order regarding the honourable member for Moreton displaying a newspaper. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! If I may first indicate to the honourable member that in fact a point of order must be taken at the time when the issue arises. Any point taken in relation to proceedings before the suspension of the sitting for dinner would not be appropriate to be taken now by way of a point of order. If the honourable member has some brief comment to make, he may do so with my indulgence, as long as I permit him to make that point. Mr PUNCH(Barton) —I seek the indulgence of the Chair to make a brief comment. At the outset might I say that my previous point of order at the commencement of the speech of the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) was not a deliberate act to waste his time. I would not do that to the honourable gentleman as I have a great deal of respect for him. I point out to the House that page 150 of the House of Representatives Practice has some interesting things to say about the use of exhibits in the chamber but, more particularly, pages 453 and 454 show, by way of example, some articles which have been used to illustrate speeches-and newspapers are not part of them. In ad- dition, I also wish to point out that there has been some precedence. We had Speaker Snedden ruling out the Illawarra Mercury on a previous occasion. My mind is a little hazy but I think Speaker Jenkins may well have done a similar thing during this Parliament. I merely raise this matter because it was the subject of some discussion before the suspension of the sitting for dinner and it is probably something that needs to be clarified; otherwise honourable members will not know whether or not they are in a position to use newspapers or front page headlines as displays in the House. There appears to be no consistency in the House of Representatives precedence on this as far as I can see, but I raise it now for what it is worth to the House. Mr Rocher —Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —It is not a point of order; it is a matter being dealt with by indulgence. Mr ROCHER(Curtin) —May I have the indulgence of the House to make a point? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Briefly. Mr ROCHER —Very briefly. As I recall it, the words printed in the Illawarra Mercury contained, in very large type, words which were unparliamentary in this Parliament and, as such, they differed from those used by my colleague, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) earlier this evening. I just draw that to the attention of the Chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ruled on the matter at the time but the honourable member withdrew the item. I commented, for the purposes of clarification of practice, that in terms of parliamentary practice and the advice I had received, it was appropriate to display a newspaper headline for the purposes of illustration. The references in the House of Representatives Practice were matters that were drawn to my attention and the honourable member for Barton also referred to them. The 1980 reference dealing with a handwritten sign, is a reference to unparliamentary language. Similarly, if unparliamentary language were displayed in the headline, that would be ruled out of order. It has been the practice that honourable members are not allowed to read newspapers in the chamber but that is quite a different matter. I think Speakers will have to deal with these matters from time to time as the questions arise. In the circumstances, the honourable member for More- ton did withdraw but I indicated at the time that I would not have upheld the point of order. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(9.14) —I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Community Employment Amendment Bill. The community employment program is the largest labour force program ever undertaken by an Australian government. In three Budgets the community employment program has been allocated $1 billion. It is undoubtedly, in my view and I dare say in the view of my electorate, a most successful program because its objectives are to help those at the bottom of the heap-the long term unemployed and the disadvantaged unemployed-to increase their mobility within the work force. As a simultaneous product this program has an objective to build lasting community assets which, in the electorate of Barton, have been most welcome. CEP is part of a broad-based labour market strategy which this Government has pursued very successfully. Indeed, as part of its economic policies, the labour market policies that this Government has adopted have been most successful. But, as is the case in attempting to correct long term problems in any field of government, specific intervention is needed in many instances, and the labour market is no different. Intervention in the labour market on behalf of those who are less able to help themselves is a necessity as viewed by this Government. It is a basic belief of this Government. It is also a basic difference that this Government has with the Opposition. The disadvantaged, the long term unemployed, migrants, women, Aborigines and the handicapped are all categories of people in our society who not only need but also deserve assistance with labour market mobility. That the Opposition does not believe this is most obvious by the contribution its members have made in the last couple of days in this place. Indeed, that is ironic in itself because it is these long term unemployed at the bottom of the labour market heap who are the very creation of the Liberal-National Party Government of 1975 to 1983. It is its mess that we are attempting to solve. It is the human tragedy that it has afflicted on this community that we are attempting to solve, and the CEP is one specific measure that this Government is adopting. Indeed, the creation of a pool of long term unemployed was a deliberate economic tool of the previous coalition Government and now in the discussion of this matter in this place we find the present Opposition objecting to our humane and moral policies. The short term view of those opposite appears to be that these people should be left on the dole and that the remainder of the funds to be expended on CEP should be used to lower taxes in the short term. I put it to the House that, with a 52 per cent success rate of participants in CEP joining the work force, the short term view of the coalition is a tragedy in itself, because with a 52 per cent success rate-and I dare say that that will pick up as the program continues-we find long term unemployed joining the work force, becoming not dole recipients, not consumers of taxpayers' contributions, but taxpayers themselves. When the multiplier effect of CEP is fully taken into account the long term implications versus the short term single-mindedness of the Opposition on these issues contrast even greater. Indeed, the CEP philosophy is consistent with the consumer-led recovery approach that is adopted by this Government, as opposed to those opposite who seek to alter downwards the wage structures and so provide greater suppression of consumer demand. The social value of CEP also cannot be overlooked. In my electorate we have three outstanding projects amongst many. The Oatley-Como cycleway is an outstanding success-indeed, probably one of the most popular in Australia. We have the Rockdale Park and bikeway and, of course, extensions to the St George Hospital. I wonder whether those opposite would like to come to my electorate and say to my constituents that the CEP is a waste of money. I hope that they will because the people of my electorate would see even more clearly the shortcomings of those opposite. It has been alleged that the CEP is a political instrument and is being used to fund all sorts of subversive causes. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), on 18 February, speaking in this debate, had cause to mention some `extreme left wing outfit' promoting `one side of its axe grinding cause'. He mentioned the Victorian Trades Hall Council, the Tasmanian Wilderness Society, the Friends of the Earth, the Total Environment Centre, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Native Forest Action Council. He said: The money is being used to promote the cause and to promote one side of particularly contentious issues. He also, in agreeing with the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), labelled it a rort. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition went on to mention `not only these ratbag left wing causes but also capital works programs'. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) said: There has been an allocation of $36,766 to the FILEF, which is the Australian operation of the Italian Communist Party, for the construction of new offices and staffing in its information bureau. This is a fairly grave charge, I would have thought, from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, or a succession of them, which I find astounding to say the least. It may interest the House to know that under the previous Government the wage pause program was, supposedly, a high flying strategy in the pursuit of employment programs. I draw the attention of the House to some `left wing' projects that were funded under the wage pause program by the Fraser Government. The interesting thing about this is that the second last I think, of a fairly quick succession of Ministers for Employment and Industrial Relations or Employment and Youth Affairs was the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is also interesting to see all the people who get a mention. There is Friends of the Earth in Victoria and Western Australia, there is FILEF in New South Wales and South Australia-I am sure the Italian community will like being labelled Communist! I for one take exception to any large ethnic community's main cultural committees being labelled Communist. I think that is quite outlandish. In Western Australia we had the Homosexual Counselling and Information Service being funded under the wage pause program by the Fraser Government. We had the Australian Capital Territory Trades and Labour Council, and the Western Australian Trades and Labour Council. I hope I do not cause the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), who is at the table, any discomfort, but in New South Wales the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union was funded quite significantly for two organisers' positions under the wage pause program. The Liberal Party is running up and down the country saying that this Government is funding a whole variety of left wing projects and organisations under the community employment program. I suggest that those opposite, particularly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, buy a large mirror. With the community employment program we have an integral part of a long term labour market strategy that is well in place. The target for creating jobs is now running, I think, at 20 per cent ahead of expectation from the Prime Minister's speech at the election rally in 1983. The economic policy is in place but, most particularly, it has a wages policy in place which is supplemented by such things as the CEP. It is with great hide that members of the Opposition criticise the community employment program in the debate on this Bill when they themselves have no wages policy. The labour market strategy of the Opposition is in tatters. We have read recently of business leaders criticising it severely. I would have thought that those opposite-most of whom have had, at first hand, benefits of the CEP in their own electorates-would have made a positive contribution. As is the case with the Opposition's wages policy and other labour market strategies, no positive contribution come forth, only criticism. I believe that that, more than anything else, is symbolic of the problems that currently besiege the Opposition. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(9.24) —It is with pleasure that I speak on the Community Employment Amendment Bill tonight. As we have heard from previous speakers, this is a vast program the Labor Government has implemented in an attempt to create jobs in the work force. Obviously that is happening, but it is not doing much for the figures that they keep bandying about. In fact, we are seeing billions of dollars of taxpayers' money being spent in creating fictitious jobs-they are real jobs but the figures are fictitious because, in fact, the unemployment rate is rising rather than falling. The community employment program is a direct public sector job creation scheme and involves labour intensive projects of social and economic benefits, so-called, to the community, especially targeted towards the long term unemployed. These people must have registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service for at least nine months. It is not a direct source of permanent work. The minimum time for projects is only 13 weeks, the maximum 52 weeks. Federal, State and local government authorities and non-profit community organisations are eligible to apply for projects. I shall later have a little to say about some of the government authorities that receive these funds. The CEP spending accounts for about 50 per cent of Commonwealth expenditure on all labour market programs. As we have heard previously, this Government in the next three years intends spending $1,000m-a lot of money in anybody's terms. To date 16,000 projects and 87,000 short-term employment opportunities have been offered. In Queensland, where my electorate of Maranoa is situated, there have been 1,856 projects to a value of $191m. The CEP funds $138m and 14,400 jobs have been created. The program is divided into several activity areas such as clerical, community service, construction, forestry and so on, and 75 per cent of costs of funding goes to labour costs. The main problem with the program is that there are no details of improvement of skills of people placed in CEP projects. There is inflexibility of target group quotas, and sponsor groups do not benefit all that much. A limit of a year could cause disruption to organisations. The training often drains the capabilities of a community organisation. The effects are only short term and do not aid on-going requirements of community organisations. Construction and improvement programs take precedence because of the visible results. Governments, any government, including my own National Party Government in Queensland, love to put up big signs showing exactly what they are at. The Labor Government is not short on spending money on signs advising the community at large what jobs they are doing, CEP included. There is not an adequate response to the problem of the long term unemployed. This is our basic problem. The CEP focuses on needs of projects sponsors rather than prospective individual participants, with project design and approval occuring before recruitment of the eligible unemployed. I turn to the role of the State governments. In Queensland we Federal members get across our tables a run-down of all the jobs that are put up to government authorities to employ people under the community employment program. I do not think I have yet supported one that my National Party Government has sponsored. I do not believe that State governments should be getting involved in this program. It would be preferable if the private sector received the jobs and not State government employees, but one finds all over the country-Queensland is not peculiar to this problem-many different sorts of jobs involved. They relate to the Department of Primary Industries, the Department of Forestry, the Railway Department, and other departments, with a whole range of government sector employees being put up for such programs. I think that this is a scandal. Queensland is copping a bit. The program is pumping money into the public works programs in the Labor States throughout Australia in the disguise of CEP projects. That is what it is about. Under the Constitution the Federal Government cannot discriminate against Queensland in this regard, but all the other Labor States in Australia are getting the same sort of funding and it is helping to prop up the State Labor Governments in Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. I am totally opposed to these projects and I have never supported one State Government project-not even in my own State. I put a line through the request. I do not think it makes a damn of difference because the public servants still dole out the jobs to State government employees, but at least this debate gives me the opportunity in this place to voice my opposition to what is going on. The Government should take a close look at this program. I imagine it will not be changed because most State governments are Labor controlled. Quite a bit has been said by me and by others on the affirmative action program, which the great white leader Bob Hawke introduced. It's a bit like Russia revisited. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member will refer to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister. Mr IAN CAMERON —The Prime Minister introduced this iniquitous Bill in the House yesterday afternoon. As I say, it is shades of Russia revisited, because that is what it amounts to. It is interesting to note that 38.6 per cent of the people included in these works programs are women. Many women are working on the roads these days. They do not seem to mind that. I support it. I think it is great to see them out and about and getting a bit of sunshine. So far in 1985-86, 52.6 per cent of the participants of the CEP are women. The way we are going, affirmative action is needed for men rather than women. That is about the position that we have got into. I guess fair is fair. It just so happens that the unemployed have been waiting longer for jobs. In 1981 they waited 34 weeks and in 1985 they waited 51 weeks for a job. Those characters on the other side of the House have the audacity to tell us that they are creating jobs and are helping the unemployed. What nonsense. I have never heard such rot. The Prime Minister once again thinks that he has a great program running. He thinks that he is the biggest disc jockey in Australia. He puts on earphones and says: `Ring me back, fellas; reverse the charges'. It is only another bill that the taxpayers have to foot. Reverse charge subscriber trunk dialling calls were made throughout Australia. Every phone call would have cost $5. The Prime Minister promised to create 10,000 jobs by June. He has not created one job yet. I put to him that his top priority ought to be to free up, deregulate, youth wages. If he did that he would find that the youth, the really disadvantaged sector of our community, who are desperately looking for work would find jobs and be paid. They would be satisfied to have a job at a lower wage, instead of having the jackboots unions forcing employers to have to pay these very high youth wages. That is one reason that we have so many people unemployed. The total number of unemployed in the labour force in 1947 was 3.4 per cent; in 1954 it was 1.5 per cent; and so it goes. In 1971 the figure was 1.7 per cent; in 1981 it was 5.6 per cent; and in 1985 it was 7.9 per cent. In actual fact, under this Labor Government the total percentage of unemployed people in the labour force has risen from 5.6 per cent to 7.9 per cent, which is an actual raise of 2.3 per cent. We now have 598,000 people unemployed. It is important that we understand that 33 per cent of those unemployed are in the 15 to 24 years age group. That is the sector of the unemployed that we on this side are very concerned about. We are already paying out $1 billion over three years. In 1983-84 we paid out $2.91-that is nearly $3 billion-for the unemployment benefit. In 1984-85 we paid out $2.98 billion and in 1985-86, $2.99 billion which represents an increase of $5.4m. Yet the Prime Minister has the audacity to come into this place and try to convince us and the Australian community that the Government is taking the unemployed off the streets. What rot. The Government is paying out more money now to the unemployed than it ever did. Those are the figures. Now that I have explained these figures-I indicate that I have had a bit to say on the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill which the Prime Minister introduced in this place yesterday-I wish to spend a bit of time explaining to the House how I feel. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that before the honourable member does so, he recall that under the Standing Orders he is unable to make reference to another piece of legislation. Mr IAN CAMERON —That is correct. The way the figures are going, affirmative action is needed for men rather than for women. According to Census figures, in 1947, 19 per cent of the work force were women. In 1986, 46 per cent of the work force are women. So we need only 4 per cent to balance the numbers for men and women in the work force. The way things are going, that will not take long. One will soon find more women in the work force than men. I question why there is any need at all for the Prime Minister to introduce a new Bill. It is just a propaganda election gimmick. More than half of the women who are working are married. Two-thirds of them have dependent children. I think that is important. The argument I am using in regard to the unemployment problem and the community employment program is that this Government is encouraging the disruption of the family unit and married women to go out and work. Not only is the Government doing that, but also it is forcing employers to build kindergartens and creches at the place of employment. I think that is disgraceful. It is shades of Russia. Mr Chynoweth —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been very tolerant tonight. The honourable member for Maranoa has strayed greatly from the Bill. I think that at the moment he is trying to make up to his wife. Mr IAN CAMERON —I will come to my wife in a minute. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -I remind the honourable member for Maranoa that he should remain relevant to the proposition before us, which is the Community Employment Amendment Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —Forty-six per cent of the work force are women, two-thirds of whom have dependent children. There are 880,000 married women in the work force who have dependent children. I guess that once they get a job their main concern is that they do not lose it. If they do, I guess that they can fall back on a CEP project. This Government is spending money like it is going out of fashion. Expenditure on the CEP has been $3.4m. I suggest that it is a great pity that governments do not encourage working women with dependent children to stay at home. Surely there must be some pride in their doing that. There has been a bit of talk about affirmative action. It is a great pity that it is not used against some of the journalists. I thank the members of this House who have come to me today and said what a good job my wife did on the AM program this morning. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Maranoa should be a little more relevant to the legislation. Mr IAN CAMERON —What I was talking about has to do with the unemployed, with the CEP and with the biggest problem we have in our community today-youth unemployment. I believe that not only the Labor Party Government but also the National Party and the Liberal Party should be considering this problem and encouraging women with children to stay at home. The Government should be making it easier for the 32 per cent of the unemployed-those in the age group from 18 to 24 years-to get work. I thank honourable members for coming to me today and saying what a good job my wife did on the AM program. I must say that I am rather disgusted with the form of reporting that is going on in this country today. As I said, if there is any affirmative action needed, it is against some of the journalists. I am not branding all journalists, but some journalists really stoop and dive below the belt. I explain that it was Senator Vanstone who mentioned the other room. I have never ever used that word which has been bandied around the countryside today. I would like to thank honourable members for their support-and those members have been on both sides of the House. Probably more Government members than Opposition members have come to me today and told me what an excellent job my wife has done. I would like to thank her very much for the words she said and I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that- Mr McGauran —Explain the position. Mr IAN CAMERON —I do not have a position to explain, I just feel that some of the things that have happened today show that some members in this House are not very happy about the sort of reporting that has gone on. I have much pleasure in supporting the Community Employment Amendment Bill and I guess other speakers will wish to do so as well. I do not know about affirmative action-I expect I will have a lot more to say about it when that Bill comes into the House- Mr McGauran —Do you support it? Mr IAN CAMERON —No I do not. Obviously that Bill will come here soon, but I am not meant to be speaking on it now. When it does come here we will have the opportunity to put our views forward at that time. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(9.41) —Let me preface my remarks on the Community Employment Amendment Bill by suggesting to the wife of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) that she should give him curry when he gets home. The funding of the community employment program for another three years is a further step in the Hawke Labor Government's long term plan to make certain that those people throughout our nation who have not been able to find work are given the opportunity to learn skills and return to the work force. The global economic conditions and unfair trading of farm produce through massive subsidy for inefficient farmers in Europe have had a dramatic effect on our products and this flows through to affect Australian manufacturing and service industry as well as jobs. In the years of the Fraser Government there was a feeling of insecurity and a lowering of morale among working women and men. There was also a distrust of employers. This was brought about by the harsh economic policies of the Liberal and National parties. They put thousands out of work and created bankruptcies by the thousand, all in an endeavour to impose a set of conditions in which their friends got richer and those who were unable to get work were forgotten and left to scramble for the meagre welfare that was distributed grudgingly. The contempt that some members of the Liberal and National parties have for those who are not born with silver spoons in their mouths is legendary. Let me remind the House what the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) said only this week about some unemployed people in his electorate: In my electorate there is a small town called Boolarra bordering on the Latrobe Valley and I understand that a motley-- Yes, that is correct, he used the word `motley'- collection of travelling clowns and performing artists have been awarded a large sum of money by both the State and Federal Governments. I just wonder how those people who have been unemployed for months, whose self-esteem has been shattered and who have now been given an opportunity to learn skills and get back into the work force will feel. The honourable member for Gippsland certainly knows how to make people feel good. What he said is especially provocative when it is said by someone whose family owns thousands of acres in Gippsland, and who owns hotels, shopping centres and other investments, who drives a luxury European car- Mr McVeigh —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, what has the personal position of a colleague got to do with this Bill? Will you ask the honourable member to stick to the Bill? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —There is no point of order, the honourable member for Groom will resume his seat. Mr Ian Cameron —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, if the honourable member for Dunkley is going to go on like this, perhaps he should tell the House how many people the honourable member for Gippsland employs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order, but I draw the attention of the honourable member for Dunkley to the Bill. Mr CHYNOWETH —Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. The preselection of the honourable member for Gippsland-- Mr McGauran —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer you to the Standing Orders. You will know that pursuant to Standing Orders, any reflection, or any suggestion of impropriety or bad character against another member of this Parliament must be made by substantive motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I was listening carefully to what the honourable member for Dunkley was saying. I do not think it is a reflection on a member to suggest that his family has assets. Mr CHYNOWETH —The honourable member's preselection for this House bought the day before nominations closed for the Federal election. His attitude to the disadvantage is typical of some people, but I am glad to say not all people, in the coalition of which he is a member. One wonders whether he walks his property pining for the old days when one could buy and sell people to work on one's holding and pay them nothing. I am afraid that the Opposition has been taken over by the hard Right. It is moving rapidly to try to make certain that its policies overwhelm the more decent members of the Opposition. I urge the moderates of the Opposition parties to work hard to make certain that they are not buried by the right wing radicals. During the last State and Federal elections Liberal politicians on the Mornington Peninsular spoke aggressively against the community employment program, its contents and its aims. It is interesting to see these hypocrites now announcing local CEP projects, embracing them for the local Press, sending out Press releases on how much money is involved and how good they are for the local community. Is it not amazing the depths to which some people will sink to get their name in the local Press? People have long memories. They remember the contempt the Opposition has for our unemployed. The Opposition is supporting the Bill at the moment but if it ever had the opportunity it would abolish it and again return the nation to the insecurity and despairing days of Liberal and National Government. Some of us have experienced the distress of men and women in tears in their offices after having been sacked from a job that they had held for many years. They were too ashamed to tell their families or to ask for government unemployment benefits. During my first year as a member of Parliament I must have seen at least one dozen people in this pitiful state. One very sad case was that of a young woman who was out of work. She