Thursday, 15 September 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows . That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Dobie,Mr Hawker,Mr Holding,Mr Hollis,Mr Jacobi,Mr Macphee,Mr Maher,Mr Moore,Mr Peter Morris,Mr O'Neil,Mr Porter,Mr Shipton,Mr Wells and Mr Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Covention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; believing that its implementation would result in:- (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr and Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This petition of certain Citizens of Australia shows: That payments to contract and sub-contract owner-drivers of trucks are likely to be reduced by ten per cent on implementation of the new system of tax deduction at source from payments for work and services; That profit or personal remuneration constitutes a very small part of payments received by owner-drivers, compared with capital and running costs and government charges; and That a deduction of ten per cent of gross payments would not only be much greater than required to protect the revenue, but would also cause hardship to owner-drivers and their families. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will not require tax to be deducted from payments to owner-drivers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond and Mr Rocher. 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 stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom and Mr Holding. The Honourable the Speaker and Members in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: We object to the introduction of withholding tax imposed on our Industry. It will directly and indirectly cause costs to increase. Most subcontractors do not have the capacity to remit 10 per cent of their monthly income. The introduction of this tax will force people to leave the Industry, and will bankrupt companies , particularly those with existing contracts to be taxed on 1st September. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to revoke the above legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion, currently exists in Australia on particular grounds including, interalia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy, sex and of sexual preference; and that discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is currently exercised against particular groups of individuals-in particular against married women. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under Federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and that appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex or marital status. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gear. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a ''first strike'' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that members and the House assembled will close Omega. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government Departments in multi- lingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (H.S.C.) subject in secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Department of Slavic Languages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. 1. The concerns which people around the World have for the increasing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; 2. The global concern that any nuclear exchange will inflict on humanity unimaginable death and suffering; 3. The vulnerability that Australians will face in any nuclear conflict between the major powers; 4. The public concern that Government should explore all avenues to ensure that the nuclear threat is eliminated. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament establish a Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to investigate the creation of a Ministry of Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lusher. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Macphee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the railway crossing situated approximately 5 kilometres east of Port Augusta on highway one (the main highway between Adelaide and all northern and western centres of South Australia and continuing through to Western Australia) has once again been the site of an horrendous accident. This accident has caused two, possibly three fatalities. Previous requests have been made by the city council of Port Augusta for the construction of an overpass, so that this section of the highway no longer presents a danger to the motoring public and those involved in driving trains over this crossing. Permission for construction of this overpass has previously been refused and the situation has now become critical. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and approve construction of an overpass at this fatally dangerous railway crossing to avoid further loss of life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Polish Government has not honoured its agreement to the Helsinki Agreement, particularly with regard to the following issues: the freeing of all political prisoners; respecting of all citizen and human rights; the right to form trade unions; the removal of censorship; permission for Polish citizens to travel abroad, especially for family re- unions. We humbly request the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, through proper diplomatic channels, to raise in the United Nations forum a strong request to the Polish Government that it honour its obligation agreed to at the Helsinki Agreement. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the citizens of the City of Woodville and supported by the citizens of South Australia, being deeply concerned over the threat of closure of the Woodville plant of General Motors-Holdens, respectfully show: 1. That the management of General Motors-Holdens has failed over a period of more than two (2) years to give any assurances that the Woodville Plant would continue in operation. 2. That a recent statement attributed to the GMH Managing Director, states: 'The overall objective of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site'. This statement has not been refuted. 3. That the elimination of the Woodville plant will cause enormous social dislocation, hardship and misery to the citizens of Woodville and South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will condemn this callous disregard for the citizens of Woodville and South Australia, and do all in its power to force General Motors-Holdens to retain its operations at the Woodville plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the north-west coast of Tasmania shows: That the local community wish to commend the value of a Christian broadcasting service in this area and therefore request the Minister for Communications or the appropriate governing agency to grant to Christian FM broadcasters a permanent FM licence to broadcast in the north-west region of Tasmania. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. Petitions received. Mr PORTER(Barker) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) is of the opinion that the effect of the proposed wine tax will be to- (a) reduce the intake of grapes in 1984 by up to 100,000 tonnes; (b) reduce the income of grape growers in 1984 by around $17m; and (c) inevitably lead to the loss of jobs in vineyards, wine production, packaging, transport and marketing; and (2) calls on the Government to implement its election promise not to impose any impost on wine. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew). Mr MAHER(Lowe) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern to the Government of Sri Lanka for not preventing the killing of its Tamil citizens; and (2) calls upon the Australian Government to support moves taken by the Government of the Republic of India to protect the lives and properties of this minority in Sri Lanka. Mr Shipton proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member is introducing argument. He should re-word his notice of motion so that it is in order. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Swan Brewery Company for brewing a beer called Swan Special Light Lager which contains only 0.9 per cent alcohol by volume and 71 calories per can; (2) recognises the social impact that this beer will have on reducing the road toll in particular and the health and social aspects of life generally; (3) calls on all governments not to place an excise or tax on this product; and (4) congratulates the Commonwealth Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms for making this beer available. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Tasmanian Government for its well prepared expansionary budget; (2) notes that the Tasmanian deficit has been kept to $12.7m compared to $34.4m in the last State Labor Government Budget; and (3) notes that the Gray Budget has included a number of capital works programs that were promised by the present Prime Minister but on which he has subsequently back tracked. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) notes the fact that 1983 marks the centenary of local government in Parkes, New South Wales. (2) congratulates the Parkes Centenary Committee for the excellent organisational arrangements made to celebrate an historic period in the district 's development; and (3) notes with pleasure the fact that the Prime Minister has agreed to officiate at the closing ceremonies associated with the year long celebration on 1 October 1983. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the commitments made by the Prime Minister in the Australian Labor Party federal election speech regarding tax deductions, pensioners' cheques, increasing the real value of the pay packet, increases in the spouse rebate, a reduction of 3 cents per litre for petrol and a promise not to break promises; (2) regards the Prime Minister's rejection of these promises as complete cynicism; and (3) calls on the Prime Minister to re-read history to appreciate that it was the children of Israel who could not keep their commitments. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) applauds recent reductions in housing loan interest rates; (2) calls on financial institutions where possible to consider further reductions in housing interest rates; (3) calls on financial institutions to extend their reductions to existing loans where they have not already done so; and (4) urges the Government to extend the charter of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to cover mortgage insurance for borrowers as well as lenders. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear). Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for the introduction of an excise tax on fortified wine, spirit; (2) is of the opinion that small and medium sized independent and family wineries will be hit particularly hard by the Government's measures; and (3) calls on the Government to abolish this impost. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1983 Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1983 Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1983 Edible Oils (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1983 Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will provide legislative authority for the entry into force of new comprehensive double taxation agreements with Ireland, the Republic of Italy, the Republic of Korea and the Kingdom of Norway. A revised comprehensive double taxation agreement with the United States of America is another important element of the Bill which also includes a limited airline profits agreement with the Republic of India. The agreements were all signed between May 1982 and May of this year. Details of the agreements were announced when the agreements were signed, and copies of them were made available to the public at that time. The comprehensive agreements deal with all forms of income flowing between Australia and the other countries concerned. As implied in the title, the airline profits agreement with India is restricted to the taxation of profits derived from international air transport. Australia and India are to exempt from their respective income taxes profits derived from such transport by the other country's international airline. The practical effect of the agreement is that Australia will have the sole right to tax Indian source profits from the international airline operations of Qantas Airways Ltd and India will have the same right with respect to Australian source profits from international operations of Air India. Although this agreement with India is restricted to international airline profits, India is included in the current negotiating program for comprehensive double taxation agreements and negotiations for such an agreement will be commenced at the earliest mutually convenient time. I now turn to the comprehensive agreements contained in this Bill. In general, comprehensive double taxation agreements have two primary objects-the elimination of international double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion. The first of these objects is achieved by the contracting countries agreeing to the allocation of taxing rights between them. There are various ways by which this is done, depending upon the nature of the income involved. For example, some types of income will be taxed only in the country of residence while other income may be taxed only in the country in which it has its source. A third category is comprised of income which may be taxed in both countries, with the country of source generally agreeing to limit its tax, and the country of residence of the taxpayer agreeing to allow a credit against its tax on such income for the tax paid in the other country. The comprehensive agreements contained in this Bill accord in all essential respects with the position that Australian governments have taken over the years in relation to double taxation agreements. The agreements provide for the country of source to limit its tax on dividends, interest and royalties. Generally, the country of source is to limit its tax to 15 per cent of the gross income concerned in the case of dividends and 10 per cent for both interest and royalties flowing to the other country. In the agreement with Korea, the limit is 15 per cent for dividends, interest and royalties. For its part, Australia will reduce the rate of withholding tax on dividends flowing to the other country from the normal 30 per cent rate to the 15 per cent rate specified in the particular agreement. As the rate of withholding tax on interest under Australia's domestic law is 10 per cent, this will not be affected by the limits on source country tax on interest provided for in these agreements. In Australia, royalties paid to non-residents are taxed by the ordinary assessment basis on the net amount, after deduction of expenses and, accordingly , the limits specified by the agreements by reference to gross royalties will not affect the amount of Australian tax on royalties unless the tax which would otherwise be assessed on the net royalties is greater than the limit expressed in the agreements. For their part, each of the other countries will reciprocally apply a 15 per cent rate on dividends flowing to Australia and 10 per cent in the case of interest and royalties, except of course that the Korean rate on interest and royalties will be 15 per cent. Korea may, however, in some cases, in accordance with its industry incentive legislation, wholly or partially exempt from Korean tax certain interest and royalty payments made to Australian residents. If nothing were done to avoid the situation, the tax so forgone by Korea would simply result in a corresponding reduction in the credit to be allowed by Australia against its tax on the relevant interest and royalty payments. In other words, the Australian revenue would pick up the tax forgone by Korea, thus nullifying the incentive. To avoid that result, provision is made in the agreement for Australia, as a 'tax sparing' measure, to allow a credit against its tax for tax forgone by Korea under agreed Korean incentive legislation, as if notional tax equal to 10 per cent of the interest or royalty income had been paid to the republic of Korea. The comprehensive agreements contain measures for the formal relief of double taxation of income that may be taxed in both countries, with the country of residence of the taxpayer affording the necessary relief by the allowance of a credit against its tax for tax paid to the country of source. So far as Australian residents are concerned, income in respect of which a limit is imposed by the agreements on the tax of the country of source-dividends , interest and royalties-will generally be taxed here with credit being allowed for the tax of the country of source. However, because of the general rebate on intercompany distributions, there is effectively no tax on dividends received from foreign sources by Australian resident companies. The Bill does not disturb the position that other income that is taxed in full in the country of source is exempt from Australian tax. So far as the object of preventing fiscal evasion is concerned, provisions are made in each agreement for the exchange of information and for consultation between the tax administrations of the contracting countries. Apart from the provisions I have mentioned, the agreements also contain usual provisions of a kind common to double taxation agreements relating to the taxation of business profits. Professional services, employees, public entertainers, students, pensioners and so on. The comprehensive agreements with Ireland, Italy, Korea and Norway are all important additions to Australia's growing network of such agreements. Apart from achieving the primary objects of avoiding double taxation and assisting in the prevention of fiscal evasion, the agreements are an expression of accord between our governments and reflect the many ties that Australia has with these countries. In that and other respects the revised agreement with the United States of America is particularly significant. It replaces an existing agreement which was signed in 1953 and had become very much out of date. The existing agreement became inadequate in a number of respects over the years, largely as a result of amendments to the taxation laws of Australia and the United States and, also, of the ever increasing complexities of international commercial transactions. The revised agreement with the United States, as mentioned earlier, accords in all essential respects with Australia's double taxation agreement policies. It improves our position in dealing with visiting entertainers. It introduces articles providing for source country tax of no more than 10 per cent of gross payments in respect of interest and royalties. The old agreement had no interest article, and only a very limited royalties provision. The 10 per cent limit contrasts, I note, with the United States domestic rate of 30 per cent that has applied until now. The new agreement does contain an article entitled 'non-discrimination' which is not to be found in any of our other agreements. This article, which will not be given the force of law in Australia by this Bill, expresses each country's best intention that, in enacting taxation measures, it will not treat citizens or residents of the other country, and enterprises or companies owned wholly or partly by them, in a less favourable way than it treats its own citizens or residents, enterprises or companies. An important feature of this non-discrimination article is that it will not affect in any way the operation of existing provisions of the Australian income tax law , or any similar provisions enacted since signature of the agreement on 6 August 1982, or provisions designed to prevent avoidance or evasion of taxes. Beyond that, the non-discrimination article does no more than call for consultation between the governments of both countries when any taxation measure is considered to be contrary to the principles of the article. It will not be able to be called in aid by a taxpayer in an objection against a taxation assessment. The agreements contained in this Bill cannot enter into force until all necessary constitutional processes are completed by both Australia and the other countries. For Australia, this Bill will, when assented to, complete the processes required of us. A memorandum containing more detailed explanations of technical aspects of the Bill and of the agreements will be made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Reference of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.18) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Perth Airport international terminal complex and parallel taxiway. This proposal is for extension of the existing taxiway system and construction of new international terminal facilities for Perth Airport, comprising a new international passenger terminal building; associated engineering services; taxiway works, apron, car parks and access roads; and construction of a taxiway on the western side of the existing 02-20 runway. Both the western parallel taxiway and the international terminal complex will be located on the present airport site in accordance with the airport master plan. The total estimated cost of the works is $53m at July 1983 prices, comprising $3.0m for the western parallel taxiway and $50.0m for the international terminal complex. I table plans of the proposed works. Question resolved in the affirmative. Reference of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.20) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Australian Wheat Board accommodation at Ceres House, 528 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, for Head Office and Victorian Branch. The proposal is for the construction of a further five levels to the existing building and extensive renovations to Ceres House, Melbourne, to enable the accommodation requirements of the head and Victorian branch offices of the Australian Wheat Board to be met on the one site. The refurbished building will provide eight levels of office accommodation, a semi-basement and roof level plant room. The total estimated cost of the proposal is $7.17m at June 1983 prices. I table plans of the proposed work. Question resolved in the affirmative. Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 1, general business, given for Thursday, 15 September 1983, by the Leader of the Opposition, being called on forthwith. Motion Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(10.22) —I move: That this House- (1) notes with grave concern the recent escalation of violence in the Lebanon and in particular abhors the provocative attacks on members of the multi- national peace-keeping force by Syrian-backed militiamen, and (2) urges the phased withdrawal of foreign troops from the Lebanon and the re- establishment of peaceful co-existence amongst the Lebanese people. I will make a couple of introductory remarks. Firstly, I appreciate the fact that the Government indicated that it would call on this motion. Yesterday, when I moved it, I requested that it be taken immediately, but that was unsatisfactory to the Government. I do appreciate the Government calling on the motion today. Secondly, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) will indicate, the Government wishes to amend this motion. The Minister has been kind enough to advise me in advance of the nature of his amendment. Whilst not wanting to cut across his remarks in speaking to that amendment-it having been foreshadowed to me in an informal way-I think I am bound to say that, having read it carefully, I cannot accept it as an amendment to my motion, but the Opposition is not prepared to divide on the issue. I express the view in relation to the amendment that the Foreign Minister will move that it does not refer to the recent escalation of violence in the Lebanon. My motion refers particularly to the dangers inherent in the attack by the Syrian backed militiamen on the multinational peacekeeping force. The Government 's foreshadowed amendment makes no mention of this cowardly attack. It does mention the Palestine Liberation Organisation. It also ought to refer to Syria. In addition, it should be drafted so as to call on the Government of Syria to reach agreement with the Government of Lebanon on the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the Lebanon. Because the amendment does not do those things the Opposition cannot accept it. But I appreciate the co-operation the Government has given on the matter and particularly thank the Foreign Minister for giving me notice. I trust he takes my difference of view on his amendment in the spirit in which it is put; namely, that I cannot accept it for those reasons. I do not take this course in order to make any party political points whatsoever. I am sure all members of the House would join me in expressing their gravest concern about the current situation in the Lebanon. I do not use those words lightly, because the extent of the human tragedy and the implications for international peace and security of the latest bout of violence and genocide are very great indeed. The Opposition is acutely aware of the great pain and sorrow that the fighting in Lebanon is causing, particularly in Australia's Lebanese community. We express our deepest sympathy for those people. There are two fundamental objectives for which the great majority of the Lebanese people are striving. They want to work towards a resolution of their sectarian conflicts. To help them do so, they want the expulsion of all foreign forces from their territory. There can be no solution to Lebanon's internal conflicts until sovereignty is restored to the Lebanese people. The multinational peacekeeping force has played an important role in trying to maintain peace in the Lebanon. Its relative success has contributed to the decision by the Israeli Government to mount a partial withdrawal of its forces. It is particularly disturbing to note that the vacuum left by the Israelis in the Shouf Mountains east of Beirut has been filled by rival Druze and Christian militiamen. The massacres-it is reported that 260 people were killed between 4 September and 7 September-and the subsequent shelling by artillery of Beirut by the Syrian backed Druze militiamen are, to put it mildly, tragic. From the point of view of international stability, the killing by Druze artillery of two American marines and a French colonel is just as tragic. This seemingly deliberate attack on the peacekeeping force has left the Italian, French, British and United States governments with a very grim choice. Either they withdraw, thereby abandoning the laudable objectives of a peacekeeping force which represents one of the few real chances for peace in the Lebanon, or they actively defend their positions and retaliate against what are nothing but cowardly attacks. I believe all members of the House would welcome the decision by the Americans, supported by the British and the French, to show their determination to defend themselves when attacked and to maintain their effectiveness as a peacekeeping force in the Lebanon. Their efforts in supporting those trying to restore Lebanese sovereignty must be encouraged by all countries concerned with peace in the region. Equally, those who are attempting to undermine the peacekeeping force are serving very badly the cause of peace in the Middle East. It is cause for particular concern that the Syrian Government is using the Druze militiamen in order to advance its interests-interests which have nothing to do with the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty and with a stable and secure Middle East. The assistance given by the Syrians, and by countries which in turn are supporting Syrian efforts, is inflaming the sectarian feeling in Lebanon and is contributing to the failure to find a negotiated settlement to restore Lebanese sovereignty. The Syrians have for many years made perfectly clear their position towards the Lebanese. They have never recognised Lebanon as an independent State and they have never recognised the Lebanese Government. Instead, they have steadfastly maintained their objective of incorporating Lebanon into Syria. The partial withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon has been seen by Syria as an opportunity to pursue further what are undoubtedly its longer term objectives. I also draw the attention of the House to reports which suggest that the Syrian backed Druze militiamen are being supported, in some instances directly, by the Palestinians and even the Iranians and the Libyans. If those reports are true- and there is much evidence to support them-those groups must take some responsibility for the attacks on the multinational peacekeeping force and for the incitement of sectarian warfare in Lebanon which has been so serious that the country is threatened with its third civil war in just over 20 years. The sudden and serious escalation of violence in the Lebanon, caused directly by this foreign intervention, is threatening the very delicate security of the whole region. I do not think the House needs to be reminded of the enormous implications for world peace of a major confrontation in the Middle East. We saw some years ago in this nation an endeavour to politicise for their own sake differences over the Middle East. I do not believe that will be the attitude of the parties in the Parliament today, although I will touch on a critical element at the end of my speech. The harsh reality facing both the Government and the Opposition in viewing events in the Middle East is to try to ensure that the divisions within the Australian community are kept within the bounds inherent within those groups , for over it all is the implication for world peace of a major confrontation in the Middle East. It is sufficient to say that continual provocation of sectarian violence by foreign forces and repeated attacks on the multinational peacekeeping force could lead to the ever-growing involvement of outside powers and the possibility of a major confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States. The incitement to violence is, therefore, dangerous, grossly irresponsible and totally inhumane. It is the view of the Opposition that, in spite of our geographic isolation from the Middle East, Australia can play a constructive and responsible diplomatic role in the region, and our contribution to the Sinai peacekeeping force has shown how useful a role Australia can play in that area, in that manner and in that direction. That peacekeeping force has proved to be central to the success of the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt and without the Sinai peacekeeping force the Accords would have long since lapsed. Yet its success has been remarkable and it has