lived in a caravan and did not have 20c to put in a time shower at the caravan park. This is Australia, a rich country, and we should not have one person in this position. Some years ago teenagers in Frankston rioted and part of the trigger for this was a feeling of lack of purpose which was brought about by the continuing degrading effect that unemployment has on people. There is still a large unemployment problem in Frankston but there is now a feeling of optimism, a feeling that better times are here. When we took over managing the legacy of despair from the Opposition one of the first things that the Labor Government did was to start an employment program to make certain that those who had been unemployed for some time would have the opportunity of obtaining skills and self-esteem. The community employment program has been an outstanding success. Some benefits are that in two years 3,800 projects have been approved and 75,500 jobs have been created at a cost of approximately $1 billion. Over 60 per cent of participants have gained some employment after leaving the problem. Small business has gained through the increased purchasing power of the participants. I feel I should take this opportunity publicly to thank some of those people who have worked within the Dunkley electorate and have helped make CEP the great success that it is. Firstly, I thank the project officers from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations-Mr Ralph Kenyon, Mr John Negus and Mrs Jenny Gillam. The area project officers had the responsibility of establishing the programs in many electorates and they have done it in an exemplary manner. Their diligence, efficiency and efforts have paid off. I thank the Mornington and Frankston officers who have participated actively in the program. Mornington Council's record to date is that in 1983-84 over $566,000 was spent on CEP projects. In the early part of 1983 49 people were employed on EIP projects. In 1985, 59 people were employed on CEP projects and over $739,000 was spent. In 1986, with new CEP projects about to commence, nearly $900,000 is being spent and 70 people are being employed. My particular thanks go to Ken McArthur and Ian Evison and the Mornington councillors, who are very well aware of the benefits which CEP has for the Mornington community. Frankston Council has established its own employment initiatives committee. The members of that committee are Albert Knowles, the mayor, Geoff Holland, Ken Woodger, Jan Williamson, Bill Langford, Jenny Gillam, Don McClean, Ian Boag, Noel Burrows, and myself or one of my staff. This committee has initiated many projects. These people have given their own time to assist in the development of worthwhile projects for the city of Frankston and surrounding areas. I make special mention of Mr Noel Burrows, who is the co-ordinator and permanent project officer of the group. He also looks after training. I thank those organisations outside the councils which have been prepared to participate in the scheme. The Frankston and Mornington Community Employment Service offices have been involved in the selection of people to be included in the program. I mention the local papers, the Standard, the Independent News, the News and the Town Crier, which have generously helped to promote the program and make certain that the unemployed in Dunkley are more aware of the opportunities which the CEP offers. Of course, I thank the members of my staff who were actively involved in the work to make certain that all projects submitted to the secretariat were acceptable. The benefits to CEP participants include current work experience, lifting of self-esteem by participating in the work force, greater employability through skills gained, getting into the routine of working and having social skills reassured, and, finally, a steady and worthwhile wage. Benefits to the community organisations include getting achieved and completed jobs which are of value to the community and which local government and project sponsors may not have had the money to do until a future date, achieving goals and completing projects that local organisations may wish to do but which are beyond their financial capabilities, being actively involved in community planning, and participating in organising programs of benefit to the community. Benefits to local government include the opportunity to participate in job creation schemes, to be actively concerned with problems concerning unemployment and taking up the challenge of meaningful job creation, and the attraction of funds for public works that would not normally be undertaken. These are some of the benefits of the CEP. Another benefit is just the simple reassurance that I am certain people gain through working for a period and of getting some money in their pockets, the self-confidence that comes with knowing that one is able to do a job. I commend this Bill to the House. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McGAURAN —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that today Madam Speaker challenged the House to improve the quality of debate and to refrain from personal abuse. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will get to where he was misrepresented. Mr McGAURAN —Sadly, the honourable member for Dunkley during his address- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will come quickly to where he has been misrepresented. Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member in his remarks ascribed to my speech on the CEP in this Parliament on Tuesday meanings that are not accurate. The honourable member for Dunkley accused me of turning my back on unemployed persons in my electorate. May I remind the House- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has the ability only to tell the House precisely where he has been misrepresented. I think the honourable member has done that and should resume his seat. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased that you accept my rejection of the scurrilous remarks by the honourable member for Dunkley. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will resume his seat. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, there were further misrepresentations during the address of the honourable member for Dunkley. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr McGAURAN —You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that at one stage the honourable member for Dunkley accused me of having walked the paddocks of my farm wishing for the return of the slave trade. The stupidity and ludicrousness of that speaks for itself, but may I, during this personal explanation, assure the House that living in a rural community- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has to say succinctly where he was misrepresented and then resume his seat. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall endeavour to do so. I do not walk the paddocks wishing for a return of the slave trade. Instead, I wish for lower fuel prices, interest rates, and a return of conservative government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Chynoweth —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I never said that. I said- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(9.56) —As we all know, the community employment program was introduced three years ago to help the long term unemployed and disadvantaged to get work experience, training and confidence in short term jobs so that they would be better placed to get permanent jobs as they become available. The program has cost over a billion dollars in these three years and has put some 75,000 people into short term jobs. The basic question is: Has the program been a success? The 1984-85 CEP report says on page 8 that it has been. It says that studies show that many of the people helped have gained in both experience and confidence and that some 46 per cent of those, in one survey, had jobs some six months after leaving the CEP. I can believe that. Take, for example, a foreign migrant with little English who steps off the plane into a community with high unemployment. A job for a few weeks or a few months to help him settle down and find his feet would be a tremendous boost, and the same sort of thing applies to other categories of employees. I do not doubt that the CEP has had its successes, but to really assess the scheme we need to find out easily precisely what the program is doing. The problem is that this seems to be getting harder with each passing year. For example, in the 1983-84 report there are tables setting out the jobs created and the percentage of the whole that each category fills. We see from the tables in that 1983-84 report that in broad percentage terms about 50 per cent of the jobs created are in construction, maintenance, kerbing, road building, and so on, and that they take about 50 per cent, in round figures, of CEP funds. In the Commonwealth element about 26 per cent of the jobs are in community service or cultural projects and a corresponding percentage of the funds is involved. We can see what percentage of the jobs are clerical, recreational and so on, and so we know generally speaking what we are talking about. However, these tables do not appear in the 1984-85 report. There are many more tables but they do not give us that sort of basic information. It is wrong that we should have to go sleuthing to find out the facts. From other evidence we find that the balance of construction, et cetera, jobs on the one hand and cultural jobs on the other has been significantly changed. There is no table in the 1984-85 report like tables 2.3 or 2.4 of the 1983-84 report, but we are suddenly informed on page 7 of the report that the biggest sum of money now being spent is on a `wide range of cultural and recreation-oriented projects'. That is the biggest category. Some $263m is being spent on `cultural and creation-oriented projects' compared with $176m on roads, $173m on welfare, $124m on health and education projects, and $86m on environmental schemes. The cultural and recreational projects now dominate the CEP, which was obviously not the case at the beginning of the scheme. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has not explained why this change from an emphasis on manual work to an emphasis on cultural projects has taken place or just what these cultural projects are. Incidentally, the mystery is deepened by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen). In his famous speech on 17 October last he said that it is not generally known that as at 23 September of this year the community employment program has provided $27-plus million for arts and heritage employment projects. The report of the CEP puts the figures at $263m. The Minister went on: These hundreds of approved projects have had considerable financial impact, particularly in Community Arts. The position is that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment says that $28m of CEP funds has been spent on arts and heritage, but the report of the CEP itself says that between nine and 10 times as much-$263m-has been spent on cultural and recreational projects. So there is a vast and unexplained difference in these two figures. If they can be reconciled, I would like to know how. The only way to find out whether this is possible is to be given details of the projects, which we have not been given. I am going to ask for these details in a question on notice. Why the mystery or the lack of publicised detail? It is important not just for the arts, which is not an issue here since the CEP clearly provides more funds for the community arts than does the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council, but more to the point now in this debate we must be able to assess the CEP. Is it any wonder that many people suspect that the cultural projects being funded at this enormous sum are neither cultural nor likely to help a beneficiary to get the permanent unsubsidised work at which the scheme is supposed to aim. The belief has spread that the CEP is being transformed from being predominantly a stepping stone to real work to being a funder of left wing political causes. In other words, an increasing number of CEP projects have been undertaken by organisations such as Community Radio Federation, Friends of the Earth, Gay Publications Co-operative, the Victorian Association of Peace Studies, Pax Christi, or the Union of Australian Women. In 1984 we even had the comedy of the Government supporting mining on Roxby Downs because of the jobs it would create and at the same time spending hundreds of thousands of dollars through the CEP on funding various Roxby blockade groups whose aim was to stop the jobs being created. This was being done in the name of a job creation scheme. I stress that the difficulty in making the sort of assessment I would like to see made is that the spending of this vast sum of money-$263m-on a wide range of cultural and recreation-oriented projects is not spelt out in detail so that we know what those projects are. We get the occasional announcement from the Minister. We get scraps of information from various sources. There is absolutely no good reason why all of the projects should not be listed. The amounts of money spent on them and the number of jobs created should also be listed in their entirety so that we could assess the scheme and assess the new turn that it has taken. Cultural and recreational projects now predominate and road works, construction, maintenance or manual work projects have fallen lower in the total picture. I draw the attention of the House to one project which is a CEP project. The Minister has not announced it, but the Transnational Cooperative announced it in the beginning of its publication, a large study called `Anti-Union Employment Practices'. The project was supported by 21 unions such as the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the New South Wales Teachers Federation, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Staff Association, the Building Workers Industrial Union and so on. The project concludes with a number of recommendations including urging the trade union movement to `insist' that the Government stop funding `conservative' organisations. The TNC report recommends: That the union movement insist that both the Federal and State Labor governments scrutinise more closely their criteria for the funding of research organisations which specialise in a conservative school of economic thinking and produce material which promotes a strong anti-union philosophy. For instance, the Centre of Policy Studies (directed by Michael Porter and with John Stone as an adviser)- Mr Young —My God, what a double! Mr COLEMAN —That is right. I continue: . . . at Monash University, Melbourne, was in 1982 guaranteed $500,000 per annum until 1987 by the Fraser Government. In addition to that it receives very generous donations from large corporations. A similar situation exists with the right wing Centre for Independent Studies group in Sydney, and the Melbourne-based Institute of Public Affairs, both of which Hugh Morgan (Western Mining Corporation) is a patron and financier to. The continued use of scarce resources in this manner will ultimately be to the detriment of the trade union movement. Professor Wheelwright writes an introduction to this study. He says that it is necessary to help redress the balance and that Labor governments and publicly-owned institutions, instead of helping to finance research centres and academic institutions which are `heavily oriented towards market forces and the owners