furthered peace between Israel and Egypt. It has allowed for a reasonable, responsible and stable withdrawal of Israeli forces from part of the Sinai and it has contributed to a growing confidence and understanding in Egyptian-Israeli relations. The Labor Government has I believe recognised that Australia, by way of the multinational force and observers, is playing a vital role in maintaining peace in an important part of the Middle East. An Australian withdrawal would not only jeopardise the MFO but also could well undermine the Camp David Accords. As I have said, our contribution has without doubt raised our standing in the region. I have said it today and I have said it outside Parliament. We can use that greater strength to make a diplomatic contribution in the Lebanon. The Government must, in the first place, continue to express its strong support for Lebanese sovereignty and for the phased withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanon with, in the short run, the exception of the multinational peacekeeping force. The Government must also provide strong support in international forums for the work of the multinational peacekeeping force. The greater the support that peacekeeping force receives from the international community, the greater the opportunity it has of contributing to an effective solution of the crisis in Lebanon. It is extremely important when making statements on this extremely delicate issue which touches at the hearts of so many people within the Australian community and which has such grave strategic ramifications that the Government moves in considered and measured ways. One point of criticism which I would make and which I must refer to follows now, for I note that at a mass last Sunday to commemorate the assassination of President Elect Gemayel the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) said that Australia would provide 'physical, moral and all support to the cause of justice in Lebanon'. Later in the same speech he said: Nothing that is needed will be left undone. I will give you that promise. I am certain that the House will agree that the words of the Minister were unquestionably well meaning and were directed to a community in Australia which feels deeply and grievously about this issue. But there is more than an element of extravagant use of language in the words chosen by the Deputy Prime Minister. In such circumstances this can certainly create both embarrassment and discomfort for a government. Of course, the Minister cannot, I assume, literally mean to say that Australia will provide 'anything' that is needed to help the Lebanon. But it is this sort of loose talk that creates rising and indeed false expectations among communities. It can let them down tragically and can be in its consequence totally misleading. It illustrates the vital need for Ministers- particularly the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-to speak with very great care and precision on issues which relate to national or global security. It is particularly true, of course, when a Minister is speaking on a subject relevant to a colleague's portfolio. I could develop that point a great deal further. I do not wish to. I think it is important that, albeit that the Opposition cannot accept the amendment foreshadowed by the Government, the House express its concern. In referring to the foreshadowed amendment I have indicated my reservations about, indeed my disagreement with, the way in which it is worded. But the critically important issue is that the House not only has a view but also gives the Foreign Minister a greater degree of purchase and leverage in diplomatic negotiation with an expression of viewpoint from this Parliament. It would be rare for us to agree at all times on matters that come before the House. I still have deep disappointment, as do members on this side of the House, that the Government was not prepared last week to accept the Opposition's amendment condemning the Soviet Union for its barbaric act in shooting down a Korean airliner. I noted with more than passing interest that foreign Ministers of the European Community were outraged when, at a meeting of European Foreign Ministers, the Greek Foreign Minister refused to permit a resolution which contained that condemnation. Whilst the Opposition did not express its outrage and allowed that motion to go through, I reiterate that on an issue such as this I still believe that we should have passed a resolution on that matter condemning the Soviet Union. That having been said, there is an extraordinary element of agreement in the main. The Foreign Minister's answer yesterday was exemplary in what he said about compensation. I commend the motion to the House. The recent escalation of violence in the Lebanon is a very serious threat to what stability is left in the Middle East. That is a cause of great sorrow and pain amongst the Australian Lebanese community. It is a cause of great concern to the Western world. Without overstating the case, it is a very real potential threat to global security. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Cadman —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak later in the debate . Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(10.39) —Mr Speaker and colleagues , I applaud the expressions of concern which came from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) on behalf of his side of the House. I endorse the sentiments which he has genuinely and movingly presented to the House. I share the commitment he has also outlined to the rights of a sovereign, intact and peaceful Lebanon, respected by the rest of the world, particularly respected by its own region, and with increasing success containing and overcoming the internal fissionable forces which are creating so many difficulties in that country. I also compliment him on resisting the temptation to politicise this matter-once or twice I thought only just, but he did resist the temptation. Before I move on to make some directly relevant comments, I wish to respond to one set of observations made by the Leader of the Opposition. They concerned my mate from New South Wales, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). I think in fairness we should acknowledge that the Deputy Prime Minister was conveying on the occasion referred to a generosity of spirit and a largeness of commitment to grieved people in terms which they would fully understand. These sorts of statements are always qualified by the implied responsibility of what can be reasonably done. Furthermore, bearing in mind what has been reasonably done in the past, I believe that the display of that generousness of that spirit was amply justified on the record of the Fraser Government last year, when it promptly provided $10m of humanitarian aid to Lebanon, which was badly torn and battered by warfare in circumstances which depressed the whole of the world. I believe that is the sort of generosity of spirit that the Deputy Prime Minister was seeking to describe. I believe that is the context in which it would have been understood by the Lebanese congregation who heard him. I do not believe there will be any genuine quibble on either side of the House in respect of those views. The dominant concern for us is the condition of Lebanon today-the way the country is being torn apart, the way outside forces are manipulating circumstances there, either as part of their great power game or their regional aspirations. In the course of this, confessional differences are being inflamed in a most lethal manner. These are the things that worry us. We have a large Lebanese population in this country-nearly a quarter of a million, I believe-and we understand the grief and in too many cases the bereavement which is being experienced by those people. All in all, this Parliament shares a genuine commitment in respect of the condition of Lebanon today, a passionate wish that something should be done to resolve these problems, and a determination to contribute constructively wherever we can. In those circumstances, I move the following amendment to the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition: That all the words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'this House- (1) notes with grave concern the violence and disorder in Lebanon and deplores the continuing presence of those foreign military forces, including the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, who are provoking and exacerbating the bloodshed and destruction, and (2) considers that an essential step towards the establishment of peaceful co- existence amongst all Lebanese people lies in the cessation of the flow of arms from other countries and the withdrawal of all troops except those necessary to foster the conditions for the development of public order and who are in Lebanon at the genuine invitation of the government'. I do not intend to dwell long on differences in presentation and style, and they are the only differences between the views put by the Opposition and those held by the Government. We believe that our amendment is more comprehensive and addresses itself more effectively to the range of factors which are at work in Lebanon, creating the chaos and devastation which we see day by day replicated on our television screens and reported through other outlets of the media. To the extent that the motion proposed by the Opposition addresses itself specifically to certain matters, I feel that it does so too narrowly, referring to the problems of the multinational peacekeeping force created by Syrian-backed militiamen. We endorse the expressed view, but I repeat that we believe that the concatenation of circumstances at work in such a deadly fashion in Lebanon today ranges more widely than that. We are talking about the agony of a Lebanon stricken, bleeding, despairing, divided, and in serious danger of fragmenting. We are talking about a war that is estimated to have cost at least $6,000m and in which tens of thousands of people have been killed and wounded-a depressing spectacle that grinds on day by day and year by year. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), on several occasions, has expressed his concern on this matter. On 18 May this year he said: I think everyone-whatever may be his emphasis of view in regard to the tragic position in the Middle East-would recognise that Syria has legitimate interests in this area. On behalf of the Government I express regret that at this stage the Government of Syria seems set, according at least to its public statements, to undermine the agreement that has been reached between the Lebanon and Israel. The Australian Government hopes that the Government of Syria will think again about this issue and see virtue for itself and for all countries in the area in trying to move towards a position in which there could be a removal of all forces from the Lebanon; that is, Israeli forces, Syrian forces and armed Palestine Liberation Organisation forces. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock interjected: We are in absolute agreement. That bipartisanship is as firm now as it was then. We are all keen to see the cruel torture tearing Lebanon apart terminated. But the problems, I repeat, are complex ones. They are rooted in history and the nature of the peoples of the Lebanon. They are compounded by the activity of outside forces; they are undermined by superpower machinations; and they are not helped by the frustrations of a United Nations machinery seizing up under a veto overload. I mentioned the history and nature of the Lebanon. The accommodation of 1943, seeking to get a balance and to sustain some harmony between the various confessional groups of the Lebanon, was based on a 1932 census figure. Unfortunately, even then its durability was questioned, its relevance in some doubt. It sought to establish a very fragile balance on census statistics which were perhaps not as contemporarily relevant as they should have been, given the task which was before the people of Lebanon-to form a government and to maintain a wholeness of statehood. The consequence of all that is that we have, even today, a reflection of this. The President must be a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister must be a Sunni Moslem, the President of the parliament must be a Shi'ite Moslem. The confessional balance is maintained in other positions wherever possible. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is usually Greek Orthodox, the army commander a Maronite, the governor of North Lebanon a Druze, and so on; and parliament itself reflects this sort of confessional balance. I mention that to indicate the complexity of the internal circumstances of the Lebanon. Of course, extruding from all this has been, in more recent times, the development of local militia forces supported by various factional groups. This is divisive. I mentioned the matter of outside forces interfering in the affairs of the Lebanon-Syria, with about 40,000 troops implanted in the Lebanon; Israel, with between 20,000 and 25,000; the PLO, with at least 8,000; Libya, with over 1,200; and Iran, with over 10,000. One readily observes the way in which outside powers have made the Lebanon an unhappy trampling ground for their particular machinations; and they are not seeking, in any case as I weigh it up, to serve the best interests of the Lebanese people, of the statehood of the nation of Lebanon. All that they are creating is a grim mosaic of disruption and disorder in a place which was once beautiful and the preferred fashionable international retreat. Now it is a devastation. Within the country itself there is the problem I mentioned of the confessional forces and the troops which they have deployed about the State of Lebanon. All of this is reflected in the way in which the Lebanon is being fragmented, with the Druze in the Chouf, the Israelis south of the Awali River, the Syrians to the north and the west, and the Phalange in East Beirut, Mount Lebanon, and up to north Tripoli. I mentioned superpower influences in the Lebanon generating or adding to the tensions which are quite evident there. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has been responsible for frustrating genuine efforts on the part of the United States of America designed to put in place processes which could bring about a peaceful settlement. The Syrian interference results in an obstruction of a settlement. There is stubbornness on its part about co-operating in proposals which could stop the bloodshed which has been taking place for too long. So the conflict grinds on with a lethal appetite. One must have nothing but the most melancholy prospects about where things are likely to end up. Dr June Verrier of the Parliamentary Library has produced a splendid publication headed 'Israel's Lebanon War and Its Aftermath'. It is of the high quality one has learnt to anticipate from Dr Verrier. It includes a reproduction of an article which appeared in the Canberra Times of 23 August last year, headed: 'Timetable for PLO to leave West Beirut'. It stated that on 21 August the advanced elements of the multinational force were to be put in place. The program was replicated step by step and was to have been completed on 21 to 26 September with the departure of the multinational force. There was a general conclusion that stability would have been established within that relatively short span of time. That was an optimistic hope that has been destroyed. Twelve months later the multinational force is still in place. The war still grinds on with all of its lethal aspects and the problems of the Lebanon are intensified and protracted. The question is: What can we do about this? Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is correct in saying that at this distance and given our size there are limitations. But there are things which have been done in the past and some things which we can do now. This Government supports and encourages-it will do so with practical demonstration if applicable, if sought-the efforts of the Saudi Arabian and United States of America authorities to bring about a cease- fire, to establish negotiations and to have this matter sorted out, hopefully through some sorts of processes at the United Nations. For our part, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) has made it clear that applications for immigration on the part of Lebanese nationals will be processed as expeditiously as possible. What is needed is the following series of initiatives: An immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of all foreign forces, except those which are there on genuine invitation and whose presence is necessary to allow the establishment of the conditions of stability and order and to create circumstances whereby the Lebanese Government can assert a proper government authority for the benefit of that country. There must be an end to the outside supply of arms which is flowing into the Lebanon. Two major regional powers are supplying arms to the Druze in the Chouf. One of them is also supplying arms to the Phalangists. There will have to be an exercise in restraint. There will have to be a conference between the confessional leaders to try to sort out these internal tensions, this fissionable conflict. There will have to be a humanitarian relief program. In that respect Australia would, as it has before, regardless of the government of the day, stand ready to contribute wherever it practicably and properly could . We would see an effective role for the United Nations in the provision of observers but this, in turn, would require a more realistic and responsible attitude on the part of all members of the Security Council, including the Soviets. Over and above this, it has to be recognised that the objectives of Syria in the Lebanon as to whether there will be peace or war are a key factor. In that regard, the manipulative role of the USSR in association with Syria becomes central. The challenge, as I see it, is very serious and worrisome. It is the determination of whether there will be permanent partition of the Lebanon into several areas, or reconciliation and a restored Lebanon or an eviscerated Lebanon. That is the sort of challenge we are all contemplating with great concern. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Leader of the House) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make an explanation that would answer what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has said. I appreciate his remarks, but they were framed in the context that I might have been making commitments that could not be delivered. The Leader of the Opposition was not present at the function to which he referred and I understood that he would not be present. But he had two excellent representatives at that function-namely, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) and the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie). They would know that we were attending a requiem mass commemorating the assassination of the late Bashir Gemayel. They would also know that I responded to people who had spoken before me urging that something be done to assist the people who were suffering the effects of a massacre that had occurred perhaps a couple of hours previously. In other words, I did not read a prepared text. I spoke about the issue of what we could do to assist Lebanon and the people in the Lebanon. I think my two distinguished colleagues would agree that I said on behalf of the Australian Parliament and not only the Government that we would be anxious to do whatever we could in providing physical, material, moral or other types of help. In that context, I would not want it thought that we were offering something we could not deliver. I mentioned matters involving the United Nations . There were other speakers at that function but, regrettably, speakers from the Opposition were not given a chance to talk. I thought that might well have been the situation, so I purported to speak on behalf of everybody. If there is objection to what I said we become limited to my having spoken on my own behalf, but I think that would not meet the expectations of those present. I will leave my remarks at that. Mr DOBIE(Cook) —Mr Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House for a moment? Mr SPEAKER —Yes, the Chair will allow the honourable member for Cook indulgence, but I ask honourable members to recognise that this is not the lead to an open debate. Mr DOBIE —I understand that, Mr Speaker. You will discover from my words that I will respect the Chair. In answer to the remarks made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) I would like to say that what he said is true. I think it should also be recorded in the House, in deference to what the Deputy Prime Minister has just said, that those of us who were in attendance were, in fact, there irrespective of the party to which we belong, emotionally involved on the occasion. The occasion was, in fact, for those of us who have had a great interest in and concern for the Lebanese people. We were all moved and touched by a moving mass celebrated by the Archbishop in Our Lady of Lebanon Church. The subject spoken about following that mass was most emotional. For my part-I am sure that I speak for the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) as well-I thought the remarks made by the Deputy Prime Minister were in keeping with the mood of the occasion. I must confess, I expressed disappointment that it was not possible for Opposition members to speak on that occasion because all of us present were very much aware that the problem of Lebanon is of such deep concern to so many Australians that it goes beyond bipartisan politics. I support what the Deputy Prime Minister was doing on that occasion. Mr KATTER(Kennedy) —Mr Speaker, may I have one minute's indulgence? Mr SPEAKER —Yes, I think that in view of certain factors the honourable member for Kennedy may have the indulgence of the Chair. I think he accepts the proviso I mentioned earlier. Mr KATTER —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; I know it is unusual. I would like to point out to all members of this House that yesterday His Excellency, who is in the House, had discussions with me and the honourable member for St George ( Mr Morrison), who chairs our Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. We have arranged that a small group of us will meet representatives of a very large Lebanese delegation that will be in Canberra later this month. I know that honourable members such as the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) and a number of other honourable members, including the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), are genuinely interested in the unspeakable genocide that is going on in the Lebanon. I am sure that if they wish to be involved in the proceedings on that day we would be very happy to have them with us when we have our discussions. Debate resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(11.0) —The Opposition supports the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill. It stems from an initiative of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation last April to have the barley research levy increased from 20c to 30c per tonne for the 1983-84 season. The industry is to be congratulated for this initiative, as it recognises the importance of research, not only to the industry itself, but also to the community generally. One of the main reasons why there is a need for this increase is that the financial reserves of the State barley research committees and the Barley Industry Research Council are in a serious situation because of reduced levy collections due to the drought affected 1982-83 season crop. Indeed, the financial reserves of some of the State committees have reached the stage when some research programs have had to be significantly scaled down. In addition to rebuilding reduced levy collections , it is also essential to ensure that the real value of research funds is not eroded by inflation. Obviously, the actual amount of moneys raised by the levy is dependent on production. But, I understand the industry is hopeful that this increase will replenish research funds, and get research activity back to the appropriate levels. I would like to think that this very important area of rural research is one where there can be general agreement between the Government and the Opposition. Both parties have indicated a commitment to rural research. During the election campaign, the Australian Labor Party promised to increase government involvement in research, while the coalition undertook to lift Commonwealth contributions in 1983-84 from $22.5m to $30m. We also indicated that greater emphasis would be placed on research into helping farmers reduce costs in times of drought, through such areas as drought tolerant pastures, efficient water use in irrigation and effective fertiliser practice. All of this plays a part in barley which is used as a rotation crop. I hope this Government also appreciates that there are undoubtedly areas where greater research effort can be directed to help achieve improved efficiencies and drought management practices. Obviously, any breakthrough that can be achieved in this area will not only benefit the individual farmer, but also the nation as a whole. I trust the Government will give this issue due consideration in the development of its drought programs. To me it appears worthy to spend a little time on the general question or rural research. It seems to be one of those areas where industries understand the importance of research programs, yet the public generally does not. In fact, in many cases, the public probably does not even know that such programs exist. This is unfortunate, because successful research effort can directly benefit the wider community as well as those involved in a particular industry. While growers may benefit from improved efficiency and lower costs, the nation and the community gains from the ability to remain competitive on world markets and from increased supplies of higher quality food and fibre. The direction of research priorities is also important. A research program should have as a fundamental goal the benefit that it may achieve, not only for a particular farm venture, but also for industry and society. In the wheat and barley industries, for example, emphasis in the past has tended to concentrate on productivity gains, especially plant breeding. I am in no way suggesting that this emphasis is wrong or should in any way be curtailed. What I am saying is that gains in efficiency and increased competitiveness can also be achieved from economic research on cultural and financial management techniques, reducing market costs, and on research to increase the efficiency of the infrastructure sector. In other words, gain to individual growers and society can be just as readily achieved from research directed at increasing the efficiency of the infrastructure services sector, as with research into increasing on- farm efficiency in wheat and barley growing. I am sure similar arguments could apply to research effort into other agricultural commodities. I know there is also some concern, especially within the wheat and barley industries, that those who actually carry out research should not be the same people as those who decide what research projects will be undertaken. The view is that the researchers should simply be the contractors who carry out research on behalf of the beneficiaries, in accordance with the priorities of the beneficiaries. The beneficiaries, of course, are those who are putting up the money, namely industry and the taxpayer. The point of the argument is that the people, or institutions such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, universities or State departments of agriculture, that carry out the research, may place greater emphasis on projects that benefit their studies rather than projects that are in the best interests of growers and the wider community. There is a broad proposal circulating in the grains industry suggesting that a specialist, highly qualified group should be established to help in the selection and setting of priorities for research programs. This is an area in which I believe greater government attention could also be directed. Another important question is that of accountability and review. Each research project that is funded should specify why it is proposed, what it hopes to achieve, how it will proceed and how long it will take. On that basis, each project should then be reviewed for a number of reasons: To make researchers aware that they are accountable to those who fund their work; to enable those who fund projects to continually re-assess the progress and value of them; and to determine for each project whether the money spent has been worth while in terms of bringing desirable effects to growers and the wider community. Barley and wheat growers generally believe the extent to which current research projects are reviewed, and the degree of accountability of researchers to those who fund them, is inadequate. They argue that while the Wheat Industry Research Council has an internal review process, the results of those reviews are not made public. Therefore, there is no feedback and no opportunity for an independent assessment of the progress or end results of projects. I have no doubt that the issues I have mentioned have been considered by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation's research review committee, which held a meeting yesterday. Its views and findings I expect will ultimately be submitted for Government consideration, and I would hope the Government does give the entire question very thorough attention. There is no doubt in my mind of the importance of research programs aimed at improving the efficiency and productivity of all our primary industries. The sugar industry has done a great job in this area. I firmly believe that any measures which Government can adopt to enhance the approach towards setting the priorities for, and assessing the results of, research projects should be supported. I mentioned earlier that both the Government and the Opposition were committed to rural research. The policies of the parties are generally in line with the findings of the Balderstone Working Group to provide a Policy Discussion Paper on Agriculture for the 1980s, which said that the Commonwealth should increase its overall funding of agricultural research. However, one point of Labor policy does cause me concern. I will quote from its policy document. It states: Labor will review industry funding arrangements and the Commonwealth's contribution to ensure research funding is put onto a secure basis. That is a pretty ambiguous statement. It could be taken to mean the Government intends industry to pay a larger proportion of the research bill, especially as the other part of the policy commitment only says Labor is committed to increasing Government involvement in research. Involvement does not necessarily mean financial contributions. I am sure primary industry as a whole would appreciate a more detailed explanation of precisely what the Government's policy is with regard to Government contributions to research funding. A further area of disappointment in this regard was last week's announcement by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) of funding for the 1983-84 Commonwealth Special Research Grant. This provided for total expenditure during the year of $279,000 on 35 projects, the same allocation that was provided under the grant for 1982-83. In real terms, of course, the allocation is a reduction in Commonwealth funding when inflation is taken into account, and therefore raises doubt about the commitment of the Labor Government to increase its involvement in research. It is, nonetheless, pleasing to see the Government has accepted the industry request in this case to raise the levy for barley research , and to continue matching industry contributions on a dollar for dollar basis. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(11.10) —The Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1983 applies a levy to all barley delivered by a grower to another person unless that person is storing it on the grower's behalf. By accepting the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation submission the Government realises the need to have more productivity in grain production so that Australia remains competitive on the world market. We need to be able to meet the increasingly exacting quality characteristics required by purchasers of barley. This means research in a lot of areas. The research funds maintained by the five State barley industry research committees and the Barley Industry Research Council have largely been exhausted in maintaining ongoing research programs. I fail to see how the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) can claim that this Government is not coming quickly enough with a precise statement of policy concerning research. After all, we have been in government only six months. Prior to the election when the Liberal Party of Australia was asked for its rural policy it said that it did not have one, that it was handled by the National Party of Australia. When the National Party was asked, it said that it did not have one. So I think the honourable member could be a little more charitable and give us a little more time to consider the very important aspects of research. In a strange, inverted fashion the honourable member for Darling Downs made some very interesting and probably worthwhile suggestions about research in the barley industry. Similarly, in an inverted sort of way I defend what has been done in the past by the Barley Industry Research Council which is involved in the funding of such things as the screening of barley for resistance to scald disease, the susceptibility to barley yellow dwarf virus, research into stress metabolism of barley, research into drought resistance of barley, studies in weed control and research into improving the yield and quality of the barley crop as well as its disease resistance. All of these studies have been done and are very important. There have been important investigations into developing in barley salt tolerance, straw strength and root rot resistance, waterlogging tolerance and eelworm resistance. I recall some 12 or 13 years ago when I first went into farming reading a book by a Victorian agricultural expert, Mr Hewitt, on the feeding of farm animals. It was shown in his book that barley was the cheapest form of protein per dollar spent. For that reason I believe that important work has been done. Important work still needs to be done in barley research. This levy will help to keep Australia's competitiveness on world markets. It is a levy which the Government is matching dollar for dollar. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.14) —The Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill is about increasing levies for research into barley varieties and assisting the barley industry. I do not think there is a person in this Parliament who for a minute would object to the principle of additional research to improve the competitiveness and the productivity of the grain growing industries which are so significant in the economy of Australia. Of course, this type of approach to the funding of research in Australia is traditional. We have consistently imposed levies on growers, made a dollar for dollar government contribution and, consequently made these funds available with the assistance of a research council. But we find that, when we look more closely at the industry, although funds levied in this fashion are said to match government contributions, that is far from the case. I am not complaining about this matter but I think the taxpayer should know that it is probable that in the wheat industry alone the growers contribute less than 10 per cent of the public funding that is expended on wheat research. As I say, I do not object to that situation; it just happens to be a fact that when we make cash funds available for research they are generally expended directly on research. Of course, all the infrastructure that is necessary to conduct research, including the additional cost of the properties of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the universities, is funded under other votes in the Budget. I am advised that $40m is more like the level of expenditure that goes into research in the grain industry alone. That is compared, as I said, with probably $4m of direct contributions. So we are looking at a large expenditure. I think it is reasonable that we ask ourselves whether the money is well spent. Currently, and because of the system that we are extending and entrenching today, research in Australia is almost entirely the preserve of the public sector. I do not say that that is wrong. Significant arguments can be brought forward for public sector involvement. Private sector involvement will naturally be more commercial. It can be argued that some of the more pure forms of research that are necessary in these areas are best done by people who do not have commercial restraints. Nevertheless, we will have almost a monopoly on research in Australia and, I might say, a monopoly which is jealously protected by the public sector. The levy system that we are discussing today is basically one of putting the money up front. The farmer and the taxpayer pay first with no guarantee of results. They put up their money but is is a lottery; maybe they will get a good result, maybe they will not. Of course, if I might add a small point of politics , that seems to me to be what is happening with a lot of things in the operation of government at the moment-after sales service is something we have yet to see. I refer honourable members to the first difficulty of the system to which I refer honourable members which is based on a levy on production and the Government's matching of that levy. That reduced production, which could be caused by our inability to have the latest varieties through research, automatically means reduced research. A drought year, such as the one we have just had, results in a reduced production of barley. One of the reasons for this Bill to increase the levy per tonne is that we have produced fewer tonnes of barley. Consequently, we do not have enough money to conduct research by way of this system, and therefore suggest that the system is not necessarily good in that regard. I think we should look further at what the system has achieved for Australia and Australian farmers. In 1975 Evenson and Kiesler in the United States conducted an excellent inquiry. They set out to measure the value of research where it counts by comparing it against production and productivity gains. I have to admit that the figures they produced over the previous 10 years go only to 1975, but my advice is that nothing much has changed. The researchers looked at figures in three significant areas: The production in tonnes per hectare; the percentage of productivity gains present, and the percentage of that country's research expenditure per unit of product value. In other words, if it is to be presumed that research will improve productivity then that measure is the most significant. It appears to me that, of those three figures, the two most significant are how much we spend and how much we get by means of productivity gain. Quite clearly the climate, land type, et cetera, could have significant influence on the actual production in tonnes per hectare, so that figure is not as interesting as the other two I have mentioned. In an established agricultural area productivity gains can be significantly measured by the amount of money spent on research. Let us look at how different countries have performed in this regard. Canada has a productivity of 1.4 tonnes per hectare. Its productivity gain is 0.011 per cent, and its research expenditure per unit of product value is 1.28 per cent. If I can quickly throw some figures around, the United States of America has a productivity of 1.5 tonnes per hectare, a productivity gain of 0.027 per cent, and research expenditure of 0.81 per cent-significantly less than Canada. Spain, which has an agricultural climate very similar to our own, has a productivity of one tonne per hectare, which is comparable with 1.2 tonnes per hectare in Australia, and a productivity gain of 0.022 per cent, while Australia has a productivity gain of 0.001 per cent. Spain's expenditure per unit of product value is 0.23 per cent while Australia's expenditure per unit of product value is a whopping 2.11 per cent. I might add that figures for Australia exceed those for every other country on my list. For Italy the figures are productivity 1.8 tonnes per hectare, productivity gain 0.823 per cent, and 0.4 per cent expenditure for each unit of product value. In every case, only Australia got up over two per cent. Canada's figure was 1.23 per cent and that for the United States was the next highest at 0.81 per cent. They were all under one per cent of their expenditure per unit of product value, all of them nevertheless gaining substantially more than Australia for each dollar spent. So it is pretty clear that some questions have to be asked about how we are doing the job. On an international comparison it could clearly be said that Australia's performance is not very good. In fact it could almost be said that, contrary to all the good words of the entrenched monopoly, the system is a failure. Even with that huge contribution of $40m in that area we certainly are not producing the goods for the taxpayer. Wheatgrowers, whilst accepting this up front system of pay now and hope, claim that it is time the system reflected a more competitive view. They complain that these barley and wheat research councils should not have any contribution from the people who receive the money, the researchers. They have said to me that it is time that the people who pay the money, namely, the farmers and the taxpayers , the people who consume the research-in this case I guess it is the farmer- should be the ones to decide. They do not need significant pressures from the people who want to spend the money. They should be at arm's length; they should go to the councils with their proposals. Applications should be called, submissions should be received, and their performance measured and monitored constantly against the activities of others in this field. At least then people would be seen to be competing to produce the goods. People in my electorate constantly complain about how long it has been since they have seen new wheat varieties of a significant nature. There are adjustments at the margin; mostly they are getting the same types of grains with slightly new names. There are problems in the system. Whilst it has become traditional to fund research by this upfront arrangement the wheat industry and others concerned would go no further than to say: 'For goodness sake, let us have a situation where at least these public sector people who do this research are competing with themselves'. Ideally in that arrangement, if some private institute wanted to get into the business of breeding and researching cereal grains, and barley in this case-they should be able to come to these wheat and barley research type councils and say: 'Here is our proposal. This is what we think we can do with this. If you will guarantee us grants over five years we will deliver you some goods'. This, of course, is happening in other countries. It is significant that some of the countries I mentioned earlier which have vastly better research performances than Australia, have a substantial private enterprise component. If we stick with this upfront type of funding, that is the way we should do it. Nevertheless, their is an alternative that has been considered by this Parliament at length; that is, where we do not have upfront funding but pay for results. That is the situation where a royalty is paid to an inventor who has created the goods, who has put his money upfront, has gone down the very risky track of invention or research, and has said: 'Here is a superior product. I wish to get a small financial return for doing it'. We need in Australia a system which is now common in many countries of the world, such as Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan , the Netherlands, our neighbour New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Russia-some nice left wing style countries-South Africa-a nice right wing style country-Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and West Germany. The United States of America and West Germany are two of the international leaders in both the commercial and agricultural fields. All those countries have already decided on the necessity to give the incentive to the private sector to research, in particular, the agricultural, and plant variety areas. This Government has come to the conclusion that we can no longer gain the benefits of private enterprise in the countries I have just mentioned. Quite sensibly, those countries will not send to us, a country that gives their inventors no protection, all their magnificent inventions. Barley research has been so significant in the United Kingdom in recent times that, I believe, no barley being used today was in existence six years ago. Productivity has increased by massive amounts. The plant variety rights legislation was responsibly introduced in this country because we thought, as a Government, that there was good reason to introduce it, not as a replacement for private sector research but as an extension of the total research situation. We all know how plants grow. We all know that, without protection, the private sector cannot possibly invest in plant research when it knows that the end product, the wonderful things that it brings to humanity, can be taken by any individual and put in the ground the next day. That person is thereby going into the same business for nothing. Ten or 15 years of research, with the huge costs involved have been for the benefit of someone else. By the way, this is a significant criticism of our present system. Today, if a barley grower has not contributed to the research of the previous 20 years all the payments that have been made and all the efforts of those people have been for nothing. I am not saying that we should change that. I would dearly love to see the public sector hang in there. I presume that in time , as in other countries that have plant variety rights, our people will benefit from royalties. The user pays concept could be extended to such a point that hopefully, the taxpayer could back away from this area of public research. If the message that the public researchers are giving us of their great ability is true, then they too would attract significant royalties in the future. I ask the Government to reconsider the plant variety rights legislation. The history of the legislation is that when it was introduced it was known to be sensitive and a major lobby arose against it. What happened? Our Government, which introduced it, put it on the table for six months. At that time the wheat industry and the grain industry said: 'We do not want a bar of it'. They had been caught up in the criticism. But while it lay on the table some of their members went off and found out about the gains that their international neighbours were getting. They came scurrying back and at their request and demand, when the Bill came back into this House six months later, it included a provision to cover the grains industry. This was because the industry representatives wanted it. They had measured the success. My constituents were also deeply concerned with all the furphies that floated about. What happened to the Bill? It went to the Senate and the Australian Democrats had to satisfy their greenies. Being fairly politically aware people, they knew that the people who generate income for Australia wanted the legislation. They had excellent reasons for that view. I have since corresponded with the Democrats on behalf of the berry industry which tells us that we are finished in Australia. We are so far behind in the invention business and our productivity on the ground is so low that there is no way we can compete. What did the Democrats do? They were not game to throw the legislation out; they had to satisfy the greenies. So they referred it to a committee and there it stuck. They completely ignored the legislation in the previous six months when they could have been doing that sort of thing. They waited until the legislation got to the Senate. They did not know how to handle it. Then an election came along and saved them having to make any decision at all, which is something they are always very happy about. The situation is that we have not got any legislation. We are going to go further and further down the track of hitting the producer and the taxpayer for a system that patently is not making the grade. Without major change it is not going to make the grade. I hope enough courage will be shown. I am aware that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has said: 'Why should I bother with plant variety rights? Not one Labor Party branch in Australia has written to me supporting it'. That is a really good reason, is it not? The country's agriculture is suffering. Our agricultural industries can no longer benefit from the ever increasing list of countries that have introduced plant variety rights. We cannot get their products. I have heard all sorts of arguments that we can. We can let them use trade names, et cetera. That might be our view, but it is not theirs. They are the people who have the high producing items. The new products-new barleys and everything else-are locked up in England and in other countries. We cannot get these items and develop them to the stage where they can be of some value in Australia. These people say: 'Not on your nelly. We have spent the money. If you, your politicians and your greenies are too silly to see that you can grow a lot more on the same acre of ground, that is your fault. We are not going to worry about you. You don't vote for us'. Those people are quite right in saying that to us fools. Finally, one of the big arguments about this has been that the multinationals will lock up the seeds industry. The first thing to say in this regard about the legislation was that there was a cut off point. Anything that was produced prior to the date was free to everyone evermore. If someone comes to a farmer and says : 'Here are two seeds. This one will produce half as much as that one but it will cost you four times as much because I am a greedy multinational', what will the farmer tell him? Farmers are not that dumb. The farmer will say: 'Keep your seed. I will stick with the old variety! It is only when the profitability is such- Mr Humphreys —He is saying the farmers are dumb. Mr TUCKEY —That interjection can be put in Hansard. I can make a lot of it in my electorate. The fact is that the commercial aspects will dictate. It is impossible for the multinationals to achieve that purpose. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired! Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(11.34) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend you on your tolerance and patience with the previous speaker, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). Where do the greenies come into this matter? It is patently obvious to honourable members on this side of the House that the legislation introduced by our excellent Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is so good that members of the Opposition are having trouble opposing it. In the short period I have been a member in this House I have never seen a more charitable and quieter speech from the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), than his speech on this Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill. If he listens to the eloquent, positive and constructive Minister for Primary Industry he will, over the years, develop into a very good shadow Minister for Primary Industry because he will be on the Opposition side for a long time. I have many barley growers in my electorate of Grey and they tell me how happy they are with the Minister for Primary Industry, John Kerin. He consults with the primary industry people before he puts legislation through and has their full backing. Any improvements to rural industry will have the full support and backing of honourable members on this side of the House, members of the Australian Labor Party. The legislation that is coming forward from the Minister for Primary Industry, on a regular basis, has certainly been very beneficial to the primary producers. They are contacting me and saying how happy they are with it. There is no doubt about it, in the very short time we have been in office the primary producers can see that we certainly are the friends of the man on the land. The Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill will give effect to decisions taken in the framing of the 1983 Budget to increase both levies on growers and government contributions towards essential research. These increases had already been approved and asked for by the growers through a submission from the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation so there is no question of any imposition of charges on an unwilling industry. In the case of wheat, the necessary increase can be effected by regulation. Legislation is required only in the case of the Barley Research Levy Act so that funding for research can be brought into line in these allied fields of grain production. In both cases the industry contributions will amount to 30 cents a tonne. The Government will continue to match funding on a dollar for dollar basis. The barley levy will rise from 1 October by 10 cents and a maximum of 50 cents will apply. These increases are urgently needed-a fact which industry representatives have made clear. Research funds have been greatly depleted by falling production during the recent disastrous drought. My Party and the Government have been very sympathetic to the people in drought affected areas. The barley research committees in five States, which are responsible for spending the contributions from the industry, have been forced to cut their program of research in essential areas. This has resulted from both falling production and from a decline in the real value of available funds due to the continuing cost increases in the research process. The committees have all but exhausted their reserve funds in maintaining ongoing programs. This naturally has thrown extra financial demand on to the resources administered by the Barley Industry Research Council which recommends expenditure of the Commonwealth dollar for dollar contribution to research funds. The reserves in this area have been totally committed for 1983-84. Some reserves are essential, in the case of both organisations, because of the fluctuating nature of production in an industry that is at the mercy of the seasons. The increases recommended will enable a normal program of research to be restored and, it is hoped, will lead to reinforcement of reserves and some capability to undertake new projects, given favourable seasons. The general area of research in Australian primary as well as secondary industry is one that deserves to be given constant government attention to ensure that it is adequate to meet its responsibilities. Pressure to maintain and improve standards in the unremitting competition for exports never relaxes and it is all too easy to be left behind. Grain growers have made it clear in recent years that they are concerned at the level of research efforts being undertaken when buyers demand constant attention and improvement in areas such as crop varieties, cropping systems and disease control techniques. Australia has the brains and the skills. The catalyst needed is money. It gives me great pleasure to commend this Bill to the House and also to commend the Minister for Primary Industry on introducing it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley) read a third time. Debate resumed from 8 September, on motion by Mr Beazley: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(11.42) —The Opposition does not oppose the Meat Inspection Bill. Its aim is to open the way for a rationalisation of meat inspection services in Australia. The establishment of a single meat inspection service has been the objective of all parties in this Parliament for some time. Successive reports have all advocated a change to the so-called dual meat inspection system. The major dissatisfaction with this system has been that often Commonwealth and State meat inspectors are working side by side in export establishments, resulting in industrial unrest and unnecessary additional costs. The main problem in bringing about rationalisation of meat inspection services has been that some States have not wanted to hand over their responsibility to the Commonwealth. From the Commonwealth's point of view, it must maintain overall control of export inspection to meet the requirements of overseas buyers . It is worth referring to some of the history behind the Commonwealth's efforts to achieve a single inspection service. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), now that he is a Minister, has finally accepted the fact that this matter is extremely complicated. I am very pleased that he acknowledged this on Tuesday during his summing up of the debate on the export inspection charge amendment Bills. I am especially pleased because when he was in opposition he offered nothing constructive on this issue. All he could do in those days was leap up and down like a jack-in-a-box, saying 'Nixon's a failure because he has not introduced a single inspection system', as though it could be pulled out of a hat overnight. It is good to see that the Minister has now matured a little. In the debate on Tuesday he said: The work that is being undertaken in Canberra at present-that is work following on from that begun by Peter Nixon-is very complicated. He further said: We are engaged in a very complex task. At last he has woken up to the fact that the entire question of inspection services and the establishment of a single meat inspection service is not as easy as it might seem. It takes more than his type of rhetoric. He has finally admitted that, and is on the public record as having done so. As I said, when he was in opposition the Minister accused the previous Minister of doing nothing about establishing a single meat inspection service. Mr O'Keefe —He did the lot. Mr McVEIGH —That is right. The honourable member knows that what the Minister said was total and absolute rubbish. I hope that now that he has had time to go over the record he will acknowledge how wrong he was and how little he knew about it. The truth is that the question of meat inspection services, as a follow-on from the report of the Commission of Inquiry to Examine Commonwealth and State Meat Inspection Systems, the Kelly report, was discussed at every meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council from 4 August 1980, which was the first opportunity the Council had of considering the report following its tabling the previous February, up to and including the meeting on 7 February 1983. Meat inspection services were discussed at Agricultural Council meetings in Brisbane on 4 August 1980, in Hobart on 9 February 1981, in Darwin on 3 August 1981, at a special meeting in Melbourne on 4 September 1981, at a special meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture in Melbourne on 18 September 1981, at a meeting of the Agricultural Council in Adelaide on 8 February 1982, in Rotorua on 26 July 1982 and in Sydney on 7 February 1983. That indicates the detailed efforts by the previous Minister with regard to a single inspection service and how difficult and complex the matter is. The Minister, when in opposition, could not grasp the fact. He did not understand and was not interested. Now that he is the Minister, he has finally admitted that he did not know what he was talking about. Mr McGauran —Peter Nixon was a great Minister. Mr McVEIGH —The honourable member quite rightly said that Peter Nixon was a great Minister. Mr Shipton —A great replacement! Mr McVEIGH —A good replacement, but he has big boots to fill. The honourable member is correct in saying that he is doing a good job. The only occasion on which meat inspection was not considered by the Agricultural Council was at a special meeting in Canberra on 5 July 1982 which discussed only closer economic relations with New Zealand. So there was only one meeting over that long period when the previous Minister did not discuss in detail with his State colleagues this very complicated matter of a single meat inspection service. Despite what the Minister said when he was in opposition and in spite of the intransigence of some States, considerable progress was made towards the establishment of a single service by the previous Minister and the previous Government. This Government is now able to reap the benefits of the efforts of the previous Government. It was the previous Government that worked out the details for transferring the New South Wales inspection service to the Commonwealth. The previous Minister, the Honourable Peter Nixon, announced on 15 November last year a two-stage integration proposal. That is why this legislation is so good. It is our legislation, the legislation of the previous Minister. Mr O'Keefe —New South Wales took a long time to come to heel on it. Mr McVEIGH —The honourable member indicated that New South Wales took a long time. We all know that notwithstanding the great diplomatic powers of the Hon. Peter Nixon, it took even him a long time to get the New South Wales Government to realise the proper course for it to follow. In the statement on 15 November last year the Honourable Peter Nixon pointed out that the Commonwealth's willingness to take over the New South Wales service was consistent with its policy of working towards a single national meat inspection service. He also noted that the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry had found that a single service under single control should be the ultimate aim. He went on to say: I hope that the States concerned would agree with that conclusion and that we can now move more rapidly towards a single Commonwealth service. That was the statement of the previous Minister. The Opposition entirely supports those sentiments. I hope that a single service can be achieved in the reasonably near future. Unlike the Minister when he was in opposition, I appreciate that this is still no easy matter. I realise that Queensland-- Mr Shipton —A reasonable man. Mr McVEIGH —Well, the Premier of Queensland is a reasonable man and I feel a little upset at throwing the Minister for Primary Industry into the lion's den when he goes up there and does battle with Joh. Queensland and, to a lesser extent, Western Australia still have problems and concerns about handing over their services. They are perfectly entitled to have those reservations; that, of course, is their right. I am pleased that the Victorian Government has now indicated its preparedness to examine the possibility of a single service. A single service has the general support of all sections of the industry, mainly because it should result in a simpler and more efficient service which costs less to run. The single service concept is, as acknowledged by the Minister on Tuesday, just one part of a complicated program that is under way to improve the entire Commonwealth export inspection system. Hopefully all of these measures, when in place, will result in further cost savings to our export rural industries. While on the question of costs, I was most interested to hear the Minister on Tuesday saying: I make no apology for being honest when I tell people that I cannot win. I could not win. That was a direct reference to the Minister's having to concede to the President of the Sheepmeat Council of Australia that he had lost on the question of increased export inspection charges. The Minister has finally come clean and admitted it. It is a pity though that he was not as honest in his answer to my question to him in this House on 7 September. On that occasion I asked in part whether, with reference to increased export inspection charges, the Minister conceded that he had lost and the Minister answered no. It seems to me that there is a bit of double dipping going on in the Minister's mind. It is also a pity, indeed a disgrace, that the Minister continues to cloud the Government's cost recovery policy. On Tuesday he said: We acknowledge, as the previous Minister for Primary Industry would acknowledge , that changes are still being explored which could well lead to cost savings . . . In recognition of the work still being done we have said that the industry should not have to bear the full cost of operating the service. This is in reference to the Export Inspection Service. Again the Minister has left everyone with the impression that, once all the work has been completed, the Government will say to the industry: 'Okay, you can pay for the lot. We will have 100 per cent cost recovery'. Industry is simply not satisfied with this confusion. The Minister owes it to primary industries to state precisely whether his Government intends to try to increase the industry proportion of the costs of inspection services. I should also mention another matter which is highly pertinent to this and all other issues concerning primary industry. The Minister on Tuesday confirmed that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has no intention of giving Primary Industry the Cabinet status that it should have and that it has always had. On Tuesday the Minister said: I appreciate all the efforts of the National Party to get me into Cabinet. He wants to get there, but the Prime Minister does not think he is good enough. On that point he deludes himself. We are not interested in getting him into Cabinet. We are interested only in getting the portfolio into Cabinet. Putting that aside-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! This is a second reading debate. I know that far-ranging scope is given on such occasions, but we are getting a little away from the purpose of the Bill. Mr McVEIGH —I take your point, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was making the point that the reasons we are not being effective in primary industry areas are those the Minister gave in this House on Tuesday in a debate on this matter. I am replying to the point that he made in his speech. I have never been known to challenge the rulings of Mr Speaker or of Deputy Speakers, but, with the greatest of respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you look at the Standing Orders, which I know you will have done, you will realise-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I just ask the honourable member to relate his remarks to the Bill. Mr McVEIGH —And to the points the Minister made in his speech, which I am doing. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister said: If only members of the National Party knew what little effect the nonsense with which they carry on has on the Prime Minister. Now we know that the Prime Minister believes it is nonsense to have Primary Industry in the Cabinet. That is not what rural organisations think. Furthermore , I wonder whether the Prime Minister is aware that the Cabinet ideology was introduced into this country on 11 January 1956 and that it has been continued ever since. Even Primary Industry Ministers in the Whitlam Administration sat as Cabinet Ministers. In other words, this Prime Minister is the first in history to ditch the Primary Industry portfolio into the outer Ministry. It is an absolute disgrace. It is proof of the fact that, despite his words of encouragement and his so-called pledges of commitment to the rural sector, this Prime Minister could not care less about rural Australia, about the sector which provides nearly one-half of our total export earnings. On this point alone the Prime Minister and the Labor Government stand utterly condemned. Last year the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills expressed some concern about the Australian Meat Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1982 and the Export Control Bill 1982 so far as certain powers for the authorised officers were concerned. Those concerned were I believe satisfactorily overcome by a further explanation by the Minister of the relevant clauses of the Bills. The Senate Committee this morning made observations about two clauses of this Bill, namely, clauses 25 and 29 dealing with powers of authorised officers and indictable offences. I seek leave to have this document, which was tabled in the Senate this morning, incorporated in Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not invite the Minister for Aviation to give leave. The proposal seems to be a variance with the ruling given by Mr Speaker in respect of incorporation of material. Mr McVEIGH —I checked with the Minister and with the Clerk. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Has the Minister examined the document? Mr Beazley —I have examined the document. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Has he considered it in light of Mr Speaker's previous ruling ? Mr Beazley —I have. It is not a document, as I see it, that contains arguments. It is a document that relates to decisions arrived at in the other chamber. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —In the circumstances I ask the Minister: Is leave granted? Mr Beazley —Leave is granted. The document read as follows- MEAT INSPECTION BILL 1983 Date Introduced: 8 September 1983. House: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY Purpose: To provide for the Commonwealth to undertake domestic meat inspection in NSW, and any other State which subsequently refers the power of inspection of meat to the Commonwealth. The Committee draws the attention of Senators to the following clauses of the Bill: Clause 25-Powers of authorized officers This clause provides in sub-sections (c) to (k) extensive powers to authorized officers to enter premises; to stop or detain vehicles; to break open, inspect, search or secure premises, vehicles, etc; to seize samples of any matter and to copy any document. These powers may be exercised without a warrant. The breadth of these powers is further extended by clause 25 (2) which defines ''an offence against this Act'' as including offences against sections 7 and 7A of the Crimes Act. Offences under these sections include ''attempting inciting aiding or encouraging the commission of an offence''. In order to exercise his powers under clause 25 (3), an authorized officer need merely believe, in good faith, that a person was encouraging the commission of a breach of this Bill. Whilst these powers are consonant with the policy of the Bill, the Committee nonetheless draws this clause to the attention of Senators in that it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. Clause 29-Indictable offences This clause creates a number of offences in sub-section (i) which impose strict liability, not requiring any proof of a particular state of mind, such as knowledge/intent on the part of the offender, and not to require any guilty intent. Whilst it may be clear that the offences have been so framed in order to achieve the policy objective of the Bill, and indeed it may be uncommon for such acts to be committed without such an accompanying mental state, nonetheless given the broad range of offences which the clause creates the Committee draws the attention of Senators to this clause in that it may be held to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. Mr McVEIGH —I thank the Minister. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your tolerance. It is always good to debate such rulings and, if we are proved right, that you change your views. I think that is great for democracy and a continuation of the Westminster system. In both cases the Committee has pointed out that the provisions of these clauses may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. I draw these points to the attention of the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley). I would appreciate it very much if he would bring this point to the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry. I express a little disappointment that the Minister is not here, but I do not take umbrage at that because I know that we are all very busy and have previous commitments. I know that the Minister for Aviation will take this matter on board because it is terribly important. I seek an assurance from the Minister that he, like his predecessor, will acknowledge the concerns of the Committee and provide it with the necessary information to put those concerns to rest. When a similar concern was expressed to the previous Minister he gave an assurance to this House that he would look at it to ensure that people were not trespassing on private property by breaking in and inspecting things. It is necessary to have tolerance on this matter and-- Mr Mildren —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I think the shadow Minister has strayed considerably from the point of this debate. I ask you to rule accordingly. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -I thank the honourable member. I ask the honourable member for Darling Downs to take note of the relevance and to please come back to the point. Mr McVEIGH —I note your slight reprimand, Madam Deputy Speaker. I realise the difficulty you have, as you have just come into the chair. But actually I am talking about a meat inspection Bill. That Bill has been referred to a Senate standing committee which brought in its report this morning. With the greatest respect to your ruling, I think that as was the case with your predecessor, who admitted he was wrong, I am talking about a Bill on which a Senate committee has put in a report, which is highly relevant to the Bill, and you are wrong to say it is irrelevant. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have ruled. I ask the honourable member to adhere to relevant fact surrounding this Bill. Mr McVEIGH —Far be it from me to draw your wrath upon me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply conclude-which I was going to do anyway-after having received the assurance I desired from the Minister. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(12.02) —I must say that a certain degree of nostalgia is associated with the speech of the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). It reminded me of some of the answers he gave to questions in the last Parliament-tortuous, confused and rambling, however, I must admit, with a certain element of humour. The Meat Inspection Bill 1983 should bring some needed order into what has been for some time a particularly contentious part of the meat industry. As the Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) said in his second reading speech: . . . the new legislation will provide a mechanism whereby a single, national meat inspection service operating under Commonwealth law can be achieved with the agreement of the governments concerned. To bring both domestic inspection services and the Export Inspection Service into Commonwealth jurisdiction has decided advantages. I think honourable members would be very much aware of the problems that are associated with this. In fact, the explanatory memorandum associated with the Meat Inspection Bill 1983 states: The effect of the new legislation will be to finalise the establishment of a single meat inspection service in New South Wales by transferring all meat inspection powers formerly carried out by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture to the Commonwealth. It also states: The development of an integrated national inspection service is regarded as the most effective and efficient method of overcoming many problems being experienced in the meat industry. I think it is well to remind ourselves of the problems that the current situation has brought to the industry. Most of these are obvious and have been mentioned by the Minister but I will remind the House of what he had to say. He spoke about the problems associated with gaining a common standard. This is particularly difficult to attain under the present, very disjointed dual system. Secondly, duplications of services have developed in a number of cases. Thirdly, because some meat destined for export has been directed to domestic use a number of anomalies have arisen. Fourthly, we have the problem of industrial demarcation disputes. It is to be hoped that the other States will take the lead from the very enlightened Wran Government of New South Wales and come to a similar arrangement with the Federal Government. I am not a man who is totally parsimonious, who cannot give credit where credit is due. I give some credit at this stage to the very late interest that was shown in regularising the Meat Inspection Service by the Minister for Primary Industry in the last Government. It is a pity, however, that that Government had to go on for so long and the Minister had to be cajoled into taking the interest he did. Overcoming the more irrational aspects of Commonwealth-State jurisdictional problems has always been fraught with difficulties. With some State governments the problem is almost insurmountable because of the very reactionary political attitudes of those governments. I think it is of interest that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Darling Downs, alluded to the extraordinarily reactionary government of Queensland. It is to be noted that the very progressive Cain Government of Victoria is also currently negotiating with the Commonwealth for the establishment of a single meat inspection service. Hopefully all other States will soon see fit to fall into line. It will be for the benefit of the entire industry. The recent history of our export meat industry and meat inspection has been less than satisfactory. I am sure that all agree. Unfortunately, because of the dual system it has been possible for practices to develop which have not only jeopardised our important North American export market but have also posed a threat to the health of consumers. Of course, anything which jeopardises the North American export market jeopardises the entire future of the meat export industry. The tightening up of those practices by this Bill should go a long way towards removing this possibility. The meat industry should become more efficient, less prone to the possibilities of corruption and, as the Minister said, more cost effective. In my own electorate of Ballarat I have three main abattoirs. In Ballarat I have a major abattoir recently acquired by Segals but which is currently not open. It is to be hoped that it will not be too long before it reopens because it will provide major employment opportunities for Ballarat. In the town of Kyneton the recent story of the meat processing industry has been chequered. On the one hand Hardwick's Meat Works Pty Ltd, a domestic producer, has been working efficiently and in an exemplary manner. Unfortunately the Kyneton abattoirs have a less happy time. Following the departure of J. C. Hutton Pty Ltd, the abattoir was taken over by Mr Eric Williams. As history records, he was unable to obtain a United States listing with the result that this highly moderned abattoir-and I give him credit for that-was forced to close. The loss of 250-odd jobs was calamitous for the people of Kyneton. Fortunately the firm has been taken over by Rosens and is back in business. It has a United States listing and hopefully the problem of standards has been solved. What this has taught us is that we need to bring our meat inspection service into a new level of professionalism. We need to have a new awareness of it. This Bill goes a long way towards achieving that goal. The meat industry will gain confidence from the fact that the Government has pursued this action so early in its term. It is not draconian in its measures. The inspection service is there to protect and not to harass the industry. There are strict limitations on the right of entry to all places and facilities that form part of the chain of production and transport of meat. I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for his concern for his portfolio. It is certainly my experience-and I say this with complete honesty-that the Minister is perceived by producers as the most approachable, concerned Minister for Primary Industry in decades. Those who have showered the Minister with such accolades are not just supporters of this Government; they are members, not just supporters, of the Liberal and National Parties. All have been impressed by the Minister's diligence, his candour and his honesty. It concerns me to reflect upon the previous Administration in regard to the Meat Inspection Service. I congratulate the current Minister on his sincere concern to ensure a secure industry. This contrasts with the lax standards of the previous Administration. As was suggested in the Woodward report of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry, when the inadequacy of and the corruption in the meat inspection section of the industry were present, before the Royal Commission was established the previous Government took little notice of these things. History will condemn the previous Government for its failure to act effectively because as well as tolerating a corrupt system, the then Minister who received backing all the way from his leader and the then Prime Minister, really let down those whose interests he was alleged to be representing-namely, the meat producers. The previous Minister must have known the danger to the Australian meat export trade with the United States which would result from lax standards. He would no doubt have been aware of the requirements of the United States Wholesome Meat Act which was enacted in 1967. This Act required that meat inspection and hygiene standards of exporting countries be at least equal to those existing in the United States, and that all meat for export or local markets produced at foreign-licensed export abattoirs conform to that standard. I am sure that the current Opposition will support this Bill before the House. I am pleased that the honourable member for Darling Downs has done so. Given that this Bill is of marked interest and of major concern to a vast number of farmers in Australia, it is a matter of some shame and enormous concern that only one member of the National Party, a party which alleges to be so representative of the farmers' interests, is in the House at present. I think that is a disgrace. Mr Ian Robinson —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Ballarat has reflected unnecessarily upon the National Party. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -There is no point of order. Mr Ian Robinson —The National Party's shadow Minister for Primary Industry has spoken. Other honourable members of the Party were present during his remarks and I have remained in the House quite deliberately. The reflection by the honourable member for Ballarat ill becomes him. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member that I have ruled that there is no point of order. Mr MILDREN —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is little doubt that the inspection system which this Bill aims to introduce will remove some of the risks associated with the dual system. While there is a long way to go before we have a single system of meat inspection, I hope that this Bill and the examples of New South Wales and Victoria will prove seminal in effect. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(12.12) —The Meat Inspection Bill 1983 is principally designed to achieve the desires, in one respect at least, of all people in the meat industry-that is to arrange a single inspection fee. I differentiate between a single inspection service and a single inspection fee. It is the money that has been the problem. Quite naturally, processors and producers have complained bitterly where charges have been tacked one on top of the other time and again and where fees have had to be paid as many as four times when goods and meats cross State borders. Quite obviously that has been unacceptable. It was recognised by the previous Government as it apparently is recognised by this Government. The other day, when we referred to the increased charges, I raised the difficulty I have with this legislation, that is, that in accepting a single fee , we seem to have accepted the most expensive fee in Australia, namely, the one that is levied by the Commonwealth in its inspection services. This fee is carried not only by producers and manufacturers but also by the Australian taxpayer. At least certain other fees levied for the inspection of meat did not affect the Australian taxpayer, and that must have been of some benefit. It could be argued that in time the user-pay concept, taken to its logical conclusion, could exclude the taxpayer, but it is still the most expensive means of doing the job. Surely we have a responsibility, when we view an expansion of a service which is what this Bill is all about, to look at the cost of that service. In the House just the other day I drew attention to the fact that in an abattoir where there has been no hint in years and years of any malpractice, any meat substitution, where a local authority has no choice in the price it charges because its charges are set by the West Australian State Government, the total fee for the inspection of a bullock over 90 kilograms in weight is $2.80. Yet we are to introduce in New South Wales, via this Bill, an inspection charge of $10. 80, $5.40 of which will be met by the Australian taxpayer. To my mind that situation alone raises the question of whether this action should be taken before the service that the people of New South Wales are to receive is provided at a reasonable price. There are all sorts of reasons why this cost is as high as it is. Probably 50 per cent of the cost is caused by blatant inefficiency and attempts to administer a massive organisation by professionals, namely the veterinarians. The other reason is, of course, that export inspection has had built into its costs certain hidden tariff barriers. Overseas countries would prefer not to have our meat. The political lobbies of their own agricultural producers demand constantly that they impose barriers upon exporting countries, making it just that much more expensive and that much more difficult. Anybody who has any knowledge of the export meat trade will know that there is a vast difference between what importing countries require by way of inspection of a product being exported to them and what they apply to their own products. I once had given to me the example of a chap who received an order from a European country. He was extremely thrilled about this, but by the time he had finished doing the work, because it was an inaugural order from that country, the Department of Primary Industry had so worried him with its concern to make sure that the goods arrived in proper condition that he wished he had never got the order. When the order got to Europe-our inspectors quite properly had met every conceivable condition that they thought the importing country would impose -he had somebody attend at the wharf to see his product unloaded. It was brought out of the ship in a rope sling and dumped on the wharf prior to being picked up by a front end loader. All that protected it from the wharf was a bit of stockinette. Part of the inspection requirement of importing countries is a tariff barrier, but this legislation imposes that barrier on the consumers of New South Wales. I just wonder whether the consumers and the producers of New South Wales wish to pay that price. They are the two groups at the ends of this chain. I wonder whether it is a price they would like to pay for this one charge service. Perhaps we should give the job to the shire of Northam, which provides a very adequate service for $2.80. In a reasonable comparison I made here the other day , if it was prepared even to accept this hidden tariff cost and increase its charges by 50 per cent, the fee to residents of New South Wales would be something like $4.20. So there is a very real question in our establishing this monopoly of centralistic meat inspection services and removing from this House the opportunity to make such comparisons as I have just made. Quite clearly, when this type of legislation is universal to Australia it will not be my right to say in this Parliament that a large abattoir in Western Australia can provide this service for approximately one third of the cost, because that comparison will not exist. We will see what happens to the cost then. I am not objecting to the direction the Government is taking. I honestly believe that it was the ambition of the previous Government to do the same thing . My objection is that the decision is a lousy one, whether we took it or whether the present Government takes it. There are other factors that I think the House must consider in making this type of decision. The meat inspection problems have been around for a long time. In 1980 a one-time member of this House, Mr Kelly, was called upon to make some inquiries. He did so and submitted the report from the Committee of Inquiry to examine Commonwealth and State Meat Inspection Systems. In his resume of what was happening at that time he gave us the picture State by State. He pointed out: South Australia negotiated with the Commonwealth in 1965 for the replacement where possible, of the local inspection service by the service provided by the DPI. The object of the South Australian Government is to have a single meat inspection service provided by DPI. This objective has not yet been fully achieved. I will tell the House the extent to which it had been achieved in terms of protecting the community. On the same page Mr Kelly, under the heading 'Staffing and Establishments', went on to say: Full-time inspection is provided at 13 abattoirs. Some 150 slaughterhouses exist in this State and there is no meat inspection in these. There is none whatsoever. Admittedly, he then pointed out that 85 per cent of all meat consumed in South Australia is inspected. So the 150 slaughterhouses would provide only 15 per cent of the product. That is exactly why no Commonwealth inspection was provided. Of course, once we have a total Commonwealth system there is no room for anyone else to provide a service. There is some suggestion in the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) of a delegation of powers. I do not know exactly how that will work; but it does not work too well in South Australia. South Australian people go without inspection because of the pure, basic economic fact that we cannot afford to provide one of our highly paid inspectors with his travelling allowances, allowances for living away from home, and so on and so forth, and with separate ablution facilities-he is an Australian, but he will not shower with other Australians. In view of all the requirements of the Meat Inspectors Association, we cannot provide someone to those particular places, so they get nothing. As to whether that is progress, I have my doubts. There are problems in what we are doing. As with many other things that are being rushed into this Parliament on a suck it and see basis-it is rushed in, it is produced, it is looked at, and suddenly the Government gets everyone else to tell it about all the mistakes it has made-I should like the Government to think about some of the mistakes which could arise through these decisions. All that I am trying to tell the Government now are the obvious mistakes that have been made in States that have already taken, as the honourable member for Grey (Mr O' Neil) has said, this 'highly enlightened' view. I was interested that the honourable member was also greatly concerned with demarcation issues; in other words, as we know very well with the Meat Inspectors Association, that Association's views, as put forward to this Government, are very clear. It wants control of the industry. It can then improve considerably the position of its members, at further cost to the producer and the consumer. I should like to add to some comments of the honourable member for Grey about our new Minister for Primary Industry, with which I totally concur. The Minister has been referred to by the primary industry sector as approachable and concerned. The honourable member referred to the Minister's diligence, candour and honesty. Mr Robert Brown —A great assessment. Mr TUCKEY —I completely concur. Furthermore, I would say that John Kerin is a delightful fellow. I just want to know how all those words relate to delivering the goods to the primary sector. They are lovely words, but they do not deliver the goods. I wish to goodness that the honourable member had said that the Minister is tough, nasty and has total control of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and, more importantly, Senator Peter Walsh, and that he screws Senator Walsh's ear consistently and that Senator Walsh is terrified of him. If that were so, it might be possible for this sector, the biggest sector of the Australian economy in terms of what it provides in original dollars, to get somewhere. In that regard, if the honourable member can find us a toughie, someone who can stand over the Prime Minister and the people he has put at the top of this thing, I would be a lot happier about it. It is nice to have Mr Nice Guy. The Super Salesman knows that. He has sent out that man to do all the selling. As I have said time and again, after sales service is not part of the Government's platform. All in all, there are a lot of problems associated with this matter. I believe that they are all basic to the fact that we are not addressing ourselves to the real problems of meat inspection. Consequently, it is a great pity that we are imposing upon the people of New South Wales this inefficient system prior to fixing up the system. We are saying to everyone: 'What a wonderful job we are doing for you. We are giving you a single fee'. But unfortunately, it is the most expensive fee and, as we achieve this result of a single service and a single fee, it is my great concern that the cost will escalate very rapidly. I hope that the Government will take note of these matters and will, therefore, try to protect the people of New South Wales. The Premier of Queensland has already seen fit to protect his people. He will not allow his people to be dragged into this situation in which , first, they will get a more expensive service, and, secondly, they may have to go without a service altogether. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(12.24) — Honour- able members will appreciate that, while the Meat Inspection Bill 1983 is a relatively straightforward piece of legislation, its significance for the Australian meat industry should not be underestimated. Indeed, this is a vital piece of legislation. It affects so many of our domestic and export meat processing establishments. It is also of vital importance to so many Australian meat producers. It is a matter of shame that this debate has been carried for the Opposition today by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). I raise the question, as did the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), about the absence from the House of members of the National Party of Australia. Looking around, I see that there is one member only of the National Party here in the House who has spoken on this Bill. It is an essential Bill for our primary producers. Mr Uren —There are no Liberals. Mr BRUMBY —Where are they now? They have all gone. It is a matter of shame that on a Bill of such fundamental importance the Liberals have been left to carry this for the Opposition and that National Party members have not contributed in the way in which they should contribute to such a vital component of our meat industry, an industry which contributes-- Mr Ian Robinson —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Bendigo has reflected on my Party and the members of my Party. Mr Robert Brown —Where are they? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Order! There is no point of order. Mr Ian Robinson —He should withdraw his observations, because- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Ian Robinson —The honourable member's facts are wrong. Members of the National Party have attended this debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Cowper. This is the second time that he has defied the Chair. Mr Ian Robinson —If honourable members are going to lie about it, I shall defy the Chair. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Cowper. If he wants to spend 24 hours out of the chamber, let him keep speaking. Mr BRUMBY —I thank you for your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. Looking around the House now, one sees the strong support that is evident on the part of members of the Government who represent country seats, which puts to shame the apparent indifference of the Opposition towards this very important legislation for primary producers. That comment and support for this legislation puts in context some of the remarks made today. The Opposition has said that our Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is ineffective because he is not a member of the Cabinet. Opposition members have said that our Government does not appear to care for primary industry. The support that we have shown in the debate today is sure evidence that we recognise the great significance of primary industry to our total economy, that we are concerned about primary producers, and that we are concerned to ensure that the best possible meat inspection service is provided for those who produce meat for the domestic and export markets. I pursue that point a little further. Some time ago the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) compared our policies for primary industries with those of the previous Government. He was at pains to emphasise that in the previous Government the Minister for Primary Industry had been a member of the Cabinet, and he said that in some way that had ensured that the previous Government's policies for primary industries were good policies. That is utter nonsense because if one looks at the Government's record on primary industry and at what happened to primary industry under that Government one sees that it was a complete disaster. If one goes back to 1982 and looks at the ratio of debt to farm income we find that it was the highest in the history of this great country . That debt ratio was produced solely by the previous Government's incompetent economic management which allowed interest rates to rise to such an intolerable level, with disastrous effects for our farmers and small businesses. It was not just the previous Government's economic management. What about what it did to primary producers in terms of fuel? As honourable members on this side of the House will appreciate, fuel accounts, on average, on most farms, for between 6 per cent and 9 per cent of total costs, depending on the farm in question and the type of production. Under the Fraser Government the price of petrol rose from 14c per litre in 1975 to 42c per litre in 1982. That was an increase of 300 per cent. That had absolutely disastrous consequences for our primary producers. Finally, I should not forget to mention the previous Government's disastrous record in pasture management and in pasture and soil conservation. The Commonwealth, under the Fraser Government- Mr MacKellar —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just looked at the Daily Program, and I see that it lists 'Meat Inspection Bill'. I should have thought that the honourable member could have made his remarks relevant to the matter under discussion. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I would take that point. I ask the honourable member for Bendigo to be more relevant. Mr BRUMBY —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was responding to some of the points that were made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for O' Connor. But I respect your judgment. Mr Humphreys —The shadow Minister was going on with that nonsense. Mr BRUMBY —It was the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Darling Downs. I thank the honourable member for Griffith. I was responding to the remarks of the shadow Minister. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Would the honourable member for Bendigo please continue with the debate? Mr BRUMBY —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will return to discussing the Bill . This Bill not only establishes the necessary arrangements for the Commonwealth to undertake domestic meat inspection in New South Wales but also permits the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry to undertake domestic meat inspection in any other State which subsequently refers its powers of inspection to the Commonwealth. Honourable members would be aware that both Commonwealth and State governments have responsibilities for meat inspections. State governments have a very long-standing responsibility to ensure that foodstuffs prepared for human consumption meet acceptable standards of hygiene. Indeed, in the early years following Federation in this country all meat inspection was carried out by the States. But at that time, following complaints from the United Kingdom about Australian exports of beef to that country, the Commonwealth appointed veterinary officers to supervise export inspection in all States. In 1916 the Commonwealth went even further and established its own export inspection staff in all the States of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth also has, of course, constitutional authority for the control of all exports, including meat. That legislative control is exercised through the Customs Act, the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act and the Export Control Act of 1982, amongst others. It would be apparent to all honourable members that the respective responsibilities of both the Commonwealth and State governments have resulted in the evolution of dual meat inspection systems. Meat to be consumed on the domestic market is inspected by meat inspectors employed by State governments, while meat for export must be inspected by meat inspectors employed by the Commonwealth Government. With the increase in Australia's meat exports in recent decades and the concurrent upgrading of slaughtering facilities to meet foreign government veterinary standards-I refer in particular to the United States of America-about 80 per cent of all meat consumed in Australia and a large part of the meat consumed on the domestic market is now slaughtered in export registered establishments. In these establishments Commonwealth and State meat inspectors often work side by side. That dual inspection arrangement has been the source of considerable dissatisfaction for a number of years. It has led to industrial disputes between Commonwealth and State inspectors, added to the overheads of export abattoirs and placed abattoirs which export only a small proportion of their total product at a severe financial disadvantage compared with those which produce solely for the domestic market. Not surprisingly, there have been a number of inquiries into the meat industry and particularly the meat inspection system throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Most notable amongst these inquiries have been the Prices Justification Tribunal report into beef marketing and processing of 1978; the Committee of Inquiry to examine Commonwealth and State Meat Inspection Systems, which is better known as the Kelly report of 1980; the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry of 1982; and, most recently, the Industries Assistance Commission report into the abattoir and meat processing industry tabled in January this year. The recommendations of those reports strongly supported and substantiated the basis on which this legislation is directed. Amongst other recommendations, the PJT report of 1978 recommended: . . . a thorough overhaul of Australian meat inspection, both from the standpoint of manpower and procedures, that duplication be eliminated and that there would be a continuing scrutiny of basic activities in the light of developing knowledge and circumstances. The Kelly report noted: Most of the submissions advocated a single meat inspection service, albeit a different composition-namely entirely State, entirely Commonwealth or by an integrated authority . . . It went on to recommend the establishment of a single national meat inspection service. Despite the tabling of that report by the previous Government in the Parliament on 27 February 1980, to my knowledge, no ministerial statement was ever made and none of the major recommendations of that report were ever implemented-that is, of course, until today under this Government. I think that fact again puts into some doubt the claims by the honourable member for Darling Downs who, when speaking earlier, suggested that most of these reforms were the product of the previous Government. Of course, that is not so at all. I refer also to the Royal Commission of 1982. Whilst that Commission did not specifically recommend the establishment of a single meat inspection service, with respect to Victoria it recommended that: A joint authority be established along the lines already negotiated. Finally, the Industries Assistance Commission report of 1983, with respect to dual inspection, noted: Duplication of inspection within abattoirs is unwarranted. It places export registered abattoirs competing on the domestic market with local abattoirs at a relative disadvantage. These problems would only be overcome by incorporation of the various meat inspection services throughout the Commonwealth into one national service. I turn now to the current situation. On 1 July of this year the responsibility for domestic meat inspection in New South Wales passed to the Commonwealth. I welcome that transfer, as does the Government, because by the end of this year it will mean the establishment in New South Wales of a single meat inspection service with all the benefits that that decision involves. Most importantly, the dual fee at export works has already been eliminated in New South Wales. Of more particular interest, however, are the recent developments in respect of Victoria. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) recently received a letter from the Victorian Premier indicating his Government's willingness to participate with the Commonwealth in examining possible arrangements for the establishment of a single inspection service. If Victoria agreed to join the national inspection service the Commonwealth would employ some 92 per cent of the full time inspection work force and a single, national, meat inspection service would be much closer to reality. Only Queensland would be outside that system. I suppose that Queensland being outside that system is the same as the situation with Queensland in so many other matters. I can assure the House that after the coming State election Queensland will not be outside the system; it will be part of all the State Labor governments in this country. This legislation and the Government's continuing efforts to establish a national meat inspection service are strongly supported within my electorate of Bendigo where establishments which export products are at a significant disadvantage because of the existing dual inspection system. Only last week the manager of Mayfair Ham and Bacon Co. in Bendigo was reported in the Bendigo Advertiser as stating: Inspection fees are of great concern to Mayfair. The company is opposed to the dual inspection system and the twin overhead costs associated with its operation in Victoria, where exporters face both Victorian and Commonwealth inspections and charges. The establishment of a single meat inspection service will make it considerably easier to achieve increased simplification of inspection procedures and will remove the financial disadvantage incurred by abattoirs which provide meat for both the domestic and export markets. This is a good Bill. It has significant repercussions for Australian producers and processors. As I have said, it is a matter of concern to me that the National Party has been so poorly represented in the House during debate on this significant Bill. I certainly commend it to the House. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(12.39) —The Meat Inspection Bill represents an historic occasion in the development of the meat export industry in Australia. Indeed, for the first time since Federation this Parliament is introducing a Bill which will enact legislation to permit the Federal Department of Primary Industry to undertake domestic meat inspection in New South Wales and in any other State which might refer its power of meat inspection to the Commonwealth. Mr Ian Cameron —You will let the taxpayer pay for it. Mr LINDSAY —Indeed, I do not need any assistance from the honourable member for Maranoa, who rarely sees cows and who masquerades in this Parliament as a member of the National Party which hates Queenslanders and cattlemen. I will deal with certain aspects of this Bill. The legal background to this Bill is that the Commonwealth Government has constitutional authority for the control of all exports including foodstuffs. So too the State governments have responsibility with respect to the preparation and marketing of foodstuffs within their respective State spheres. This legislation, for the first time, overcomes a history of neglect over many years with respect to meat inspection and meat export facilities. Indeed it has been brought to my attention that on 23 June 1982 the New South Wales Minister for Agriculture, Mr Jack Hallam, called on the Federal government of the day to institute the necessary legislation to obtain powers to instal a single meat inspection system in New South Wales. I take this opportunity of quoting his words, which were reported in the Australian Financial Review of 24 June 1982. He stated: For these reasons, the NSW Government has offered to transfer the State inspection service to the Commonwealth and I hope other States will do likewise, so that all meat in Australia, with the exception of poultry, will be under comprehensive control of one inspection service. At that time all meat exporters and livestock producers reacted enthusiastically to Mr Hallam's statement as they had been fighting for the introduction of that sort of legislation for more than 10 years. Opposition members must hang their heads in shame with the squalid reputation that they acquired over a long period with respect to negligent activity regarding the lack of meat export facilities and meat inspection procedures operating in Australia at that time. This legislation took numerous royal commissions and numerous debates in various parliaments throughout Australia. It is now in September 1983 that a Hawke Government, an authentic Australian Government, is concerned with the protection of Australian cattlemen and their produce, and has finally brought down legislation to install a single meat inspection service that will for ever more be a light to the direction of the development of meat inspection and meat export inspection facilities in Australia. I commend the Bill to the House. It is a milestone, an historic act, that will benefit the rural producers of Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.44 to 2 p.m. Mr RUDDOCK —Will the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters give this House a categorical assurance that the Government will not politicise the Public Service, for example, by the appointment of Dr Wilenski as Chairman of the Public Service Board? Mr DAWKINS —As the Prime Minister indicated a few days ago, the term of the current Chairman of the Public Service Board expires shortly and, as the Prime Minister indicated at the time, the Government, being a conscientious government , is giving attention to what it will do when the term of the current Chairman expires. Mr O'NEIL —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. In view of the sub-standard condition of the Stuart Highway and the very high level of unemployment in my electorate of Grey can the rate of construction of the Stuart Highway be accelerated? When will the highway be completed? Further, can the Minister say when he expects work to begin on the construction of the overpass to replace the notorious level crossing at Stirling North, the site of numerous fatalities? Mr PETER MORRIS —I am aware of the deplorable condition of the Stuart Highway and the need for acceleration of construction work on that project. I am also aware of the dangerous level crossing at Stirling North near Port Augusta in the honourable member's electorate and its very bad accident record. The honourable member has made me very much aware of those two problems through his repeated and very effective representations. He is a good, hard working member. This Government has given the highest financial priority to road works and road construction, unlike those who sit opposite who managed in seven years of government to decrease real expenditure on roads by more than $500m. That is the record of those opposite. Mr Steele Hall —Tell us about the Northern Territory railway. Mr PETER MORRIS —We have two camel riders opposite-the camel rider from Kooyong and the camel rider from Richmond. Their contribution to the railway seems to be to ride camels. But, having mounted the camels, they could not dismount without putting their feet in it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Minister might be stretching relevance too far. Mr PETER MORRIS —This year this Government will provide $100.1m for road works in South Australia. It will provide a significant boost to industry in South Australia and it will provide something like 1,400 new jobs in South Australia, particularly in the electorate of Grey, as the honourable member has asked. As I said, we are committed to an acceleration of works on the national highway. I am pleased to be able to inform the honourable member for Grey and the House that we have decided that an additional $4.5m is to be made available to South Australia this year for acceleration of work on the Stuart Highway. My understanding is that that work should complete the sealing of the Stuart Highway to the Northern Territory border by 1986, in time for sesquicentenary celebrations in South Australia. In relation to the second matter that the honourable member raised-the railway overpass in Stirling North, near Port Augusta-I have today approved, under the Australian bicentennial road development program for South Australia a provision of $3.1m. A quarter of a million dollars will be provided this year, and that will enable work to commence this year on removing a very dangerous crossing for the people in that area. Mr WHITE —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I preface my question by reminding the House that only one member of the Ministry comes from Queensland. In light of suggestions now being made that the Prime Minister's recent visit to and general interest in Queensland are exclusively related to the forthcoming Queensland election, will he further indicate his support for Queensland by appointing a Queenslander to fill the ministerial vacancy created by the resignation of the former Special Minister of State? Mr HAWKE —One of the great advantages which my Party has, as distinct from the one on which the honourable member is a member, is that we have full democracy. I do not have the privilege or the autocratic right to appoint members of the Ministry. As I indicated earlier, this matter will be dealt with by the Caucus when the report of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies is received, and the outcome will be determined by the democratic processes of the Caucus. Let me say this: Queensland's interests are not dependent solely upon the composition of the Ministry and its geographical source. We are more than content with the reaction that this Government has received from the State of Queensland-a very positive reaction which will be more than confirmed on 22 October. Mr FRY —Is the Minister for Territories and Local Government aware that due to the neglect of the previous Government there are serious deficiencies in housing in Canberra, especially in low cost accommodation? Is he also aware that under the previous Government there was a serious rundown in home building activity in the Australian Capital Territory? What will the Minister do, which the previous Minister did not do, to meet the housing needs of the people of Canberra? Mr UREN —This Government inherited a serious housing problem, both in the public and private sectors, a problem in land servicing and in office accommodation. In trying to deal with that problem we have attacked the situation on all fronts because they are interrelated. Sadly, it most affects those people on lower incomes. This year we increased the budget for public sector housing to provide 500 dwellings. That was a 66 per cent increase. In regard to land servicing we will develop over 3,000 sites which will be an increase of about 92 per cent. In regard to the private sector, I intimated yesterday in a statement that we have instituted a very innovative program which reveals that, using the national program which was introduced in the Parliament this week by the Minister for Housing, from 1 October people who have lived in the Australian Capital Territory for six months will be able to acquire a dwelling of the value of up to $60,000 and get a loan of between $28,000 and $50,000. We have been able to do this because the Commissioner for Housing has been working in co-operation with the private housing sector, particularly the building societies in this community. It is only through working together, using government moneys in co-operation with the private sector, that we have been able to overcome the situation. We are doing in government what we said in opposition should be done-attacking the sick economy by building up the housing and construction industry, particularly in Canberra. I believe that this housing stimulus will have an enormous effect on the economy of Canberra. This direct government involvement with Canberra's private sector will probably lead the way to recovery for the rest of the nation. Canberra has been able to get this housing stimulus because of the Government's priorities in regard to land servicing, private and public sector housing, and office accommodation. Mr LLOYD —Is the Minister for Communications aware that estimated expenditure for salaries for both the radio and television news services of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is lower for 1983-84 than actual expenditure for 1982- 83 but expenses for these news services will be higher? Does this mean that fewer ABC journalists will be employed and outside news services taken notwithstanding the statements and promises by the Minister and the Government that the ABC's own news services would be strengthened? Mr DUFFY —The matter of what services will be employed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in respect of journalists and other employees is one for the ABC. Early in this session there was a long period in this Parliament when honourable members opposite had some difficulty in understanding the independence of the ABC. In respect of the specific matters raised by the honourable member for Murray, I have not been informed and have no knowledge of any proposed cuts. Mr FREE —Is the Minister for Housing and Construction aware of the deep concern of the housing and construction industry surrounding the decision of the previous Government to sell the Experimental Building Station at North Ryde in New South Wales? If he is, will he advise the House of the Government's response to this concern? Mr HURFORD —Part of the monetarist policies-the scorched earth policies, as I refer to them-of Labor's political opponents, the policy that everything in the public sector was bad and the need to cut Government expenditure, resulted in the downright stupid decision to sell the Experimental Building Station at North Ryde. The implication in the question asked by the honourable member for Macquarie is quite right. There has been enormous concern in the industry generally about that stupid decision. I am very pleased to advise the honourable member and the House that the decision has now been taken by this Government to end the uncertainty in the Experimental Building Station. We will not be selling it. This decision will be welcomed not only by sensible people in this House but also by all those in the industry who know anything about the work of the Experimental Building Station. We put great store in the increased activity that is required in the construction industry. We look not only at the demand side of that industry but also at how we can improve the productivity and, therefore, the growth in the industry by concentrating on the supply side. The Experimental Building Station provides a vital and independent service both to industry and government throughout this country in that regard. About 50 per cent of its work is concerned with the development of building standards, building codes and regulations, and the provision of research and technical advice on building and construction technology. So we are very happy indeed that it will continue to operate. I have mentioned already that it is our aspiration to improve the quality of research in this country. That means that we will be improving the quality of the output of the Experimental Building Station. Morale in that station has been allowed to drop to an enormous extent. I visited the station soon after taking office and I informed staff at the station then that I would be working on their behalf. I am very glad that I have now been able to make this announcement on behalf of the Government. Mr ANTHONY —Does the Prime Minister recall saying in the House on 6 September that the Government at all times had acted in a way which was consistent with the integrity of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies? Is it consistent with the integrity of the Royal Commission for the Prime Minister to assert, as he did on Tuesday, that much of the evidence given before the Commission by Mr David Combe had not been accurate ? Why is it consistent with the integrity of the Royal Commission for the Prime