of capital', should finance studies such as this which are oriented towards `collective solutions' to society's problems and the owners of labour, irrespective of whether the legal system by sleight of hand categorises them as employees or contractors. So taxpayers' money is being used to finance leftist attacks on conservative organisations. We are told that the community employment program is not a political program but a job creation program whereas the facts are increasingly showing that it has become a political program rather than a job creation program. The sort of example that I have just given, multiplied many times over, can only discredit the community employment program. That seems to be what is happening. If it is not the case, the Minister can give us the facts. He has not done that. That only strengthens the view that whatever good the community employment program does-as it still does-it is being undermined by being progressively perverted into a weapon for the leftist abuse of the taxpayer. The next step in this debate is for the facts to be made public, instead of our having to be satisfied with the statement that $263m is being allocated for cultural and recreation projects, by far the biggest of all categories, and a much smaller number of millions for road improvement, welfare services, health and education projects down to a comparatively miserly $86m for various environmental improvement projects. We are simply being told but it is necessary for the Minister to reveal exactly what is happening in the spending of this money. It is simply not enough to say that $263m will go to cultural projects and to imply that the earlier emphasis on manual work is being played down and there is a new emphasis on cultural projects. It is simply not enough for the Minister to say that or for that to be stated in the CEP report. We need to know more than the scraps we can now get about what is involved. From time to time, the Minister issues a statement when he finds a CEP project with which he is pleased or which he thinks will meet with public approval. But the evidence is there that hundreds of these schemes will not meet with public approval and are an abuse of the taxpayers' money, a waste of CEP funds and are politically inspired. The CEP is becoming the principal funder for these politically inspired projects for this sort of cultural revolution that the Government is promoting and it is a perversion of the CEP and a movement away from the worthwhile objectives on which the CEP was originally established. Whether the CEP could ever achieve those worthwhile objectives, there is no point in denying that they were worthwhile and that the CEP has had its share of successes. I would certainly be the first to say so because of personal experience in helping place people in CEP projects and seeing them at work at close hand in my electorate. But the real concern is the change that has been taking place and the movement away from the original objectives into $263m worth of cultural projects about which we know nothing but which we have every reason to suspect. That suspicion will be allayed only if the Minister comes clean and reveals the facts which at the moment are thoroughly concealed under big figures without any detail. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(10.10) —I would like to congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election as Chairman of Committees. Having been a member of the Standing Committee on Expenditure which you chaired so ably, I know well your capacity to guide a meeting with intelligence, toughness and humour. I am sure you will chair the House with equal effectiveness using those qualities. The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) has just delivered another of his distorted tirades. A wide range of community projects is funded under the community employment program. Like many on the far right, he calls political anything with which he does not agree. Many projects have been set up by community groups with particular interests. But those groups are spread right across the political spectrum and there has certainly been no evidence of the prejudice which he alleges has existed. My comments will be brief because most issues have already been thoroughly discussed in this extensive debate on the Community Employment Amendment Bill. The community employment program is part of the Government's national economic strategy. That strategy is aimed at sustaining a steady rate of economic growth and employment growth and reducing the rate of inflation thereby increasing living standards and the justice with which the economy operates. These goals are in sharp contrast to those of the Opposition. When in Government it emphasised inflation first. Although it claimed to want employment growth, unemployment grew to over 10 per cent when it was in office. Its politics were clearly inadequate, for they failed dismally. In contrast, the Hawke Labor Government has aimed simultaneously to reduce unemployment, inflation and inequity, it has made progress in achieving all of those aims. There are over 600,000 more people in employment now than there were when the Government won office in March 1983. The national economic strategy began with a substantial fiscal stimulus, and the expansionary macroeconomic policies got the economy moving again. Continuation of that rapid growth has depended on increased private investment and consumer spending. The strength of that resurgence of the private sector has ensured that Australia has been among the fastest growing economies in the Western world during the last couple of years. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that in 1986 employment in Australia will grow faster than in any other Western country. These expansionary policies have been made possible by the effectiveness of the prices and incomes policy which has comprehensively restrained growth of income, so allowing the rate of inflation to fall, while at the same time economic activity has been increasing. Mr Beale —What rubbish! The rate of inflation in Australia is going up. Mr LANGMORE —The rate of inflation is much lower now than when the Government came to office. The success of the accord has been an historic achievement in Australia, the result of effective, close co-operation among government, business and unions. A supportive element of the national economic strategy has been the community employment program. The CEP has been an emergency response to a crisis situation. The 10 per cent level of unemployment which faced the Government when it won office demanded swift action. Unemployment, more than anything else, of course, causes poverty, destroys self-respect and prevents people from making a contribution to the community in which they live; it causes social disruption of many kinds. The CEP is the largest and most ambitious short term job creation initiatives ever undertaken by an Australian government. The principal goal of the program is to create additional employment opportunities which would provide work experience for unemployed people. By providing employment opportunities for the long term unemployed, there has been some redistribution of the burden of unemployment. The second goal of the program has been to provide financial support for projects of real community benefit. So the program has aimed to increase the employability of those people who have experienced long periods of unemployment and therefore have found it hard to get back into the employed work force. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —I present the seventh report from the Publications Committee, sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. I understand that copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members throughout the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I now propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.15) —The honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest), in an adjournment address on Monday of this week, drew attention to the need for relief to the beleaguered sugar industry of Australia. I rise to support the honourable member and to add that an already serious problem has now been exacerbated by the effects of Cyclone Winifred which struck the northern coast of Queensland on 1 February. Cyclone Winifred created massive damage to the cane crop, to the sugar industry and the banana industry in the super wet belt, as well as to the grain crop of the tablelands, as well as social and physical damage right throughout the area. The cyclone reported a low of 954 millibars, created damage to those industry crops and property and public work damage of $100m. In the aftermath of the cyclone I had extensive discussions with local government elected representatives, sugar mills staff, cane growers, banana growers, the State Emergency Service personnel and electricity authorities. There is immediate concern for the unemployment of some 600 people affected by the destruction of the banana crop alone. Also, particularly in the township of Babinda, should further unemployment become inevitable because of the new difficulties presented to the mills, public works programs and other Commonwealth and State work related programs such as the community employment program that can be adapted to the work needs of these people will be required. Needless to say, it will require an active presence of Commonwealth agencies, the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Department of Social Security at the trouble centres in order to assist not only in the job and entitlement areas but also with the consequent social and community problems that will arise. Sugar farmers, banana farmers and those other rural industries affected on the coast and on the tablelands will not be able to service their rate assessments to councils that will become payable. In this circumstance, councils will require grants to offset this loss of rates and special consideration should be given to some form of direct grant or perhaps to special allocations through the State Grants Commission. It is essential that councils in the affected areas are allowed to continue to supply services and to be instrumental in mopping up potentially unemployed people. The banana growers have suffered a loss of nine months in supply until crops regenerate. The estimated loss in this 60 per cent of Australia's banana industry is about $30m. There can be no suggestion by the Government to relax quarantine and disease control regulations to allow the import of bananas for this period of short supply. Banana growers require financial assistance through natural disaster funds in order to re-establish farms. While all the land cannot be brought back immediately, I was given to understand that costs of re-establishment would be approximately $2,400 per acre, 50 per cent of which would be incurred in labour. The growers' request was that the current ceiling on disaster relief loans be lifted beyond the current $60,000 to a reasonable figure to allow re-establishment. Cane farmers and millers in the cyclone area are already starved for cash and required special consideration. The price support scheme should be immediately settled without the delay which fighting over deregulation will involve. An advance to growers and millers to provide the value of the price support should be immediately committed. I urge the Government to set aside inter-government rivalries, accept the degree of deregulation offered by the growers and fund the support price. Other deregulation can be examined in the longer term but should not delay the cash support now desperately needed. The Commonwealth should scotch the rumour that any cyclone relief to cane farmers will be taken from the offered $150m package. The two are separate and distinct. The Queensland Government should address itself to the problems of mill finance and the precedent of this separation of financial assistance between the governments follows from the relief package of 1967-68. The value of damage to the cane crop will not be fully assessed until the end of the current crushing season. Farmers are requesting grants under national disaster relief measures similar to those made available to other residents but denied the farmers themselves at the moment. Low interest loans preferably, with a moratorium on the first two years interest, will be required if the farmers are to survive. Again the natural disaster funding guidelines have to be changed in order to make these funds available to all farmers and not only to those whom banks reject. It will be necessary if disaster funds are to be administered through the Agricultural Bank that sufficient and experienced staff should be available to ensure speedy resolution of those applicants. I commend the SES units and, particularly, electricity linesmen, who gave great help during and after the cyclone. It should be placed on record that the concern that many people had was alleviated by the work of these units. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(10.21) —I would like to express, in the short time available, my very serious concerns over the current joustings by Bell Resources Pty Ltd and others for control of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. I am aware of the recent assurances given by Mr Holmes a Court regarding his commitment to the steel industry. However, I am also aware of his modus operandi regarding other take-overs. I am not persuaded that if he is successful he will not either strip BHP assets and/or fragment its operations. BHP shareholders are being asked to sell half of their shares to Bell Resources at what superficially may seem an attractive price. I believe that the price seriously undervalues BHP. However, the implication in the offer is that the half of the shares that it does not sell will earn more under Mr Holmes a Court than otherwise. I firmly believe this proposition to be wrong. The electorate of Newcastle, the birthplace of BHP steel, is an excellent barometer of the health and prosperity of the company. The future prosperity of BHP depends very much on the future of the steel industry which, in turn, is very much affected by the effectiveness of the steel plan. The steel plan is basically a contract between the government, the company and the employees. This contract necessitates a high level of mutual trust between these three parties. That the plan is currently working so well is proof of the existence of this trust. The continuing efforts by Mr Holmes a Court to take control of BHP linked with the perception of his likely intentions if he is successful are corroding and undermining this trust. The current deliberate destabilisation of BHP can and will have far reaching implications for the future of the steel industry unless they are stopped. I do not believe that there will be continuing confidence in the future of the BHP steel division by the BHP employees, both staff and shop floor, unless Mr Holmes a Court is categorically rejected by BHP shareholders. I further believe that BHP will not even retain its current level of performance, let alone improve under Mr Holmes a Court's stewardship. Whilst he and his bankers and advisers manipulate share options and borrowings while they play out their corporate chess strategies the employees of BHP, the ones who need confidence and trust in their management, are becoming increasingly nervous and apprehensive about their futures. This cannot, and will not, lead to higher productivity. Over many years I and others have been critical of BHP management. However with the introduction of the steel plan BHP has lifted its game. The effort that has been put into the steel industry by the Board and management in the past 30 months is very commendable. The current instability being induced by Mr Homes a Court is totally counterproductive. There is another aspect of this and other take-over bids that disturbs me. The take-over is being mounted essentially with borrowed funds. The interest on such funds is tax deductible. We have seen and are seeing the taxpayers eventually footing a large share of the cost of such take-overs. Whatever the end result of the take-over bid there is no doubt that the Australian community will pay a very high price, either in reduced taxation contribution, increased prices or both. Take-overs such as this create nothing new. Not one new job will be produced. In fact, a large number may well be lost. No new products will be generated and no new export markets will be created. On the contrary, the funds being mobilised would almost certainly appear to be from overseas. In conclusion, I urge the shareholders of BHP to think very carefully about the concerns I have expressed. They should not assume that they will be able to retain the current earnings they should on their remaining shareholdings. They should not assume that the employees of BHP are not unaffected by what is taking place. They should take into account, particularly, projected imputations on taxation scales in the forthcoming tax changes. The current management of BHP has shown that it is capable of bringing the company into the modern manufacturing world. It deserves the confidence of its shareholders. I call on all shareholders to reject the bid and let the management and the employees of BHP get on with the job of its reconstruction and rejuvenation. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(10.25) —In September 1983, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) heralded the introduction of Medicare by distinguishing it from its predecessor, Medibank. The Health Minister gloated: Medicare will be substantially self-funding through the 1 per cent levy and a rearrangement of existing health insurance subsidies, whereas Medibank placed a considerable strain on Consolidated Revenue. Mr MacKellar —What a joke! Mr HODGES —As the honourable member for Warringah says, what a joke. I base my argument on two premises contained in the Minister's remarkable statement: Firstly, that the cost of Medicare would largely be covered by the nature of Medicare itself-through the 1 per cent levy; and secondly, that Medicare would be different from Medibank in that it would not strain Consolidated Revenue as Medibank had done. It is time the Australian people were told that the simple system Medicare was intended to be has not eventuated. Medicare is no longer self-funding. It is time the Australian people were told that Medicare is no different from its ancestor, Medibank. Medicare, as Medibank was once condemned for, is placing a considerable strain on Consolidated Revenue. I am reminded of a very clever cartoon in a recent edition of the Australian. It depicted Prime Minister Hawke being chauffered by Treasurer Keating in a very small car along a dangerous mountain road. The road was shaped like a J-a J-curve, if you like. What the occupants of the car did not see was that they were heading for a collision with an enormous truck coming from the opposite direction. The truck was driven by members of the Transport Workers Union. May I warn Health Minister Blewett that there is more than one truck on that road. The other is the Medicare truck. It is another loaded semi-trailer hurtling down a remote mountain road, out of control. I can see the driver, and it is the Health Minister. I would not have his job, the unenviable task behind the wheel, for quids. Mr McVeigh —I woudn't ride with him. Mr HODGES —The uncontrollable Medicare truck is causing an accident of colossal proportions. The honourable member for Groom says he would not ride with him. I agree with him on that score. However, this accident is happening very quietly. The media, the cameras, will arrive at the scene very soon. The accident is happening very quietly because the Australian public cannot see it or hear it. Without the help of the media, they cannot directly feel its impact. Why not? Because only a small percentage of the cost of Medicare is felt in the famous hip-pocket nerve of the Australian. But let me assure the House that with the reckless Minister for Health at the wheel, it is only a matter of time before the crash will awaken the nation. I call on the Health Minister to explain his definition of `substantial self-funding'. As a learned gentleman, he will surely have no problem telling the people of Australia that it is something in the order of 80 to 100 per cent-that is, he would if he had not opted for the coward's way out. The Minister has gagged himself by stating, on Monday, 17 February: It has not been my habit in the past and it will not be in the future, nor is it now, to make comments on issues which may be before Budget Cabinets. Surely substantial self-funding must mean nothing lower than 80 per cent. It is more likely to be somewhere around 90 per cent or even up to 100 per cent. The Health Minister's words, however much he gags on them, have come back to haunt him. They will continue to haunt him as long as this so-called free health scheme continues. Medicare is a financial millstone around the thick neck of the Hawke Government. Medicare has turned into the biggest bludger this country has ever known. The very simple proof that the Health Minister's prophecy has failed is this: The Government estimates that in 1985-86 the Medicare levy will raise $1.28 billion dollars. It estimates that in 1985-86 the cost of Medicare will be $4.33 billion dollars. Somewhere along the line the Government has lost $3.05 billion dollars. That is the difference between the amount the one per cent levy will raise and the amount Medicare is estimated, by the Hawke Government, to cost. Put another way, the Medicare levy accounts for only about 30 per cent of the cost of public medical and hospital services in this country. The Minister heralded the introduction of Medicare as a simple, fair, and affordable health insurance system that would provide basic health cover to all Australians. Medicare is not fair, and I claim it is not affordable. The Australian public has been hoodwinked into believing, by the mighty Hawke media machine, that Medicare is working. If the Health Minister were truthful and held to his original commitment that Medicare would be substantially self-funded, the much touted one per cent levy should be raised to 3.4 per cent. The Hawke Government stands condemned for what it has not revealed to the Australian public; the Hawke Government is guilty of hiding the facts; and the Hawke Government should honour its original undertaking to substantially fund Medicare from the levy. The Hawke Government has broken yet another promise. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(10.30) —The Canberra Times today carried the story of the six-year-old boy, Adam Collins who, while having a serious physical condition, is unable to obtain an operation as an elective admission until 11 April. The article quotes criticisms of the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority and the Government from the child's grandmother, but a few facts of the case have been overlooked and I would like to put those before the House tonight. The child is a Medicare patient of a Dr David McNicol, a Canberra orthopaedic surgeon, who has recently issued a number of statements as spokesman for the Australian Association of Surgeons, which has been critical of Medicare in general and waiting times for elective surgery in particular. It is a normal practice for surgeons seeking to admit patients to Authority hospitals to classify the patient as urgent, semi-urgent or elective. It is the doctor who makes that decision, and he makes it, presumably, on medical grounds. The hospital then allocates the patient an operating date according to the vacancies available on the doctor's operating times. In Dr McNicol's case the hospital normally agrees to his requests to allocate particular patients to specific operating dates. On 28 November last year Dr McNicol nominated this young boy, six-year-old Adam Collins, as an elective admission and asked that the patient be allocated operating time on 28 February, along with one other child and one adult. So Dr McNicol obviously did not see this as an urgent case, in that on 28 November he registered the date for the operation as 28 February. Then the hospital advised Dr McNicol that on the recommendation of what is called the workload monitoring committee, elective admissions for 28 February had to be reduced. It may be of interest to the House to know that a surgeon is represented on this committee. In Dr McNicol's case he was told that he had to cut down his operations by one paediatric patient. Dr McNicol then chose to remove Adam Collins from his operating list on 28 February. Presumably he did that on medical grounds. Subsequently the hospital has made an operating time for Adam on 7 March. Although, as I understand from the newspaper, it did not seem possible yesterday to treat the patient until 11 April, I have had a conversation with Dr McNicol tonight, who told me that he is prepared to operate on Adam at any time. Therefore, I hope that he will be able to take up the hospital's offer of the date of 7 March. Mrs Collins is one of the bravest and most determined battlers I have ever met. I have known this family for many years in my capacity as the member for Canberra. It is a great pity that the sick boy has been used as a political football and that the newspaper did not present all the facts of the case but rather concentrated on its emotionalism. I am only pleased that I can inform the House that there is a new date, much sooner than the date of 11 April, available to the young boy. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(10.34) —In recent times the taxation debate has been to the forefront. People and governments have grappled with it. It is a matter still open to debate and question. I am disappointed, however, that overwhelming emphasis has been given to the method of tax collection without corresponding emphasis being given in the debate, and subject to scrutiny, to the purposes for which citizens' taxes are used. The recent case of a Victorian man, Mr Murray Vilkelis-Curac, has brought into very clear focus indeed that it is appropriate for this nation to give a lead by seriously debating alternative provisions for citizens who cannot in conscience give tax money to support programs which they sincerely believe are morally offensive. Mr Vilkelis-Curac believes that it is morally offensive and unacceptable to him to have any portion of his taxation used for the funding of abortions and he has refused to pay tax. Many court cases have been held on his position. He still holds firmly to his conscientious beliefs. It is noted that a number of American citizens have refused to pay their taxes, or even a percentage of their taxes, in protest at how these taxes are being used for what they regard as immoral purposes. Several attempts have been made by concerned Americans to have their members and senators introduce into the United States of America legislation procedures which would permit conscientious tax refusal. No such legislation has been passed but at least they are debating and considering the point. It has been proposed in the United States that a peace fund be set up to which conscientious tax refusers could contribute in the knowledge that their money would be used for specific peaceful purposes. Many of my constituents have exactly the same conscientious objection to their taxes being used for the funding of abortion procedures. I believe that as time moves on they will follow Mr Vilkelis-Curac's example and be witnesses of their stand as conscientious objectors by refusing to pay their taxes or a proportion of their taxes. This raises a very important point as to civil disobedience on a matter of conscience and the right of a government to collect taxes by such means as declaring people bankrupt or taking money out of their bank accounts. On behalf of these people I ask the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to examine the position to ascertain whether the taxation laws are able to be altered to make allowances for people who are sincerely and genuinely conscientious objectors. In this way we are being truly honest in an approach to taxation reform in our country. Taxation is not only about collecting money it also is and must be about its distribution and it seems to me to be a reasonable proposition to advance, to analyse and, I believe, to support. As a matter of distributive justice the person who provides the funding has at least a prior right to indicate his personal conscientious objection as to how his money shall or shall not be spent. We live in an era where civil liberties are always under debate. I suggest that it is about time equal emphasis was given to personal conscientious liberties. Let debate proceed about protection for taxpayers who, as a matter of conscience, do not want their taxes spent on what they believe are immoral purposes such as abortions. On behalf of my constituents and many people all over Australia I look forward to a reply from the Attorney-General. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.39) —I would like to take this early opportunity this year to congratulate President Kyprianou of Cyprus for the very significant improvement which occurred in the degree of support which he is able to enjoy within the House of Representatives in Cyprus. The elections in December last year, which enlarged the House of Representatives from 35 members to 56 members, resulted in the Rally Party having 19 seats with 34 per cent of the vote, Mr Kyprianou's Democratic Party winning 16 seats with 28 per cent of the vote, Communist Party-the Akel-having 15 seats with 27 per cent of the vote and the Socialist Edek Party winning six seats and 11 per cent of the vote. I feel that, to a very large extent, those results vindicate the position which President Kyprianou has adopted and the support which he quite clearly enjoys, particularly from the Greek Cypriot people today, in relation to the very unfortunate partition of that island which occurred following the invasion by Turkey 12 years ago. I had the opportunity in 1984, during the year of the tenth anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, not only to visit Cyprus but also to have the privilege of meeting and speaking with President Kyprianou. It is extremely unfortunate that that island, which has been part of the core of European civilisation for thousands of years, should have for the first time been partitioned in the way it has. I realise the efforts that have been made by President Kyprianou, the leader of the Greek Cypriots in the south, and by Mr Denktash, the leader of the Turkish Cypriots in the north. I believe that, with the continued goodwill on the part of both of those gentlemen which I consider can be further developed, the partition of Cyprus will be overcome and Cyprus as one nation, one people and one island will be restored. When the discussions between President Kyprianou and Mr Denktash collapsed early last year, President Kyprianou then addressed the Cypriot people. I would like to quote from the address he gave to the media in Cyprus early in January 1985. In part, President Kyprianou said: I want to believe that you are all aware that I have dedicated my life to the service of our national cause and therefore to the solution of the Cyprus problem. What I am seeking, however, is a just and viable solution and not a temporary and short-lived one. I am seeking a solution which would ensure the termination of the occupation, the physical and national survival of the Greek Cypriot people and the territorial integrity of an independent Cyprus. And I am seeking not just any compromise, but an honourable compromise which would safeguard in the best possible way the rights and interests of our people and our country. In this quest and in this effort of mine I have been and shall continue to be consistent, firm and unwavering. And I sincerely believe that in this effort I have the support of the majority of the people. He went on: Therefore, I consider it my duty to remain in office- that was at a time when calls were being made for his resignation and for new elections- and to continue from the bastion where I have been placed by the people, to work for the vindication of their struggles and sacrifices. He concluded his address with words which, to me, were very impressive. He said: Our responsibilities to history are enormous. In terms of the great contribution which Cyprus and the Cypriot people have made to the development of civilisation and to that part of the world, I am able enthusiastically to endorse those remarks of the President: `Our responsibilities to history are enormous'. I said that I had the opportunity to visit Cyprus on the tenth anniversary of the invasion of that island by a country with a population of 50 million people. I say that without wishing to denigrate or to prejudice the opportunity that may exist now for significant and successful discussions and negotiations to take place between President Kyprianou and Mr Denktash. I hope that they continue; I hope they are successful. To put this matter in perspective, Cyprus is a small island in the Mediterranean-a word which means middle of the earth-of about one seventh of the size of Tasmania. As I have said, Cyprus is a major significant contributor to the development of Western civilisation. I think we all aspire to the time when Cyprus will be reunited. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.44) —The great debate is on about petrol pricing. In Tasmania the price of petrol at the moment is 60c a litre. I would like to make the point very clearly to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is at the table, that most people on low incomes- Mr Hodges —Pensioners. Mr GOODLUCK —Pensioners and other people cannot afford expensive cars. The streets in Tasmania are not lined with gold like they are in Canberra. There is not a big bus service where people are picked up at every door and taken where they want to go. Most people in Tasmania and in the housing development areas live away from the city of Hobart. When we start to analyse it 60 cents a litre is nearly $3 a gallon. These people mostly have thirsty motor vehicles which do about 15 miles to the gallon, because they cannot afford the expensive, new Japanese cars that do about 35 miles to the gallon. So, by driving to work and coming home again is costing them about $3 a day. If we multiply that by five, we know what that adds to. Mr Cobb —The working class. Mr GOODLUCK —It is not just the working class; it is the ordinary people of Australia. It is not just the farmers who are being penalised by the high cost of fuel, it is everybody in Australia. I ask the Minister for Social Security to take heed. Low income people love their motor vehicles because it is a means of getting out of the house; it is a means of entertainment. They sometimes love their cars more than their wife and their house; I know, because I have been in the motor vehicle industry all my life. If you are married to some women, I could understand that too. But the fact is that these people love their motor vehicles and consequently it is having an impact on the economy. It is costing them far too much. We have a real problem, because we are starting to talk about giving to this and giving to that, but in fact we are taking away from the price of petrol. I will go off petrol for a while as I have been making a lot of speeches about petrol. I am pleased to see that my side has jumped on the bandwagon because it is a dash good issue and it affects everybody in Australia. Mr Cobb —The bowser bandit. Mr Hodges —Highway robbery. The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members will cease interjecting and encouraging other members to interject. Everyone will cease interjecting. Mr GOODLUCK —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your protection. In Tasmania on 8 February we had a unique election. There was a swing to the Liberal Party of Australia of about 5 per cent. That was a very good weekend for the people of Hobart. We had three lots of entertainment: Torvill and Dean, Dire Straits and the Sole Bros Circus. Of course, the best entertainer in Tasmania opened the circus-me. When I opened it, I started to realise-and this will interest you, Mr Deputy Speaker-that the Government gives to the opera and it props up everything but the poor little family circus; a concern that entertains children and the elderly, gets nothing. Circus people work like demons. They said to me: `Bruce, we appreciate what you have done for us'. I worked for freight equalisation for them, I opened the circus and put on a good show for them-no crowing, but I did. Mr Hodges —Did you charge them? Mr GOODLUCK —I did not charge. They said to me: `Bruce, what would you like us to do for you'? I said: `Give me 200 tickets so I can give them to the most worthy charities in Hobart'. I do not think Torvill and Dean did; I do not think Dire Straits did. The point I am making must be remembered: Jean Perry from that circus has had a terrible year. She has lost her husband, lost those elephants and the best clown; but the circus fights on. It does not ask governments to prop it up. It is not like the opera and the ballet and others that get the money because they are trendy. The poor old circus does not put its hand out, but it gives a lot of entertainment to the people of Australia. I applaud what it does for family entertainment. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.49) —I am getting very tired of the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) making extreme speeches that undermine the very fabric of our Anglo-Celtic culture. I would not be surprised if that man comes into this chamber one day and denounces the Queen or, heaven forbid, tries to change our flag. Just to show that I am impartial I would like to correct an error in the very good speech by the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). He made a geographical error that needs to be corrected. He said that Cyprus was the centre of the world. It is well known to all educated people that the centre is Kalgoorlie. Mr Hodges —How would you know? You are never there. Mr CAMPBELL —Kalgoorlie comprises a third of Australia, I would remind the honourable member. I am dealing with the myths perpetrated by the Opposition about farm problems. Opposition members talk in this House about the quarantining of off-farm income. I represent a lot of farmers and very few farmers ever complain to me about the off-farm income quarantining provisions. When it is explained to those who do complain, they appreciate that the position is very equitable. For every partner they can earn $20,000 without incurring any penalty, or a five-year aggregate of the income of the farm. Genuine farmers are not concerned about off-farm income, and it does no service to the farming community that the Opposition and some of the farm organisations try to tout this as a cause of falling land values. That argument is absolute nonsense. Other myths are perpetrated by Opposition members. They talk about the problems of capital gains tax. The capital gains tax introduced by this Government is the most equitable form of capital gains tax and most genuine farmers recognise this. I would like to talk about the real problems of the farm sector. The immediate problem of course is interest rates. I have put forward a proposal which would have some bearing on this, but the long-term problems are the problems of trade. We must address this issue by examining three main areas: The first and most important is markets. We have to get out into the community and sell our products in a much better way than is being done at present. I have a friend who is well-versed in the dairy industry and he tells me that last year he had to refuse sales to South East Asia, to Guam and to Japan because he could not get supplies. I have recently returned from China. When I was in the city of Lanchow, one of the fabled cities of the old silk road, I visited the centre of China's oil and gas industry. There I saw row upon row of pump jacks for pumping oil, lined up all consigned to the United States. In Australia when we buy pump jacks, we buy them from the United States at four times the price of the Chinese ones. We must realise that for every dollar one buys out of China, one can sell a dollar into China. That is not the case with the United States, and we must look at these aspects. Another area we must look at is development of the United Kingdom market. Europe's common agricultural policy is an anathema, a rort, and should never have been allowed. The Liberal Party, who were in power at the time in this country, did nothing about it, but it can be attacked. The policy will not be brought down by a frontal attack because Europe can sustain itself on about two per cent of gross domestic product. The weak link is the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom the left-wing of the Labour Party opposes the whole of the common market, particularly the common agricultural policy. At the same time, the right wing of the Conservative Party holds exactly the same views. The middle ground of the Labour Party there is vacillating and could be convinced. We need to get into the United Kingdom where people remember where they can get good quality cheap Australian lamb and beef. We need to get into the United Kingdom and market. That is the weak link in the Common Market. I am about to run out of time, so I shall quickly address myself to the other two problems in the rural sector. I refer to marketing and marketing. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.53) —Today I addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) a letter carrying 1,100 signatures from the people of Shepparton, which was handed to me last weekend. Those signatures were collected in two hours on Thursday afternoon from the people of Shepparton demanding the opportunity to have fuel prices reduced as per the present parity pricing arrangements. Mr Slipper —Whose electorate is that in? Mr TUCKEY —It is in the electorate of the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). I visited that area and spoke to people in the trucking industry, on which I would also like to comment. The spontaneousness of that collection of signatures is clear evidence of what the people of Australia demand. Those 1,100 signatures were collected in just two hours by the ladies of the Goulburn Valley Wives Trucking Support Group. I want to comment on the lady who is the group publicity officer, Mrs Marlene Kuhn. She drew my attention to this issue and asked me to take the letter to the Prime Minister, which I was very pleased to do. These ladies are, I imagine, unique in Australia. The trucking industry, as I well know, puts huge work loads on the drivers and they are seldom in a position to get together because they are seldom in any one place at any one time. Consequently they suffer considerably from the problems of not being able to be their own lobby group. These ladies have got together to be the lobby group on behalf of their husbands. I do not know of any other area where this has occurred, but I am now recommending it to other trucking areas. These women are to be congratulated because they did a magnificent job. They know that in this day and age 30 per cent of truckies' operating costs are in fuel and they know that the simplest and easiest way to improve their present parlous condition and very low profits-much better than all the legislation this Government is bringing into the Parliament in the guise of protection for them-is to have a cut in fuel prices. When these women took up the petition the rebate should have been 7c a litre. As we heard in the Parliament today, with the fall of oil prices to $US15 a barrel, that figure should be 11c a litre. As Mrs Kuhn pointed out to me, the people of Shepparton were literally running down the street to sign this letter. Shepparton is not an extremely large town and 1,100 signatures in two hours is quite amazing. Mr Cleeland —There are 48,000 people there. Mr TUCKEY —Irrespective of that, 1,100 signatures in two hours as a result of the efforts of four or five ladies is quite remarkable. They are to be congratulated on it and I hope that when the Prime Minister receives that petition from me, as I guess he will tomorrow, he will take due notice of this very genuine attempt that these ladies have made to pass that problem on. I went to Shepparton to tell the people about the Interstate Road Transport Act so that they could pass that sort of information on to their husbands. Let me tell the House that they are deeply concerned about some of its implications. However, they are not as concerned as members of the Transport Workers Union of Australia will be when they discover that that legislation proposes to put a black box in their trucks which will oblige them to give information that may convict them. It is interesting that the legislation provides for some exclusions from the use of that information that will be in that electronic monitoring equipment, but these are only really exclusions based on certain criminal trials where the penalty is less than three years imprisonment. A member of a shire council in my electorate told me when we were discussing this matter that he had an experience in Germany when he was on a tourist bus equipped with one of these black boxes. The bus was pulled in to a checkpoint and the police were able to extract the information on the spot. They gave him a $400 infringement notice on the spot for speeding. Although he had never been caught, he was obliged to convict himself. Some honourable members-I heard some such speeches today-might support that approach. Nevertheless, I wonder whether members of the Transport Workers Union, as the licensed drivers of these trucks, will accept the imposition which is clearly involved. I congratulate the ladies of the Goulburn Valley Wives Trucking Support Group for their efforts on behalf of their husbands and their industry, which is a family industry. I hope that the Prime Minister realises how concerned Australians are to see that our fuel price be the world price-no more, no less. That means a cut of 11c a litre at present. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(10.58) —I rise tonight to express some concern about the approach being adopted by the Opposition in tackling the depression occurring in many parts of rural Australia today. My concern is that we have no Opposition. My concern is that the farmers of Australia are not being represented in the Parliament by the Opposition, which cannot put up any decent alternative policy or be constructive in its approach to the restructuring of the rural industries of Australia. I am not alone in that view. Many people in Australia share my viewpoint. Tonight in the Melbourne Herald the Deputy Director of the National Farmers Federation, Mr Rick Farley, is quoted as saying that the Federal Opposition has been ineffective during the current rural crisis. He also said that it is unclear what the Opposition's rural policies are. We know that honourable members opposite are uncertain on rural policies. Presenting a policy is very different from engaging in debate in this place, but even in debate opposite sides should put constructive viewpoints to achieve effective change. We hear many words in this place, but we do not have debate about the real crisis, which makes it very difficult for the people of Australia to find out exactly what the Opposition is really on about. This is particularly so in regard to the terrible situation which is occurring in rural Australia today. I find it tragic. I am a fairly new chum here. I have been a member of this Parliament for 13 months. I thought that, coming to the national Parliament, I would be instructed in various alternatives we could consider. I thought that constructive viewpoints would be put and that we as a Government could learn from the Opposition and perhaps get some benefit from the values it represents. What do I find in 13 months? I find nothing. Not a thing has been contributed by the Opposition which is constructive. Instead, we get banter across the table. The people who listen to the Parliament out in the electorates do not believe that the Parliament can possibly operate in the disgraceful atmosphere which exists. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on 11 March 1986 in accordance with the provisions of standing order 40 as amended for this session. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Steele Hall to move- That this House having regard to the enviable reputation of Qantas among international airlines, and the necessity to maintain that reputation- (1) calls on the Government to revise its general administrative policy in relation to the upgrading of air travel on Qantas, and (2) requests the Government to publish the costs of- (a) upgrading; (b) staff concessional travel, and (c) directors concessional travel. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 20 February 1986: Commonwealth Electoral Act-Australian Electoral Commission-Certificate of the Electoral Commissioner, setting out the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth and the several States and the number of Members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in the several States, dated 18 February 1986. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1986-No. 1-Export Control (Orders Consolidation). Governor-General Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 16. Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of disqualification pursuant to section 19C in respect of Mr Christopher Henderson, dated 26 November 1985. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 17. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1496) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or ADP hardware are in use in the Minister's Department and each authority for which the Minister is responsible. (2) For each major system: (a) What is its principal function, (b) When was it installed, (c) What was the hardware cost, (d) What is its anticipated life and (e) What action is being taken in relation to its replacement. (3) Is any major system shared with any other user; if so, who and for what main purpose. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Foreign Affairs uses IBM mainframe computers in Canberra, at the Australian High Commission in London and at the Australian Embassy in Washington. It uses WANG office automation computers in Canberra and Paris and Honeywell office automation computers in many overseas posts. (2) Canberra, IBM 4381 (No. 1) (a) This system supports the production applications which process classified information. These include the Diplomatic cables system, the cable printing system and a text retrieval system. (b) 1984 (c) Leased for $154,000 p.a. (d) The processor capacity is expected to be exceeded in early 1987. (e) Field upgrades will be made to increase processing power as required. Additional disk storage equipment will be purchased as necessary to provide increased database capacity. IBM 4381 (No. 2) (a) This system supports production applications processing non-classified information. The major application from October 1985 is the Passport Issue and Control System (PICS II). ADAB runs two major programs: Procurement and Student Administration. (b) 1984. (c) Leased for $154,000 p.a. (d) Increasing rates of passport issue and new application systems will cause processing power to be exceeded in 1987. (e) Field upgrades will be made to increase processing power as required. Additional disk storage will also be purchased to provide for increased database capacity. IBM 4341 (a) This consists solely of a processor which provides backup to the major systems described above. When not required in the backup role it is used for program development and testing. (b) 1983. (c) $270,000. (d) In order to fulfil the backup role this processor must have sufficient capacity to continue operation of the major systems, albeit with degraded performance. The processor cannot be upgraded significantly and will need to be replaced by a 4381 or equivalent during 1987. (e) None at present. Word Processing In Central Office, the Department has purchased WANG equipment for its central word processing centres. (a) Word processing. (b) 1984-85. (c) Approximate $400,000 for three systems. (d) 5-10 years. (e) No action-new equipment. WANG VS 80 (a) Pay and Conditions System; some word processing. (b) 1982. (c) Not available-obtained in special upgrade arrangement. Replacement cost approximately $150,000. (d) 5-10 years. (e) No action. London 370/148 (a) This system supports the London node of the Diplomatic Communications Network. (b) 1982. (c) $21,400. (d) Processor capacity will be exceeded in 1986-87. (e) It is anticipated that the system will be replaced with a 4341 acquired by open tender from used equipment brokers in Europe. London 370/148 (a) This system provides back-up capability to the Diplomatic Communications Network. When not in use as a back-up it supports applications processing unclassified data for users in the High Commission and some European posts. These applications include Procurement Control and Social Security payments. (b) 1982. (c) $21,400. (d) The system is presently overloaded and cannot use some of the major software packages available in Canberra because of lack of processor and storage capacity. (e) The processor and some disk equipment will be replaced in 1985-86 by a 4341 acquired by open tender from used equipment brokers in Europe. Washington 370/148 (a) This system supports the Washington node of the Diplomatic Communications Network. (b) 1982. (c) $25,000. (d) Processor capacity will be exceeded in 1987-88. (e) It is anticipated that the system will be replaced with a 4341 acquired by open tender from used equipment brokers in the U.S.A. Washington 370/148 (a) This system provides back-up capability to the Diplomatic Communications Network System. When not in use as a back-up it supports applications processing unclassified data for users in the Embassy. These applications include Procurement Control and financial monitoring. (b) 1982. (c) $25,000. (d) The system cannot use the software facilities available in Canberra because of lack of processor and storage capacity. (e) The processor and some disk equipment will be replaced in 1985-86 by a 4341 acquired by open tender from used equipment brokers in the U.S.A. Note: Acquisition dates and prices above all relate to central processor only: peripheral equipment and network terminals are shared between systems. Office Automation Systems at Posts There are some 50 Honeywell computer systems at some 30 posts servicing the following functions: (a) Word Processing, spreadsheet and other office automation services to all groups at posts. These machines are also used (and to be used) in supporting a number of specific processing applications, including: an accounting and funds control system for each post (called TELLER)-presently under development; visa processing system for Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; trade enquiry system for Department of Trade; (b) Systems have been installed over the past three years. (c) Total hardware cost of approximately $3 million. (d) Anticipated life: 5-10 years. (e) No action taken on replacement-machines are all new. (3) The IBM computers are not shared but provide services to many departments, including the Diplomatic Communications Network and various data processing applications in the London and Washington posts. The Honeywell office automation computers at posts are operated under the `common services' provisions. They are used by representatives of various departments including Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Trade, Defence and the Australian Information Service as well as by the posts' administrations. (Question No. 2185) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 October 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to newspaper reports of tests held in Melbourne which point to a tentative link between fluoride and repetitive strain injury. (2) Will he take action to have the matter investigated; if not, why not; if so, what action will be taken. (3) Has his attention been drawn to tests conducted at the Nippon Dental University in Tokyo and studies at the Department of Chemistry at the University of California which have indicated that fluoride interferes with the basic genetic material DNA and with a number of enzymes in the human body. (4) Has his Department investigated the validity of these experiments; if so, what was the result; if not, why not. (5) What is the incidence of tooth decay in Brisbane per head of population and how does it compare with fluoridated cities in Australia. (6) Is he able to say whether any States, cities, or municipalities in the US have withdrawn fluoride from their water supplies, if so, which ones and why was it withdrawn. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) A specialist Working Party was established by the National Health and Medical Research Council in 1984 to review current knowledge and developments in the use of fluorides in the control of dental caries. With regard to repetition strain injury the Working Party found no scientific basis for the alleged association with fluoridated water. At its meeting on 6-7 November 1985 the National Health and Medical Research Council adopted the following recommendations: `The Council noted that while fluoridation of drinking water is widely practised in Australia and other countries, and has been the subject of extensive investigation, there is a significant number of people in Australia who are still being denied the benefits of this well-proven public health measure. The Council reaffirmed its previous recommendations concerning the fluoridation of water as being a safe and effective measure for the control of dental caries.' (3) Yes. (4) The Commonwealth Department of Health was represented on the Working Party referred to in paragraph 2 above. The Working Party investigated the studies at the Nippon Dental University in Tokyo and the Department of Chemistry at the University of California together with other published material. It was concluded that fluoride intake at levels recommended for fluoridation of water had no adverse effect on cell or enzyme function. In the laboratory studies in Japan and California extremely high levels of fluoride were used so that the results have little or no relevance in the context of fluoridated water. A copy of the NH and MRC report `Fluorides in the control of dental caries' has been placed in the Parliamentary library. (5) The mean DMF indices (decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth) for children aged 7 to 12 years in capital cities in 1984 are: Adelaide 1.3, Brisbane 1.4, Canberra 1.0, Darwin 0.9, Hobart 0.7, Melbourne 1.7, Perth 1.5 and Sydney, 0.9. Comparative data for adults are not available. (6) I am unable to say whether any States, cities or municipalities in the United States of America have discontinued fluoridation of their water supplies. However, in 1983 the water supplies of 123 million people in USA were fluoridated or contained similar levels of fluoride from natural sources. This compared with 105 million people in 1977. (Question No. 2410) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 13 November 1985: Has his attention been drawn to the answers given to Senate Estimates Committee D (Hansard, 1 October 1985, pages 913-914) relating to Government and Departmental advertising campaigns; if so, (a) what agencies and consultancies have been awarded campaigns in circumstances of an urgent or unforeseen nature, or where confidentiality precludes prior notice, (b) for what campaigns, (c) what was the nature of the circumstances in each case and (d) what agencies or consultancies who were approached for expressions of interest were not selected in each campaign. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Connaghan and May Ayer. (b) Blood Donors. (c) and (d) The death of babies in Queensland from the disease AIDS caused Commonwealth and State Health Ministers to meet urgently to decide on a nation-wide course of action, including an information campaign to remedy the alarming drop in blood donors. As a campaign plan was required within a day, for approval by the Ministers, an advertising agency was chosen on the basis of credentials and work already performed for the Government. Three were considered. (a) Chandler Hambleton Mier. (b) Youth Support Program `Priority One'. (c) and (d) The confidential nature and urgency of this task was such that again an agency was selected on the basis of credentials and work already performed for the Government. Three agencies were also considered for this campaign. The initial task was to write and produce the Prime Minister's Address to the Nation, scheduled for Sunday 18 August 1985. (Question No. 2596) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: (1) Has Australia Post written to the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations stating that Australia Post has no direct control over the duration of a strike by any union covering staff employed by the enterprise and that it cannot dictate when such employees should return to work. (b) Does Australia Post have (a) the power and (b) the responsibility to dismiss employees who repeatedly refuse to work in accordance with the provisions of their awards and who thereby prevent Australia Post from fulfilling its responsibilities. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, from the information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: (1) Yes. This information was contained in a letter Mr R. Sly, Australia Post's Divisional Manager for its Canberra Monaro Division, sent on 5 November 1985 in response to a letter he had received from Mr F. E. Peters, Project Officer, Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. (b) (a) Under Division 6 of Part V of the Postal Services Act, the Australian Postal Commission has the power to dismiss an officer who has been found guilty, after an inquiry, of having failed to fulfil his duty as an officer. This failure of duty is defined under seven headings in Section 61 (1) of the Postal Services Act. A decision by the Commission to dismiss an officer cannot take effect until the person charged has been given the opportunity to appeal to a Disciplinary Appeal Board. The procedures in Division 6 are designed to deal with individual miscreants in a fair and judicious manner with protection of the individual's right being the paramount consideration. The procedures do not lend themselves to use in cases of unified mass industrial action. (b) (b) The refusal of an officer to work in accordance with the provisions of his or her award is not one of the seven specific circumstances which are outlined in Section 61 (1) although it could form the basis of a number of the specified circumstances in 61 (1). Australia Post has the statutory responsibility to operate the postal service in such a manner as will best meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people. It can only dismiss employees, however, within the terms set out in Division 6 of the Postal Services Act. (Question No. 2693) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 November 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an advertisement in The Australian of 30 October 1985 in support of the Builders Labourers Federation, in which it was stated that the advertisement was supported by the (a) Abortion Counselling Service, (b) ACOA Rank and File Committee in Defence of Trade Union Rights, (c) ACT Shelter, (d) ACT Squatters Union, (e) ACT Youth Accommodation Group, (f) ACT Youth Forum, (g) Beryl Women's Refuge, (h) Campaign against Repression in the Pacific Area, (i) Canberra and South East Region Environment Centre, (j) Canberra Youth Refuge, (k) Chile Solidarity Committee, (l) Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Turkey, (m) Committee in Solidarity with Central America, (n) Interchange Community Youth Support Scheme, (o) Jobless Action, (p) Jobline, (q) National Landrights Now Committee, (r) Photo Access, (s) Philippine Action Support Group, (t) Rape Crisis Centre, (u) Reachout, (v) Schools Against the Bomb, (w) Southern Africa Support Campaign of Australia, (x) Soweto Mobilisation Committee, (y) Students Against Apartheid, (z) Staff of Public Radio 2XX, (za) Toora Single Women's Shelter, (zb) Women Against Racism, and (zc) Trade Union Rights Committee. (2) Do any of the listed organisations receive financial support or grants from the Minister's Department or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister. (3) If so, has the Minister's Department or statutory authority received or searched the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission register for annual financial accounts and balance sheets of each organisation receiving funds. (4) Is each grant conditional upon (a) the submission of audited annual accounts and balance sheets and (b) a commitment to use the funds for the purpose for which the grant was made. (5) Does each grant permit use of funds contributed for political advertisement; if not, what checks have been made or will be made to ensure that the advertisement was not paid from grant funds. (6) Has each organisation receiving funds evidenced a capacity to raise money either in the past or in the year in question for its own purposes. (7) Have further applications for financial support been received or are likely to be received from each organisation; if so, will a check be made to ensure that the conditions of earlier grants have been honoured. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. A payment of $4,040 was made to the Committee in Solidarity with Central America and the Caribbean (CISCAC) on 28 November 1985. The Committee's Chairperson is Ms Peta Stewart and its aims, as stated in its national constitution, are inter alia to promote an awareness in Australia of the problems of people in Central America and to provide and support humanitarian aid to people of that region. The ADAB/NGO Committee for Development Cooperation had approved on 13 November 1985 a project entitled ``Primary School in Nicaragua''. The grant provided to CISCAC represents a subsidy of approximately one-third the cost of construction of a primary school servicing the Barrio of San Jeronimo, Maysa, Nicaragua. In approving the grant, the ADAB/NGO Committee took into account a financial statement certified by an independent public accountant of CISCAC's financial situation at 30 June 1985 which accompanied its proposal. (3) No, but see answer to (2) above. (4) (a) Yes, (b) Yes. (5) No. Examination of completed project report. (6) Yes. (7) Yes, by the Committee in Solidarity with Central America and the Caribbean. A check will be made to ensure that the conditions of earlier grants have been honoured. (Question No. 2756) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: (1) Is it a fact that the ABC has sent a reporter to cover the rebel cricket tour of South Africa. (2) Is the expenditure of public funds on the tour contrary to Government policy. (3) What is (a) the cost to 25 November 1985 and (b) the total projected cost of the reporter's assignment. (4) What action does the Minister propose to take to ensure that the ABC does not undermine Australia's foreign policy. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has advised me that it sent Geoff Parry, an experienced reporter who is currently State political reporter in Western Australia, to cover the tour as a news story and to provide as much other coverage of the South African situation as was permitted under the current restrictions on foreign correspondents in South Africa. (2) Visits to South Africa by members of the Australian media are not contrary to Government policy vis-a-vis South Africa. This attitude applies also to the ABC as a media organisation. (3) The ABC has advised me concerning costs, that: (a) the amount to November 25, including return airfare, local travel, accommodation etc, was approximately seven thousand dollars ($7,000) (b) the assignment will end when Mr Parry's editors decide that it will no longer be cost-effective to continue it. Costs are estimated at $150 per day additional to the sum mentioned above, with additional technical costs for filming and satellite transmissions. (4) The ABC is kept informed in respect of Australian foreign policy as it might reflect on its activities. I do not consider that, the ABC, by sending a reporter to cover the cricket tour, is undermining Australian foreign policy and, accordingly, no action on my part is necessary in this particular case. (Question No. 2777) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: (1) What special information campaigns has the information Co-ordination Branch co-ordinated since the commencement of the Blood Donors campaign, phase 2. (2) When was each campaign conducted. (3) What advertising agencies were employed to conduct each campaign. (4) What amount was (a) paid to each agency and (b) spent on actual advertising. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (a) and (b) Advertising campaign Date Agency Amount paid to agency Advertising $ $ `A Guide to Taxation Reform' Booklet June 1985 John Clemenger (Vic.) Pty Ltd 2,354 95,195 Youth Support Program `Priority One' advertising launch August 1985 Chandler Hambleton Mier 27,625 373,466 (Question No. 3028) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Is there a comprehensive continuing collection of Australia-wide statistics on Aboriginal health; if so, what are the details. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Currently there is no comprehensive continuing collection of Australia-wide statistics on Aboriginal health. For some years my Department has attempted to coordinate the statistics in a number of areas and these figures are published in the Department's Annual Report. The statistics, collected by some of the individual States and Territories, include the details of live births, stillbirths, deaths, including a breakdown of infant deaths, and notification of new cases of tuberculosis and leprosy. While the tuberculosis and leprosy figures are available for all States and Territories, the coverage for the other statistics is variable. In 1984, the details of live births, stillbirths and infant deaths were only published for Western Australia and the Northern Territory, and of total deaths only for the Northern Territory. Prior to 1983 Queensland also provided figures for 14 Queensland Aboriginal reserve communities on live births, stillbirths and deaths, including infant deaths. For 1981, 1982 and 1983 South Australia provided details of live births, stillbirths and infant deaths, and it is anticipated that it will provide further figures in the future. Some figures have also been provided to my Department by New South Wales and Tasmania, but they have not been included in the Annual Report. To overcome some of the deficiencies in statistics on Aboriginal health, this Government created in 1984 a Task Force to work towards the establishment of a national system of Aboriginal health statistics. This Task Force, consisting of senior officers of the Commonwealth Departments of Health and Aboriginal Affairs and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, held a series of discussions with State and Territory officials in September and October 1984. The basic components of a proposed national system were determined to be statistics of all births to Aboriginal mothers, deaths of Aborigines, perinatal mortality in pregnancies of Aboriginal women, and morbidity in Aborigines. The results of the discussions are included in the report of the Task Force, `Towards a National System of Aboriginal Health Statistics', published by my Department in April 1985. The Task Force reported that all States and Territories, except Queensland, extended their full cooperation, and there was general agreement with its aims. The implementation of the recommendations involved, in some cases, further consideration by State and Territory Governments. Once implemented, the national system will produce official statistics covering the entire Aboriginal population of each State and both Territories, except Queensland, on the following topics: births (through notification/registration systems and/or maternal/perinatal collections); death (through notification/registration systems and/or medical certification of cause of death); perinatal deaths (through medical certification of cause of perinatal death); hospital morbidity (although existing systems in some States have incomplete coverage, and Tasmania does not have a hospital morbidity collection). Implementation of changes to administrative systems will involve, or has already involved, a variety of courses of action in the different States and Territories. Some changes are purely administrative, others require legislation, and all require a great deal of development work. While the original implementation date of 1 July 1985 was found to be impossible, there is sufficient commitment on the part of all the participating Governments to be confident that the national system will be completed as soon as possible. At Commonwealth level, the Australian Institute of Health has assumed responsibility for the continuing coordination and development of this national system of Aboriginal health statistics. Such development will of course involve further negotiations and cooperation with the States and Territories. (Question No. 3047) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) How are the (a) peak, (b) intermediate and (c) off-peak tariff rates for STD telephone calls altered. (2) Are the rates changed automatically or manually. (3) Have there been any cases of the tariffs being incorrectly set through human error or other reasons; if so, what are the details. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's questions, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) The charging is controlled by the Trunk Telephone Exchanges in the telephone network. In the ``Electro-Mechanical'' exchanges the change over of tariff rates is under the control of a very accurate, electrically driven, mechanical clock. In the newer ``Computer Controlled'' exchanges the change over of tariff rates is under the control of the computer. The time of day information is available to the computer from an extremely accurate electronic clock. (2) The rates are changed automatically. (3) In the last twelve months no instances have been brought to attention where there has been an error in STD trunk call charging due to a failure of the charging rate to changeover at the appropriate time. (Question No. 3088) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) How many advertising agencies have been awarded campaigns by the Information Co-ordination Branch (ICB) in circumstances (a) of an urgent or unforeseen nature, (b) where confidentiality precludes prior notice and (c) where it is felt the agency has a particular empathy with the brief in question. (2) What were the (a) campaigns, (b) agencies and (c) exact circumstances in each case. (3) Have any ICB research studies been commissioned under similar circumstances; if so, (a) what studies, (b) who was awarded the study and (c) what were the justifying circumstances involved. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) Two. (2) (a) Youth Support Program `Priority One'. (b) Chandler Hambleton Mier. (c) The campaign was of an urgent and confidential nature. Because of this, the advertising agency was chosen on the basis of credentials and work already performed for the Commonwealth Government. (a) Blood Donors. (b) Connaghan & May Ayer (Melbourne). (c) The death of babies in Queensland from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) caused Commonwealth and State Health Ministers to decide on a nation-wide course of action, including an information campaign, to encourage blood donors. As the campaign was of an urgent nature, the advertising agency was chosen on the basis of credentials and work already performed for the Commonwealth Government. (3) Yes. (a) Attitudes of the Tasmanian community to the Government's proposed programs of assistance following the High Court decision on the Gordon-below-Franklin Dam. (b) ANOP Market Research. (c) The research study was of an urgent and confidential nature. Because of this, the agency was chosen on the basis of credentials and work performed for the Commonwealth Government. (Question No. 3201) Mr Steele Hall asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 17 January 1986: (1) Was he involved in arranging an upgrading of air travel on Qantas for the president of a trade union in South Australia to travel to the U.K.; if so, (a) what was the name of the trade union official, (b) what was the name of the union of which is president, (c) was his wife's travel also upgraded and (d) what was the value of the additional class of travel involved in the upgrading. (2) Did he consult another Minister to achieve the upgrading; if so, (a) who was the Minister and (b) what action did that Minister undertake. (3) Was the trade union president undertaking an assignment for a Minister or the Government. (4) Was any commitment given by the trade union official to him in relation to obtaining the upgrading. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable members question is as follows: (1) I have nothing to add to my response to his questions in the House during the debate on Members Interests on 13 February 1986. (Hansard, p. 446). (2) No. (3) No. (4) No.