Minister to comment and reflect on evidence given before the Commission while he complains about the way in which the media has reported the evidence? Mr HAWKE —The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is obviously that insofar as a question which concerned me was directed to me on the basis of an answer given to the Royal Commission which was inaccurate, it was incumbent upon me to point out that fact. It is a matter of public record. There is a transcript of the statements I made when I appeared in the box. What I have said in the House about the accuracy of the evidence of the person in question is what I said on oath in the box, which is now a matter of public record. Nothing that I have said in respect of answering that question, consistent with what I said on the public record under oath to the Commission, in any way takes away from the observations I have made in respect of the totally unsustainable action of the Opposition in this matter. I conclude by saying, as I have said on a number of occasions, that we on this side of the House are looking forward to the time when the report is available and we will be able to have an unqualified debate in this House. Mr CHARLES —Will the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House whether he has made a decision on the State allocation of funds under the community youth support scheme for the 12-month grant period commencing November 1983? Is the Minister aware that, despite the increases of between 17 per cent and 21 per cent in levels of standard grant funding for CYSS projects announced on 26 May, some projects will still receive little or no increase in funding during 1983-84? Therefor, can the Minister assure the House that all CYSS projects will be guaranteed some minimum increase for the next 12-month grant period, with a view to ensuring that existing levels of CYSS services do not suffer at a time of high unemployment? Mr WILLIS —The 27 per cent increase for the year 1983-84 to which the honourable member for Isaacs referred represents a rise of $4.5m in the amount available for the community youth support scheme. I have notified the State advisory committees of the allocation of that money to each State. The additional funds for each State have been determined on the basis of the relative distribution of youth unemployment. As the honourable member said, this Government has increased the standard grant to levels which give an increase of 17 per cent to 21 per cent, but as a number of other projects were previously above the standard grant levels they will get little increase or, in some cases, nothing at all. That was a matter of concern to us. We felt that it would be totally inappropriate, at a time when we have much increased unemployment, to be giving a reduction in the real level of the CYSS service in some areas. Therefore, it has been decided that we will give a minimum 10 per cent increase in the level of payment to any project to ensure that these projects will be able at least to maintain the present level of service. The only exception to that will be where a project has been downgraded on the advice of the State advisory committees. With a number of presumed upgradings of various projects and up to some 30-odd new projects, I believe that in this new financial year the CYSS project will be in much better shape. Funds available to all projects will be increased, in most cases very substantially in real terms. In some cases, where there are upgradings there will be very considerable increases and we will have a number of new projects. So the operation of this service to the young unemployed will be very considerably increased and will help to alleviate their very difficult circumstances. Mr PEACOCK —My question is supplementary to that asked by the Leader of the National Party. I ask the Prime Minister: How can he reconcile the action he has taken to prevent the media from commenting on evidence he has given to the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies with the taking upon himself of the right to give judgment and comment on the evidence of Mr David Combe? The question that he was asked the other day was a specific one related to the fee he took to supplement his income. The answer he gave was a general one wherein he said that so much of the evidence given by Mr David Combe was inaccurate. Mr HAWKE —The premise of the Leader of the Opposition's question is incorrect and therefore the question does not stand. Mr CHYNOWETH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry. I understand that scallop fishermen operating in Bass Strait have expressed concern about the rapid increase in the number of boats entering the fishery. Will the Minister for Primary Industry inform the House about the current state of this fishery and the action he proposes to take to safeguard its viability? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for his question and also the interest he takes in fishing industry problems and fisheries in general. It is correct that fishermen have expressed some concern, particularly about the number of new boats entering the fishery and the activities of Allied Fisheries Pty Ltd. This company is promoting the purchase by professional people of new scallop vessels on the basis of exaggerated claims about the extent of our fisheries resources. In fact, scallop resources are characterised by large natural fluctuations in abundance and distribution. Accordingly, I am most concerned that the rapid increase in catching capacity will prejudice the future viability of this and other fisheries in the south-east. I have expressed these concerns to my State colleagues and have recommended the introduction of a management arrangement for the fishery. I look forward to a positive response. But in the meantime I warn those considering investing in new vessels for the scallop fishery in Bass Strait that they should think very carefully and consult the local fisheries authorities before making any commitments. There is certainly no guarantee of the continued availability of scallops at the current rate of exploitation. Mr ALDRED —Can the Minister for Defence Support inform this House why his negotiations with the Indonesian Government to supply that Government with military equipment from Australia have now been halted? Can the Minister affirm that the proposed value of the deal was around $10m? Mr HOWE —The answer to the question is that, to my knowledge, no negotiations with the Indonesian Government that may be taking place have been halted by my direction. It is true that I have previously raised the issue of the guidelines concerning foreign military sales within our own region. I believe that that is an issue that requires consideration and careful thought, but in terms of any particular cessation of discussions or negotiations with Indonesia, that has certainly not occurred at my instruction. Mr BILNEY —My question is directed to the Treasurer and relates to the bank accounts debits tax which, as the House will recall, was dreamed up by the Fraser Government and inherited by this Government when we came to office this year. I ask the Treasurer: Is he aware that although there is general community acceptance of the bank accounts debits tax, certain organisations of a charitable or non-profit-making kind feel strongly that their operations should be exempt from the tax? Can he confirm that it is the Government's intention to review the operation of the bank accounts debits tax later this year? Finally, in that review, will he undertake that consideration will be given specifically to the possibility of exemption from the bank accounts debits tax of non-profit bodies such as charitable organisations, school councils and local government bodies? Mr KEATING —I can confirm that it is the Government's intention to review the operation of the bank accounts debits tax. I think the House will be aware that a number of non-profit bodies such as charitable organisations, schools and parents and citizen bodies have made representation to members of parliament and to me in respect of the tax. The Government said that about six months after the introduction of the tax the matter would be reviewed. That six months is up in about a month's time. In the course of the next month or so the Government will be fulfilling that commitment by reviewing the operation of the tax, including the application of the tax to the kinds of bodies mentioned in the honourable gentleman's question. Mr HOWARD —I ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of his answer to the previous question of the Leader of the Opposition, could the honourable gentleman inform the House against how many media organisations he has instructed his legal advisers to take action arising out of the Combe royal commission and related matters? Mr HAWKE —It is little wonder that the Opposition has rapidly become an object of derision in this country. At Question Time in this Parliament, a period when members of the Opposition have the opportunity of directing questions to matters significantly affecting the welfare of this country, we now have the position that three of their questions have been directed so pathetically to this issue. I will answer the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question. I emphasise that I hope people will take notice that three such questions have been asked in the limited time available to them. The answer to his question is: I think three. Mr SCOTT —Is the Minister for Health aware of claims made by the Tasmanian Minister for Health that Tasmania had not agreed to replace the present Commonwealth-State hospital cost sharing agreement with identified health grants and Medicare compensation grants after 1 February next year? In view of the communique agreed to by the Prime Minister and all State Premiers following the June Premiers Conference, does the Minister accept the accuracy of these claims? Dr BLEWETT —I am all too well aware of the rather shoddy behaviour of the Minister for Health in Tasmania. In fact, the House will also be well aware of that because the honourable member for Bass, I think in a somewhat disappointing way, lent himself to those equivocations by the Minister by tabling in the House last night a letter from the Minister for Health in Tasmania to me dated 16 August. The important thing about that is that it was six weeks after the Premiers Conference. It is well worth that letter being incorporated because it shows clearly what the Minister was up to. First of all, he made the claim that the Tasmanian Government had never acknowledged that it would replace its cost sharing agreement with a block grant compensation arrangement under Medicare. The reason he tried to produce that story was revealed in the latter part of the letter where he sought to secure from the Commonwealth Government moneys and compensation on health issues which have nothing to do with Medicare and nothing to do with the cost sharing agreement. The letter-honourable members may read it -was simply a shabby effort to blackmail the Federal Government. Let us get the facts clear about what the Tasmanian Government agreed to. At the Premiers Conference in Canberra on 30 June the following statement was made by the Treasurer: I emphasise that the Commonwealth's attitude towards the amount of any additional borrowing programs it is prepared to support will also be heavily contingent on the States agreeing to the proposals for compensating the States for new health arrangements under Medicare on the basis put forward by the Minister for Health on 15 June 1983, subject to changes which we will later be proposing in Premiers Conference. It was clear that the whole arrangement was based on the States agreeing to those proposals. What were those proposals? A document was circulated to all the Premiers. It was also circulated to all the officials for their consideration. It was headed 'Medicare program financial proposals by the Commonwealth Government, 30 June 1983'. I table that document so that honourable members can make their clear judgments of its proposals. That document states, in part: The proposals accepted at the Health Ministers' Conference as a basis for agreement, as amended after consideration by submissions by the States . . . Clause 10 of that statement includes the following: South Australia and Tasmania to be reimbursed for both in-patient and out- patient revenue losses on the basis of existing cost-sharing agreements being terminated, and their replacement by identified health grants equal in value to the cost-sharing grants applicable at 1 February 1984; plus revenue loss adjustment as above. That document was presented. What did the Premiers decide to do? Let me quote from the Premiers Conference and Loan Council communique: The heads of Government agreed on the revised proposals for Medicare as outlined by the Minister for Health in Premiers Conference, including the basis for compensation payments to each of the States as outlined by the Minister . . . Those proposals which I referred to a moment ago were agreed to in that communique by which all the arrangements were made between the States. I table that document for honourable members to make their own judgment. We do not simply have to leave it to those documents. On 14 July the Health Ministers met to consider those arrangements. At that conference Mr Cleary clearly said that he had advised his Premier at the Premiers Conference, that he agreed with the broad concept of the Medicare funding details for all States, that he acknowledged that the agreement at the Premiers Conference was on the broad principles of Medicare and that this Health Ministers Conference would simply finalise the details. On 14 July Mr Cleary was quite clear that the broad principles, including those cost-sharing arrangements and their substitution by other arrangements, had been agreed on; it was simply a matter of settling on the details. The final point I want to make is that, on the evidence now before the House, the kinds of statements made in the letter from the Minister of 16 May are simply, as I said originally, an effort to blackmail the Commonwealth Government around this agreement, because his Premier agreed quite clearly that the cost- sharing agreement would be replaced by the block grant compensation. On all the evidence, Tasmania has received a very fair deal out of those compensation arrangements. Mr IAN CAMERON —I direct a question to the Minister for Health. It is about his shoddy behaviour while in Queensland. First, I ask the Minister why he hates Queenslanders, who are being governed by the progressive Bjelke-Petersen Government, Queensland being the only State with a free hospital service? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should come to his question. Mr IAN CAMERON —Secondly, why will he give Queensland only an extra $10m for new hospitals as reported in the Queensland Press on 10 September? Thirdly, will he continue to offer Queensland an extra $10m for Queensland hospitals after the National-Liberal Party Government is re-elected on 22 October? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn honourable members that, if questions of that nature are asked, they will not be allowed to be answered; the honourable member will be sat down. On this occasion I call the Minister for Health. Dr BLEWETT —My affection for Queenslanders is quite clearly shown in the very generous provisions that have been made to the Queensland Government, the only government to receive a special grant. It will receive that grant, of course, because of the unique situation in Queensland. It is a grant of $50m extra in the first 18 months of Medicare. As evidence of the continuing conciliatory attitude of this Government to the Queensland Government, I indicated when asked at a Press conference in Queensland that, of course, negotiations could continue about marginal elements of that $35m grant. But I indicated that it was not possible at this point in time to continue worthwhile negotiations with a rump government which had just dismissed its Minister for Health. Mr HOLLIS —Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs report to the House on the current situation in Sri Lanka, especially in relation to the minority Tamil population? In view of the significant amount of relief aid given by the Australian Government to Sri Lanka following the recent communal violence, what steps has the Government taken to ensure that the aid is used to assist the victims of the violence? Are representatives of the Australian Government monitoring the programs? Mr HAYDEN —Several weeks ago there was serious conflict of a communal nature in Sri Lanka. It was widely publicised. More recently, fortunately, the Government of Sri Lanka has been successful in bringing about a better semblance of order. I understand that it is taking a number of policy initiatives which are designed -and hopefully they will be successful-to break down communal tensions. We should be under no illusion, however, as to the depth of feeling of some of the Tamil people who have been promoting the cause of separation for the Tamil people within Sri Lanka. That is a principle which the Sri Lankan Government has declared that it will not concede. The most recent report I have received on the matter suggests that the Tamil Tigers, a revolutionary group, has engaged in some violent activity within Sri Lanka. I sincerely trust that it is short lived and by now terminated and that the Government is able to get on with the task of bringing about a more stable situation. Finally, in relation to aid, the Australian Government provided $100,000 to the Government of Sri Lanka, $50,000 to the International Red Cross and $25,000 to the Save the Children Fund for the purposes of emergency humanitarian relief in the wake of communal disorders. The High Commissioner in Sri Lanka has been charged with and, I believe, has been discharging the responsibility of ensuring that the aid is appropriately applied for the benefit of those most seriously disadvantaged by the disorder, and that means very largely the Tamil people. There is a general aid program, this year of the order of $7m, provided on a bilateral basis and according to guidelines which are set down and followed. Mr PEACOCK —Does the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade agree that in the course of a reply to a question yesterday he said that he and the Foreign Minister 'agreed to disagree on a few minor matters'? Why is it that he dummied the record and had that remark deleted from Hansard? Secondly, is one of the areas of disgreement the $10m donated by the previous Government to assist Lebanon, which the Foreign Minister praised today and which the Deputy Prime Minister described last year as 'a supercilious thing to do'? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Let me come to the first part of the question. I have no recollection of dummying the Hansard. I did not touch the Hansard. The Leader of the Opposition might like to show it to me and if those words are not in it I will have them included. Mr Peacock —You are responsible for their being deleted. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I would not say that was so at all. I am not responsible for their being deleted. The question is: Were they in fact deleted? The Leader of the Opposition might be able to show me the Hansard and, if they were deleted, I will arrange for them to be included. The other matter to which the honourable member referred was Lebanon. He made a rather unfortunate remark about my presence last Sunday at a church function, which was a requiem mass- Mr Peacock —I am referring to your remarks last year. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know what the evidence for that is- Mr Peacock —The PM program transcript. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As being a supercilious effort. I do not at all think that is the correct way to interpret it. Mr Peacock —Then I will get another one. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member should contain himself for a minute. He is anxious. Perhaps in future- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The House will hear the Minister for Trade without interruption. The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I just want to make the point that in respect of- Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —I remind honourable members that they are only wasting Question Time . Has the Minister for Trade finished his answer? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will answer the question when the honourable member has references which he can show me. Mr Peacock —I have sent for it. As soon as- Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Petrie. Mr Peacock —If it is available I will- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition does not have the call. I call the honourable member for Petrie. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order- Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I have called the honourable member for Petrie. Mr WELLS —My question without notice is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister but in his capacity as the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is it a fundamental requirement of the Westminster system that a government is drawn from the party or parties which have a majority on the floor of the House? If so, has his attention been drawn to any recent breaches of this fundamental convention in any parliamentary democracy? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thank the honourable gentleman for such an intelligent question. The Westminster principle clearly requires democracies to be accountable to a parliament, have the confidence of a parliament and have an Executive that is responsible and accountable to parliament. Firstly, one State Parliament at present, namely Queensland, is not able to have an Executive that has the confidence of the Parliament because it refuses to have the Parliament meet. Secondly, that Government is a minority representation of the Parliament, which is contrary to the Westminster practice. Thirdly, that Government is acting on a Budget which has not yet been introduced to the Parliament and has arranged for an election to be held at such a time that in fact the people of Queensland could be without Supply. I predict that the Labor Party will win handsomely in Queensland on 22 October. That Government will immediately, within a matter of days, be required to introduce a Budget merely to keep the normal services of government going in Queensland. That situation is due solely to the irresponsible action of the Bjelke-Petersen faction, which is not prepared to face a parliament, not prepared to have a Budget endorsed by a parliament and is prepared to denude the Treasury of Queensland of the normal services of Supply. It is contrary to every tradition of good government. It is contrary to every tradition of responsible government. It is a minority government, fearful of what the people will do to it on 22 October. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Prime Minister. Have his inquiries regarding the receipt by himself and his ministerial and former ministerial colleagues of speaking fees revealed that one of his colleagues received a sum of approximately $250 for a speaking engagement since the election of his Government? Have those fees been put towards the acquisition of books? Mr HAWKE —Following the question directed to me by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition I undertook to inquire and did inquire from Ministers and the former Minister. I received no such indication. Mr KENT —My question is directed to our excellent Minister for Science and Technology. Will the Minister advise the House of preparations which have been made for the National Technology Conference to be held later this month? Mr BARRY JONES —The National Technology Conference will be held in Canberra from 26 to 28 September. The opening ceremony will be performed by the Prime Minister , which will immediately get us off to a great start. Second in the batting order will be the Minister for Science and Technology. Other Ministers who will be speaking are the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the Minister for Industry and Commerce. We have a very distinguished group of speakers from Australia representing industry, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the academies and the professions. We are looking for a new direction in which this country can move between now and the end of the twentieth century. We will also have some very interesting speakers from overseas, such as Professor James McAlear who is the developer of the bio- chip and Professor Tom Stonier from the University of Bradford. There has been an enormous demand from all sections of the community to attend. We have had to restrict the numbers to about 140. The conference will be very adequately reported in the Press. I hope that an opportunity will be found for us to debate the conclusions reached by the conference, which I think will be of great value to the community. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence. In the answer I gave to the third of those questions, that is, the one from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), I said: 'I think two'. The answer is three . Mr SPEAKER —I call the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), who has sought the indulgence of the Chair. I understand that he wants to pass comment on a question. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —At page 755 of the proof edition of Hansard of Wednesday, 14 September, the penultimate paragraph in the first column reads as follows- Mr Dawkins —Will the Leader of the Opposition tell us exactly what he is doing? Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition has asked the indulgence of the Chair to mention a matter that was raised during Question Time. I have granted him that indulgence, just as I did to the Prime Minister who corrected an answer to a question. Mr PEACOCK —I am not correcting a question. I am giving the detail that was asked for, and I can give it. I do not change it like you do. The last sentence of the penultimate paragraph on page 755 reads: He ought to remember that. The next paragraph goes on: This matter is very important from the point of view of our ASEAN friends. In the greens that were issued yesterday by Hansard the words 'He ought to remember that' are followed by: However, we agree to disagree on a few minor matters, not matters such as this though. That sentence has been deleted from the proof copy of Hansard. So the record has been dummied. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind honourable members that a matter has been raised. If it is allowed to be put before the House it will be disposed of quickly. I suggest that honourable members cease interjecting. Mr PEACOCK —You can try to dolly your actions up about seeking-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he is speaking with the indulgence of the Chair. He should not abuse that indulgence. Mr PEACOCK —Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister could not recall when he cast aspersions on the previous Government's donation of $10m to the Lebanese. He made the statement 'I think that is a supercilious thing to do' on the PM program on 9 August 1982. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to assist the honourable member opposite. Mr SPEAKER —I call the Minister. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I want to help the Opposition in this matter. Everybody knows I made those statements yesterday. I do not deny them. I guarantee that the fact that they are not in Hansard will be corrected immediately. There is no problem about that. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) was so worried about the matter. I said: 'We agree to disagree on a few minor matters'. Everybody in the House heard me say it. Surely the honourable gentleman does not want me to say that I did not say it. I did say it and it ought to be in the Hansard. In respect of the other matter-the supercilious attitude of the Leader of the Opposition to the Middle East-it is well known that I would obviously, intelligently and appropriately castigate him for all his supercilious actions when he was Foreign Minister and also when his Government failed to take appropriate action in the Middle East. Mr Peacock —I was not the Foreign Minister then. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman is to be castigated about the time when he was Foreign Minister. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr KLUGMAN —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Prospect. Dr KLUGMAN —Today, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian, at least-and probably other newspapers because all the newspapers get the same Australian Associated Press or other Press reports-refer to a statement I made yesterday, reporting me as criticising 'awesome molecular medicine'. I was, of course, referring to orthomolecular medicine. It is awesome, but that is not the point. Mr SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member for his brief explanation. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 171 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, I present the annual report of the Trade Practices Commission for 1982-83. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members I present a report to the Attorney-General by the Administrative Review Council on Rights of Review under the Migration Act 1958 and Related Legislation-Interim Report on the Constitution of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members I present a report to the Attorney-General by the Administrative Review Council on Review of Taxation Decisions by Boards of Review. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I present an interim report from the Australian National University for 1982. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967, I present the annual report of the Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education for 1982. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for 1982 together with a statement on the report by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I present Volume 1 of the report of the Committee of Review into the Impact of Radford College, Australian Capital Territory. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Ministerial Statement Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-Just over 30 years ago a new word came into Australian popular usage. It was 'ANZUS'. Four days after ANZAC Day in 1952, the security treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America-what came to be known more simply as the ANZUS Treaty- entered into force. It was no coincidence that this was precisely one day after another major treaty came into force. That was the Treaty of Peace with Japan, and each of the three ANZUS partners were also parties to it. The fact of the matter, of course, was that the ANZUS Treaty was part of the Japanese peace settlement arrangements and machinery. It was part of the attempt to guarantee, to the extent that any such thing can be guaranteed, that the desperate days of 1941-45 would not again be inflicted on the peoples of the Asian Pacific region, at least not from the same source. The Government has completed its review of the ANZUS Treaty, first as a national act and then in association with Australia's alliance partners. The review has led us to a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of the alliance as fundamental to Australia's national security and foreign and defence policies. In saying this, I do not say that the Treaty guarantees Australia's national safety and welfare, nor do I place us in that posture of happy dependence that has satisfied the foreign policy ambitions of many Australians in the past both within and without this Parliament. However, although the Treaty was drawn up a generation ago, and in very different circumstances, we have reached the conclusion that the commitments and obligations that were accepted then remain as valid and appropriate today. The Treaty has the full support of this Government; but we recognise that we must still pull our full weight in our own protection. Let me now explain why, on attaining office earlier this year, the Government decided the time had come to put the ANZUS Treaty under the microscope-to subject it to a searching examination and to compare our findings with our partners. Our objective was not to revise the Treaty, nor was it to seek to weaken it. On the contrary, we were convinced that by stripping away the misconceptions, and the unrealistic expectations which surrounded the Treaty, we would strengthen it and bring it back to terms with reality. We started from an open-eyed acknowledgment that 1983 was not 1952. The war with Japan was long over. Japan had become our most important trading partner and had come to play a key role in world affairs. Other wars had been fought and, if not won, had been settled; or, as in the case of Korea, brought to an uneasy halt. The long and unfruitful period of so-called containment of China was over. China enjoyed friendly and co-operative links with most of her regional neighbours, including Australia. Old problems had been settled; new difficulties had emerged. Old fears had been laid; new worries had arisen. The political nature of our region had undergone far-reaching change. Many former colonies, including our own, had been transformed into independent or self-governing states. Throughout the three decades which had elapsed since the word ANZUS joined our national language, Australia has not once been seriously threatened by armed attack. It seemed a reasonable question to ask whether the terms of Australia's basic security treaty, concluded over 30 years ago, continued to serve Australia effectively in the 1980s. Pattern of the Review The Government's own review of the Treaty was completed just before the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to Washington, where he publicly confirmed the Government's intention to maintain and strengthen ANZUS. That visit and, shortly afterwards, Mr Muldoon's visit to Australia provided opportunities for the Prime Minister to brief partner governments on the broad conclusions of our review and to indicate the issues for more detailed discussion at the ANZUS Council meeting in July. My colleague the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and I attended the ANZUS Council meeting in mid-July. There we offered a detailed presentation of the Australian perspective and discussed the American and New Zealand perceptions. I am pleased to report that at the Council meeting we obtained the clarifications we had been seeking and gained acceptance of the propositions which we advanced. At the joint press conference immediately after the Council meeting Secretary Shultz was asked his views on the review we had proposed. He replied that it was 'an excellent idea'. He described it as 'most worthwhile to go through the discussion that we did and to arrive at where we are . . . it's been a good exercise'. The statement I am now making, which has been agreed by my colleague the Minister for Defence, in a sense completes the review process by recording the essential features of the review. Issues discussed and conclusions In its own review the Government reached the following main conclusions: It is in Australia's interests to maintain the ANZUS Treaty. Although concluded in very different circumstances the ANZUS Treaty was continuing relevance. It supports Australia's security in current and prospective strategic circumstances and reflects a coincidence of strategic interest between Australia, New Zealand and the United States; this coincidence of interest provides the basis for co-operation which yields substantial benefits for Australia's defence effort and which affords substantial benefit to the United States also; the provisions of the Treaty have been a significant factor in the development of consultation and co-operation with the United States and provide a firm basis on which United States military support could be sought in the event of major threat to the security of Australia, or New Zealand; while the provisions of the Treaty do not define precisely the nature of the response which partners might provide according to their constitutional processes in the event of attack or major threat, the Treaty has significant deterrent value; ANZUS has facilitated the development of available co-operation in defence matters with benefits much wider than the scope of the Treaty's provisions; the Treaty provisions do not derogate from Australia's right of national decisions in foreign and defence policy matters. The conclusions reached at the ANZUS Council meeting were entirely consistent with our own. The main points of agreement are recorded in the Council Communique, from which I now wish to quote the relevant paragraphs: After the Secretary of State welcomed the ANZUS Delegations, the Council Members reviewed the ANZUS Alliance. It was the first such review since the ANZUS Treaty was signed in 1951. They noted that, although international political and strategic circumstances which prevailed at that time had changed, it is a sign of the resilience of the Treaty that it remains relevant and vitally important to the shared security concerns and strategic interests of the three partner governments The Council Members affirmed that the Alliance is firmly based on the partners' common traditions and concern to protect democratic values. They value highly the co-operative defence arrangements, facilitated by the treaty since its conclusion, which have served their government's mutual security interests and promoted a strengthening of each other's defence capability. In the spirit of the ANZUS Alliance, they noted that, beyond the activities of defence co- operation, the various efforts, individual and collective, by the partners to promote both regional and global development and stability have also served the cause of mutual security. The Council acknowledged that the ANZUS Treaty does not absolve each government from the primary responsibility to provide for its own security to the extent which its resources allow. It is for this reason that Article II of the Treaty provides that the parties will 'by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack'. The Council Members also noted that the ability of each country to defend itself is substantially enhanced by their common commitments under the Treaty. A range of responses is available to the Parties to act to meet a common danger in accordance with their constitutional processes. The Council also reaffirmed that the ANZUS Treaty is an agreement between sovereign and equal states committed to the democratic tradition. In accordance with that tradition, the respective states would at times have varying views and perspectives on various international political and economic issues. Such diversity does not affect their solidarity under the ANZUS Treaty, the maintenance of which reflects the fundamental interests of the three partners. In order to strengthen the Alliance further and recognising that national security cannot be assured by military strength alone, the Council Members considered a number of practical co-operative measures: They agreed that ANZUS consultative processes could be strengthened through further periodic ANZUS Officials Talks. These talks, which were revived this year, would rotate between the three capitals and address issues or areas of common concern. Participants would include mid-level and senior officials expert on the issues or areas to be addressed. They also agreed that the framework of ANZUS and bilateral defence co-operation requires a standardisation of privileges and immunities and of jurisdictional and other matters for military service personnel and their families serving in each other's countries. The members therefore agreed to give priority to early conclusion of a reciprocal ANZUS Status of Forces Agreement. They expressed satisfaction with the continuing programs of exchanges, combined exercises and visits among the Treaty partners. They also reaffirmed the importance of these programs, of ongoing efforts to modernise and to assure supply of equipment, and of continuing to strengthen alliance defensive capabilities and thus deterrence of conflict''. These conclusions are clear and unambiguous and I do not wish here to seek to reinterpret them. However, I do wish to draw attention to some of the communique points which reflect the issues which Australia raised at the meeting: The erroneous notion that Australia is totally dependent on ANZUS, and thus the United States, for its national security implies an unquestioning, deferential relationship which would be unhealthy in itself and also a very poor basis for effective defence planning. The Treaty relationship is, of course, between sovereign, independent nations and should thus be the expression of each party's national interests; otherwise it would amount to surrender of national sovereignty and would impair each country's international standing. The communique shows that our partners fully supported this point and agreed that diversity of opinion or attitude does not affect the fundamental solidarity underlying the Treaty. The communique quite rightly emphasises the Treaty article which requires each partner to provide for its own security to the extent which its resources allow. This issue of self-help we regard as fundamental. Australia cannot expect others to help Australia under ANZUS or any other arrangement if Australia does not help itself. Support from Treaty partners can be expressed in a range of responses. The Treaty does not provide any automatic guarantee of military support in the event of attack or major threat. We were reassured by the Americans as to their understanding of the requirement for prompt and effective fulfilment of ANZUS obligations. As Secretary of State Shultz said at the joint press conference following the Council meeting: '. . . the hard kernel is the undertaking to respond in the event of attack on any of the countries involved'. In the United States view any armed attack on the ally would require, and would receive from the other allies, full and prompt fulfilment of the ANZUS security commitment- including, if necessary, military support. But, as I said at the same press conference, and as Mr Shultz acknowledged earlier at the ANZUS Council meeting, the obligation to respond and to assist would not automatically involve the provision of military forces in support of the country subjected to threat or attacks-because of the requirement to observe constitutional processes. These would allow each country opportunity to assess the requirements of the situation and to determine its national interests and obligations and the mode and extent of its response. A range of responses might be available, and it would be up to the other partners to judge which response would be appropriate in a given situation. It may be in certain circumstances that diplomatic action, or political or economic sanctions against the adversary, or the supply of equipment or military logistical support for the ally would be judged a more appropriate response than direct military involvement. In other circumstances direct military support may be appropriate. Before leaving this question of whether an automatic military response might be expected in all circumstances under ANZUS, I should just like to quote some remarks made by former Prime Minister Fraser in a television interview in May last year. What he said indicates quite clearly the bipartisan nature of our understanding in this respect. Mr Fraser said: You can never automatically anticipate assistance. Nations will always read treaties in terms of the circumstances of the time, in terms of the relationship between the countries at the time-in our case, between the United States and Australia and New Zealand. I don't believe it has ever been the case that anyone-Britain or the United States-would automatically come to Australia's aid, no matter what the circumstances are. I would also like to draw attention to the following statement from the 1976 White Paper on Australian Defence which reads: It is not our policy, nor would it be prudent, to rely upon US combat help in all circumstances. Indeed it is possible to envisage a range of situations in which the threshold of direct US combat involvement could be quite high. Underlying any consideration of what form of support might be appropriate will of course be the assumption, to which I have already referred, that each country will have developed a prudent level of self-defence capability commensurate with the resources which it has available. The so-called Guam Doctrine represents a significant expression of that view by a recent United States Administration and a similar approach was adopted even more recently by Judge Clark, President Reagan's National Security Adviser, in a major public address just over a year ago. That expectation of a reasonable effort of self-help, of self-defence, is not only eminently sensible in itself but is, of course, entirely consistent with and in accord with the general principles, explicit and implicit, underlying the ANZUS arrangements. There are a number of references to constitutional processes, to the range of responses and options that might be available and to the element of discretion and judgment involved in deciding what kind of response might or might not be necessary. It may be asked whether all these conditions and qualifications reduce the real effectiveness of the Treaty; do they mean that the Treaty has in fact no real practical value? The answer to that question is resoundingly no. What those qualifications do mean, however, is that we cannot assume military support from our Treaty partners in every contingency; and that we should therefore develop a self-defence capability in case in a particular contingency we need to rely on our own resources. By definition, therefore, it would not be prudent to base the development of our Defence Force structure on the assumption that our forces will necessarily be part of a super-power deployment in the event of any form of hostilities in which we are involved. It is more prudent and proper to elaborate these force structures on the basis of a self-defence capability within our regional context. I hasten to add for clarity of record that our threat assessment is as it was for the previous Government, that is, that in the foreseeable future we are not confronted by any likely regional threat. Indeed, agreement was explicitly reached as to Australia's prime defence role, namely, as one of building our self-defence capability within our regional context, rather than as a presumed global role as some sort of appendix of a super-power. That clarification will allow a much more explicit and precise formulation of our defence thinking and will govern the defence structure that we establish for our Defence Force. From that last point it follows that not everything which Australia does in the defence field with the United States and New Zealand should be seen as part of the ANZUS relationship. All too often in the past Australians have had a tendency to believe, or have been encouraged to believe, that ANZUS covers every conceivable association with the US and every conceivable military action that we might take together. ANZUS does not provide such limitless coverage and clearly is not the only determinant of our relationships with New Zealand and the United States. We may well undertake various activities in co-operation with the United States and New Zealand, not because such activities or actions are required ANZUS obligations-rather because of our mutual interests and perceptions and the deeper association that ANZUS represents. That last point is of course relevant to the Australian Government's attitude towards the joint defence facilities in Australia, such as North West Cape, Pine Gap and Nurrungar. None of these activities involves a specific ANZUS obligation , and they are in any case bilateral arrangements as New Zealand is not involved . While the agreements establishing the joint defence facilities do refer to ANZUS in their preambular paragraphs, they are not a necessary consequence of ANZUS itself. However, the facilities clearly represent an important reflection and instance of the shared interests which the Treaty embodies, and the Government regards this form of co-operation with the United States as of unique value. As the Prime Minister and I have indicated on several occasions recently, the contribution made by the joint defence facilities to deterrence of nuclear war fully justifies any risks that might be seen as arising from our having those facilities in Australia. In addition, the operation of the joint defence facilities gives us some moral standing in the position we intend to take more actively in the United Nations and other international fora in support of arms control and arms reduction. It is our considered view that we cannot expect to be influential in the crucial issues of arms control, arms reduction and disarmament initiatives both at relevant international fora and through appropriate bilateral contact if we ' cop-out' completely on such an important matter as nuclear deterrence. Therein, as things stand now, rests the only viable option of effective restraint to nuclear conflict. It is important that we fulfil our moral obligations in affecting that restraint if we are genuinely concerned about minimising to the greatest extent possible, in prevailing circumstances, the possibility of such conflict. From that credible and morally committed position, we are in a sound and influential position to argue beyond the present less than steady circumstances for a better arrangement based on armaments negotiations- conventional as well as nuclear-leading to effective controls, hopefully arms reduction and ideally, but perhaps not plausibly given the nature of the world we know, to disarmament. I think it important to reiterate for the record that this Labor Government in matters of international relations presumes to be neither neutral nor non- aligned. We clearly have our commitments, and our alignment is frequently and convincingly demonstrated. Our independence and national interest are served greatly by these associations but within them we exercise independence of judgment, are prepared to disagree with allies where it is in the best interests of the alliance, and certainly where it is in the best interests of this nation. The fact that these things can be done and the alliance remain intact is an indication of the maturity of the relationship. In this regard I repeat from the communique the endorsement of these values I have just referred to and which I put quite directly at the ANZUS Council meeting: . . . the respective States would at times have varying views and perspectives on various international political and economic issues. Such diversity does not affect their solidarity under the ANZUS Treaty . . . Concluding Remarks I should like to say that the Government has been much assisted in its review of the Treaty by two useful reports of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The first was the Committee's report on 'Threats to Australia's Security-their Nature and Probability' and the second on the 'ANZUS Alliance'. The threat report noted that in the event of an attack on Australia, the possibility was open for the United States to decide to respond by military force or means other than the application of military force-for example, by supply of military equipment, by diplomatic or economic pressure on the attacker , and so on. The deterrent value of the potential diplomatic, military or economic measures which the United States would employ in support of Australia if attacked was also acknowledged. The second report, on the ANZUS Alliance, concluded that the mutual security provisions of the ANZUS Treaty, taken together, represent a stronger assurance of military assistance in the event of an attack on Australia than a commitment merely to consult. The Committee believed that if Australia was under an attack which proved beyond its capacity to handle alone, US support in one form or another would be forthcoming. The Government's own review and the outcome of our discussions in Washington with our ANZUS partners endorse these findings of the Joint Committee. ANZUS is not a paper tiger but it is up to Australia first and foremost to look after itself. That is a sobering thought of which we should not lose sight. ANZUS is not an elaborate document authorising us to get our self-defence on the cheap. It is a commitment of national and mutual responsibility. It is our duty to discharge those responsibilities prudently if we are to sustain the Treaty. I believe that various parties in Government have sought to do this. They have continued to do so recently and currently in spite of the most difficult economic circumstances. That goes to the bipartisan credit of the parties who have served this country in government in recent years and it is an achievement which we should not seek to sully or undermine for the purpose of brief political opportunity. The national security of this country should be beyond such cheap motives and borne with commitment from all the parties. In conclusion I would like to say again what I said in the course of a recent visit in South East Asia. Much more important to the future peace and security of Australia than any treaty, as I see it, must be the achievement of a stable, harmonious and economically viable environment in the area of the world in which we live, that is, the Asian-Pacific region. While none of us would want to throw away a military shield which helps to protect us from possible threats, we must at the same time make every possible effort to create conditions which make the invoking of that military shield unnecessary. I do not for one moment believe that we shall succeed quickly. We can expect setbacks and failures. But try we must. While that effort is being made, we will do all we can to maintain the undoubted vitality and strength of the ANZUS Treaty. That strength has been much enhanced by our seeing it as it really is-now in 1983-fundamental to, but not an exclusive guarantee of, our national defence and security. I present the following paper: Review of ANZUS-Ministerial statement, 15 September 1983. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —by leave- The review of ANZUS just outlined to us by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has been an exercise, like so much of the Government's recent activity in the foreign affairs field, to expose for the benefit of the Australian Labor Party the principles which govern and continue to govern Australian foreign policy, principles which this side of the House accepts as commonsense and pragmatic but which have to be spelled out as fresh thought to satisfy the discomfort the Government has in maintaining a commonsense approach when faced by the dissident views of the Victorian branch of the Labor Party. This is an exercise not for the Australian community but for the dissident elements within the Labor Party itself. The questionings and doubts in the Labor Party about ANZUS are, hopefully, to be put to rest by this statement. In the process, the nation is treated to an exercise in motherhood. The fact is that there are only two super-powers in this world-The United States of America and the Soviet Union. After the war a system of alliances to protect free societies in Europe and the Pacific emerged in association with the United States. This gave balance to the aggressive pushes of Stalinist Russia, in Europe and the Pacific. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation formed to defend Europe and the Atlantic . Following the experience of the Korean War when Japan became threatened by an almost successful sudden attack by North Korea against South Korea, there were other unstable situations unfolding in the Pacific region. Then Australian and New Zealand statesmen, whose experiences were alive with the memories of two major conflicts within virtually a decade, resolved to ally their countries in a framework of an alliance which would add strength to their individual security. ANZUS never was and never has been seen as a substitute for a national security effort. Rather it has been seen as being, and has had the effect of, a catalyst for national security effort. It is important to remember that Australia has acted internationally in support of her security interests outside the framework of ANZUS. Australia very successfully committed resources and fighting forces against the communist insurgency in the Malaysian Peninsula. This effort, in collaboration with the British and indigenous forces, put an end to communist ambitions to secure the strategic region for communist aims. Again Australia backed the resistance to the efforts of Indonesia under Sukarno to frustrate the foundation of the independent state of Malaysia. It was an unhappy period of some uncertainty as to the direction of American policy. Australia made its decisions on the basis of its judgment that our security interests demanded that we resist the solution of territorial claims by force majeur. Today as a result of this wise collaboration with our South East Asian friends, and the British Government, the region is emerging as a basic force for stability. ANZUS was not involved in these commitments. The experience of World War II brought home to Australians that there was a natural mutual security strength in the relationship between Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Our societies were based on fundamental principles of freedom and democracy, principles which were challenged and discounted by adversary viewpoints. If we hold to our principles, we have at all times to be prepared to defend them with strength. World War II as I have said, demonstrated the mutuality of our security interests. The Korean War confirmed the perceptions which informed the minds of all leaders who had been in this Parliament throughout the dark days of World War II. The ANZUS Treaty is a document of mutual commitment, as described by the Minister. It is also a set of working arrangements. A key feature is the military exercises and the military advising arrangements. In this connection, it is well to recall some of the war-time experiences, which should help us to place a special value on the contribution ANZUS arrangements make to national security. ANZUS was set in place by men who had a living experience of the enormous difficulties which faced Australia and the Pacific in World War II, and the problems of the instability being created in the South East Asian and Pacific approaches to Australia as a result of communist policies. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) rightly emphasises the significance of the great contribution made by John Curtin to the saving of Australia. But the experience of Curtin, in his efforts to establish a direct relationship with the United States, was not lost on the late Sir Robert Menzies, Sir Percy Spender and R. G. Casey, the man who spoke for Australia in Washington in the critical days in 1942. The threat to Australia, the bombing of Australia, produced a grave crisis . A conflict between European and Pacific priorities developed over which we had very little understanding or control. Sir Owen Dixon, who suceeded Mr Casey, recommended we try to get access to the views of the United States chiefs of staff. But there was no machinery for this. The war historian, Foreign Minister and member of this House, Sir Paul Hasluck, described the problem facing Curtin as follows: The Australian Government was unaware of the course of a great deal of high- level planning between Roosevelt and Churchill or by the Combined Chiefs of Staff in Washington or even by the United States Service Commanders, until after the consummation of that planning had made it public. Thus when a crisis arose as to the degree of effort to be diverted from Europe to support the defence of the Solomons, Australia knew nothing of the critical debate between the United States Chiefs of Staff. Fortunately, Admiral King, Chief of the United States Naval Operations, came down behind a firm stand in favour of Pacific priorities. He describes the decision in his account of his career. But Australia knew nothing of his thinking behind the United States decision to counter attack in the Solomons, action essential to secure the lines of communication between Hawaii and Australia. The ANZUS Treaty takes us beyond these uncertainties that faced John Curtin. It takes us into a framework of close consultation with the United States military authorities. Our respect for it and support has a firm historical base, that is, the near invasion of Australia in World War II and the great crisis which threatened the Pacific by communist efforts to take over the Korean Peninsula and South East Asia. While the strategic circumstances today may differ, as the Minister outlined, little has changed to suggest that a close alliance with the United States is not fundamental or valid. A treaty which has behind it the force of the United States Congress is of profound value to us. I mention this history to remind the House that one of the instruments of ANZUS not mentioned by the Minister is the system for meetings of the military chiefs, which take place at the time of the ministerial meeting. This special relationship ensures access through our military mission in Washington and, conversely, theirs in Australia. This access is, of course, of continuing practical importance. These practical arrangements ensure something we never had in World War II-direct working access to the highest military level in Washington. Far from weakening our independence and authority, ANZUS greatly strengthens it. We are better informed and better placed to make judgments and contribute to the dynamic issues of the day. The decision of the Government to agree to revamped meetings between officials of the ANZUS governments is a constructive development. One of the problems in the past has been that the officials tend to treat the talks as occasions for reviewing global issues-'tour d'horizon' is the diplomatic jargon. There should be scope for meetings of officials on ad hoc issues-that is, specific issues of the day about which there is a prospective urgency and on which a concerted view would be of practical value to all parties. It is a valuable innovation to have scope in the meetings for discussions between mid-level and senior experts, as announced in the ANZUS communique. This will overcome the tendency to a routine ennui which led to the falling into disrepair of the previous arrangements for officials' discussions. The Minister's statement contains a very important reference to a point of some considerable substance. It is not a new point, as it has been made in various forms by coalition spokesmen in government, and in particular the issue was carefully addressed by the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence last year. The point is the one which fully recognises that Australia should maintain a self-defence capability. The Minister stated: By definition, therefore, it would not be prudent to base the development of our Defence Force structure on the assumption that our forces will necessarily be part of a super-power deployment in the event of any form of hostilities in which all are involved. The intent and meaning of the point would be clearer if the word 'allied' were substituted for 'super-power'. Whilst accepting the prudence in any proposition that we should not base ourselves on the assumption of allied assistance, nevertheless it is mandatory that our self-defence capability be developed on the premise that its structure and its equipment can readily be compatible with our ANZUS partners. There is a requirement therefore to produce a self-defence capability which can support wider allied commitments to the region of the Pacific and Indian Oceans when necessary. On the contemporary significance of ANZUS, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence reports the views of the Department of Defence as follows: The official view of the security value of the ANZUS alliance to Australia, as put to the Sub-committee by the Department of Defence, may be summarised as follows: First, if a security problem arose in our region, with which we could not deal unaided, the ANZUS Treaty would guarantee Australia's security; secondly, ANZUS has a day-to-day relevance on the basis of a partnership which can be seen at work in such areas as exchanges of intelligence and military doctrine, the operations of the joint facilities and Australian participation in joint naval and military exercises; thirdly, ANZUS also has a wider significance as an important part of the web of alliances and treaty arrangements which constitute the Western Alliance-it is within this framework that the Australian offer of home porting facilities at Cockburn Sound to US Navy ships engaged in patrolling the Indian Ocean, for example, is seen as linked to Australia's obligations under ANZUS, as is a range of co-operative activities, including the joint defence facilities, co-operation in communications arrangements and logistic support arrangements, and the provision of transit facilities for US B52 aircraft and facilities for certain US military exercises here. The Minister referred to Mr Clark's speeches, the intent of which was discussed by the Joint Committee of this House. The Committee made this significant finding: In the Committee's view, the ANZUS Alliance will continue to have 'a deterrent value against any hostile action beyond Australia's capabilities to defend itself'. The Committee also supports the view that Australia must look primarily to its own defence capabilities to protect itself against a future threat to its security or its interests from within the region. In conclusion, the Committee stated: The Committee considers that the mutual security provisions of the ANZUS Treaty , taken together, represent a stronger assurance of military assistance in the event of an attack on Australian territory than a commitment merely to consult. The Committee believes that, in the event of a threat to Australia which proved beyond the capacity of the Australian defence force to meet unaided, US support would be forthcoming in accordance with the mutual security provisions of the Treaty. However, no such threat is visible in the near future. As the Committee notes, the form of the assistance is a more open question, as one would expect. There is no specific reference in the ministerial statement to the geographical application of ANZUS. On the whole, I think this is not an area for unilateral interpretations to be attempted. But an important point was usefully made by the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee in 1981 when it said: There is general acceptance that the ANZUS Treaty does not apply in different ways to different parts of Australia's metropolitan territory, which includes the Australian littoral on the Indian Ocean. Article IV, because of Article V, clearly applies equally to the West, North and South of Australia as it does to Australia's Pacific Littoral. Clearly it follows that joint arrangements which address the security of the Indian Ocean and its consequential effects on the Indian Ocean approaches to Australia is of a significance to be comprehended by ANZUS whether by specific reference or by reference to the wider 'umbrella' effects of the Treaty. In this context we should consider the statement made by Admiral Long, Commander-in- Chief of the United States Forces in the Pacific to the United States House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on March, 1982. The Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee report states: Admiral Long's statement detailed US and Soviet military strengths in the Pacific and East and South Asia, calling on the Congress to support President Reagan's efforts to enhance US military power. He emphasised that the 'vast' PACOM area (stretching from the west coast of the United States to the east coast of Africa, and including the Pacific and Indian Oceans) remained 'critical to vital US and allied interests, not only militarily, but politically and economically as well'; also, that in the last decade the Soviet Union had greatly expanded its influence throughout the region. Admiral Long stated further-the language is important-that the United States takes its treaty commitments in the Pacific seriously as illustrated by the forward basing of forces and the deployment of ships throughout the Pacific and Indian Ocean areas. It is against the background of that strategic outlook, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Opposition views its obligations to the support and application of the ANZUS Treaty, the Treaty which we believe is the most vital of all our international treaties. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The confusion and uncertainty caused for Australian industry by the conflict within the Government over protection policy. 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 John Brown-You are a bit thin on the deck. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.39) —I would not talk about our being a bit thin on the deck. We have about a 100:1 ratio here with two Government members in the chamber. We have moved this matter of public importance concerning the confusion and uncertainty caused for Australian industry by the conflict within the Government over protection policy because of what has transpired this week. If industry is to invest, to become more profitable, to become more competitive and to create more jobs, there must be clear, comprehensible and coherent policies from government. Recent contradictory remarks made by Ministers have given rise to very great uncertainty. I remind the House that, on 12 September, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) said that our protectionist policies were 'embalming geriatric industries in a sort of formaldehyde of protection, On 14 September, the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) made perfectly clear his support for high levels of protection and added, rather tartly: In matters of trade I am responsible; in matters of foreign policy the Minister for Foreign Affairs is . . . We also note that he told the House, although we could not read about it in the Hansard this morning: . . . we-- that is, the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs- agree to disagree on a few minor matters-- He then rather hastily added: not matters such as this though. In other words, there was no agreement between him and the Foreign Minister on industry policy. We have known for a lengthy period what the attitude of the Minister for Trade has been. He even goes to open international trade fairs which are generally accorded in a given area to promote two-way trade and proceeds to speak on the benefits of high rates of protection. Honourable members can imagine the degree of disillusionment amongst members of his audience. Let me be quite clear on this. We have never run away from this difficult area. We have said that high levels of protection cannot be reduced overnight. But we have equally said that, as with every other country, interdependence is not some foreign policy cliche. It connotes that essential element in trade-that one country trading with the other is thereby dependent on the other. There is an interdependent element throughout the world on questions of world trade which has to be addressed. It is not good enough for the Minister for Trade to come into this House and simply say 'Look, I not only disagree with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but I have to recognise that there are many distortions in world trade', talking to us as if we did not know about the distortions created by non-tariff measures. I have never resiled from the reality that when Australia is attacked for its allegedly high protectionist stance, we need to point out that more than 50 per cent of the world's trade is distorted by non- tariff barriers. We know of the examples around the world of some countries even preventing motor vehicles from coming into their given jurisdiction by the use, for example, of a drug Act or drug regulation because the medical kit in the glovebox of a vehicle did not allegedly fit within the confines of that particular drug regulation. I abhor that approach just as much as I abhor the approach of people who feel that we can solve the difficulties of the international economic situation by moving to higher rates of protection. Central to it all is the necessity that a government give clear, comprehensible and, as I have said, coherent policies so that those who wish to engage in trade with us know what we are about and, more particularly, so that our own industralists and their employees know where they stand. We have a situation in Australia today where not only a senior Minister, involved inevitably as he is as Foreign Minister in international, economic and training matters, but also the former Leader of the Australian Labor Party, are saying that we are ' embalming geriatric industries in a sort of formaldehyde of protection' while the Minister for Trade totally disagrees and simply says in this Parliament that we have to take note of the non-tariff barriers around the world today. We have not had spelt out in this Parliament any coherent program whatsoever relating to protection policy. It is not surprising that industry is confused, that it is uncertain; that, on the one hand, trade unionists are denigrating the Foreign Minister and, on the other hand, certain other elements of Australian commerce are praising the Foreign Minister and denigrating-- Mr John Brown —Which certain elements? Mr PEACOCK —Of the trade union movement? Mr John Brown —No. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the honourable gentleman to the remarks Mr Thompson made about the Foreign Minister at a meeting of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Again I do not have the quotation with me but I could have it brought into the chamber. Mr Thompson attacked the Foreign Minister. I am not surprised because I would imagine that there had been a degree of tick-tacking with certain other Ministers around this place. After all, the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) said that the Foreign Minister's views had been coloured by his frequent trips through South East Asia. So we have had added to the confusion not only the statements of the Foreign Minister, the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Industry and Commerce but also that rather exciting injection the other day when the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) answered a question by reading from his plethora of pages provided by his Department of Industry and Commerce advisers-matters about which only the date and time had been changed so far as I could tell from what was submitted to me and my predecessors. I cannot recall any of us simply giving voice to that piece of bureaucratic language that was put down by the Minister who is to respond to this matter of public importance. On AM today the Minister for Trade again distanced himself from the Foreign Minister's views. The Foreign Minister said: Our economics have got to be right. Now there is a first class statement! If we are looking for guidance from the Minister for Trade on our trading policies we will be guided by what he said this morning: 'Our economics have got to be right'. The Hansard might be wrong- his officers might change the Hansard-but he seems to have very firm views that economics need to be got right. I assume that by that he meant we need lower protection. Today the Minister for Trade said that no country in the world has its economics right. He argued that free trade was unachievable. Quite clearly, these contradictions raise questions about what our trade policies are and, more particularly, who makes them. We know from our friend, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) that the next time he is Acting Prime Minister some poor, hapless ally will again be taken and possibly dragged off, rhetorically speaking , to Beirut, just as our friends the Japanese were to be taken with us to Kampuchea. I would not know whether, during that period, we could place the same reliance on the remarks in the trading area because each time the Trade Minister speaks in these areas there is an extraordinary degree of confusion. Confusion weakens Australia's reputation as a stable trading partner, and as a responsible member of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and other international trade agreements. We all know that it is difficult enough in the international economic climate. We must share some of the blame for this as must every member of the Western industrialised world, because we have never got right the relationship between finance and trade policies at the international or the domestic level. Perhaps the West Germans are the only ones who have been able to act in a more cohesive manner in this area. There is a desperate need for bringing together, for example, at the international level, the viewpoints of those who participate in International Monetary Fund and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development discussions and those who are associated with GATT. Sometimes they seem to be producing or following different lines and so too at the domestic level between the Treasurers, Finance Ministers and Trade Ministers. But when this matter is exacerbated to the extent that has occurred between the Foreign Minister and the Trade Minister, confusion is heaped upon confusion. I referred earlier to the fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is supposed to be responsible for industry policies, made reference to the Foreign Minister's remarks as being simply coloured by his frequent visits to South East Asia. However, the most serious element of it all is that the inconsistency between all these Ministers undermines any confidence Australian industry have in planning ahead with that degree of certainty of coherent, stable government policies that they ought to expect. We have the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) coming in here and saying that the Government believes in wage restraint and that the prices and incomes accord will work. We know that the primary reason for the difficulties facing Australian industry today is that it has been cast out of the market because of the wage hikes. With the covert consent of this Government we will have a 4.3 per cent increase this month in wages brought down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and a return to full indexation next year, thus giving Australian industry no competitive position whatsoever. When we add to that the gravity of this uncertainty, coming at the inopportune time of world recession, the growth of Asian industries, Australia's falling competitiveness, and the Government's abandonment of the wages pause, then Australian industry is not merely placed in a less competitive position but, as I said, it is unable to plan with any certainty at all when the conflicting statements that are being made by Ministers are taken into consideration. The Opposition makes its position quite clear. Australian industry has to remain outward looking. We must encourage export oriented industries. We have to capitalise on the proximity of the world's fastest growing markets. That will require gradual predictable reductions in protection and it will require incentives for industry growth, whether through accelerated depreciation provisions or incentives for high technology. It will not be the sort of thing that this Government does, with things such as sunrise industries, thinking that it can pick out the industries. The shadow Minister for Science and Technology has time and again said that governments are notoriously bad at picking winners and picking losers. It is not the role of government to involve itself in that way, it is the role of government to create certainty to allow for flexibility and adaptability to occur within the market place. The flexibility and the yacht-like tacking that occurs within the ranks of this Government is the very last thing that industry requires. We need gradual predictable reductions in protection; we need incentives for industry growth. I have mentioned accelerated depreciation provisions and the incentives for high technology, which incidentally, were wrapped up in a very plausible program for high technology in the program of advanced technology, the Adteci Corporation, which the previous Prime Minister spelt out in the policy speech. That was the approach to take, to throw it open to the only area that is the determinant as to whether industry will succeed in the end, namely, the market place, with government creating the proper climate. The very reverse is occurring on the other side. The protection against unfair competition and the moves that the Government has made in relation to dumping I have endorsed before. However, I come back to the central element. We have had confusion heaped on confusion. We have had statements that industry is being embalmed in a sort of formaldehyde of protection. We have been told by the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) that we must jack up protection to hold to the employment factor as the basic criteria in protection policies. That was the fundamental approach in the 1930s. I know that for years there has been a ridiculous debate in this country between protection and free trade. It has not brought the sophistication that so many of us would require to be injected into it. When that debate is going on publicly between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Trade Minister, it is time for the Opposition to say: 'Time enough for this. Give industry the coherence that is required so that it can plan it effectively'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.55) —We have heard before all this flamboyance from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) again and again when he was in this position. Let me make it quite clear at the outset that there is no conflict within this Government over protection policy, nor is there any confusion or uncertainty in Australian industry over our policy. If there is any confusion, it is in the minds of the Opposition members. We have made our position quite clear, and if honourable members opposite will just sit there and be quiet for a few minutes they will have it spelled out for them again. This Government recognises the long term benefits of reducing protection. It is our intention to reduce gradually industry's reliance on protection. However, our view is that there should be no general reductions in protection in current economic circumstances. That position is entirely consistent with the statements of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). Attempts by the Opposition at dredging up fictitious differences for the purposes of political point scoring do not serve industry will. The words 'confusion' and 'uncertainty' have a familiar ring. The Liberals, when in government, made these words an art form. I remind honourable members, particularly members of the Opposition, that their former Prime Minister, the chameleon Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, could alter his colours to suit any circumstances. He strutted the world stages as the world's great free trader, aided and abetted by his Deputy Prime Minister. When he came home to face harsh reality where did he retreat? He was the arch protectionist. The Leader of the Opposition is in a similar position. We do not know where he stands. Is he now a wet or a dry? When he was surrounded by his unfortunate weird and wonderful collection of West Australian colleagues, now happily departed, he of course was a dry, but they have been removed. They were Mr Hyde, Mr McLean, Mr Bungey and Mr Shack, and the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) who is now a shadow Minister and has gone from being a dry to being thoroughly saturated. He is left here on his own not knowing where he is, whether he is an iceblock or a stone. Is the Leader of the Opposition a dry or a wet? His speech proved nothing. It covered the whole range from one end of the spectrum to the other. At no stage did he tell us where he stands. Mr Peacock —I think you are a drip. Mr JOHN BROWN —At least we are on this side of the House. The drip, drip, drip of the election barometer caught up with the Leader of the Opposition. He sits there absolutely bereft of any policy. Has he espoused an industry policy for Australia to hear and for industry to back up? Has he espoused anything in the wages and incomes area? No, there is no policy whatever. I remind honourable members that this Government in its historic prices and incomes accord stated: Agreed that neither current economic conditions, expected future trends, nor balance of payments constraints justify reduction in protection in the foreseeable future This is something the Leader of the Opposition ought to listen to and understand . It continued: Agreed that changes to protection in the future will be determined within the planning mechanisms in which unions and business will play key roles Agreed where protection is reviewed increased emphasis must be placed on the need for business to account for or justify the distribution of the gains resulting from the maintenance of, or an increase in the levels of, protection. In particular, employment targets must be specified That is the position of this Government, stated at the historic National Economic Summit Conference that took place in this very chamber, a Summit which has been accepted by industry, by unions, and by the public alike as a major breakthrough in terms of a tripartite look at industry. Mr Peacock —What do you say to Bill Hayden's statements? Mr JOHN BROWN —If the Leader of the Opposition listens he will hear. Industry policy in the past has had too great an accent on tariff related measures, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would agree with that. Indeed, tariffs mesmerised the previous Government. So obsessed was it with protection-none more so than the present Leader of the Opposition-that it totally failed to formulate a consistent set of policies for manufacturing growth. Too great an emphasis was placed on propping up particular industries and too little on developing an environment conducive to industrial growth. The culmination of this neglect was the helter skelter demise of industry during the Liberals, last year in power. I will quote a few statistics that might sum up the sorry record of the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In 1982, when the stewardship of the industry portfolio was under the control of the present Leader of the Opposition, industry sustained sledge-hammer blows. In that year production declined by almost 10 per cent. Employment fell by 7 1/2 per cent. Investment fell by nearly 30 per cent. Profitability hit an all-time low. A man of his extraordinary flamboyance and influence certainly had some say in the industry policy which his Government allegedly pursued! I will say this about industry when this man was the responsible Minister-there was certainly no confusion or uncertainty! It knew exactly where it was going; it was headed for the graveyard of despair! Every manufacturing industry in this country was on the decline when he was the Minister. Yet he has the gall to talk in here about uncertainty and confusion. Far from sharing this obsession with tariffs, the present Government has employed a sensitive policy framework in respect of individual industries and in setting a broad environment in which industry can recover and flourish. I refer you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the sorry record of this group of characters when they were in government. Let us take the steel industry. They were quite happy to let the steel industry disappear into oblivion. Mr Peacock —We sent the reference to the IAC. Mr JOHN BROWN —What a startling record of service to that industry! The steel industry was in absolute and abject confusion when honourable members opposite left the treasury bench. In the few short months that we have been in power the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) has been able to transform that industry and to breath life back into a decaying corpse, only by virtue of this Government's capacity to develop a tripartite policy. Whenever could those opposite, either in government or in opposition, come to an agreement between industry, unions and government-an arrangement which may well resuscitate that industry more quickly than they think? The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd has agreed to invest $800m over five years to modernise the industry, the Government has agreed to a subsidy of $70m per year to help it and the unions have agreed to industrial peace an an increase in productivity-an absolutely miraculous breakthrough which in seven years of government those opposite could not have approached. You should stand there and bow your heads to Senator Button because he has been able to break through in this fashion when in seven years all you could do was wind industry down. That is the breakthrough with steel. Mr Howard —The first five years- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) — Order! I ask the Minister to make his comments through the Chair and not incite a noisy response from the Opposition. I would like all honourable members to make comments only through the Chair and only when they have the call. Mr JOHN BROWN —Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise. The policy that Senator Button has been able to formulate with the steel industry has been welcomed by all sections of this community-by the economic Press, every political pundit, the public, the industry and union alike. I defy the Opposition to question that. The range of policies addressed by this Government to industry provide tangible measures to encourge investment and to make funds available for more investment. We will make greater efforts in training and in research, and in fact those claims have been justified in budgetary allocations. We have enacted a set of depreciation provisions which are as supportive as any in the world. We have made available to the Australian Industry Development Corporation a vast increase in funding of up to an additional $1 billion through greater supplementary resources. That is something which this Opposition was never able to do when in government. I will relate to the House exactly what we have done with the AIDC. In order to make more investment funds available to Australian industry we have increased the capital base of the AIDC by $12 1/2m to $75m. We have increased the gearing ratio from eight to fifteen, which has made available $1 billion extra to Australian industry, something those opposite, with their absolute negativism, would never have thought of. This Government in its few short months of office has produced a positive set of policies which is now coming to fruition with manufacturing industry picking itself up off the deck. Those opposite had it on the ropes and hit it with an upper cut; it went down for the compulsory eight count and staggered to its feet. We have been able to breathe some life back into it, the results of which are now clearly shown. I hope that the former Minister for Industry and Commerce is sitting there embarrassed. I wonder just how members of the National Party deal with the wet and dry situations? Sheep, wheat and beef all want free trade. Dairying, horticulture, sugar and tobacco all want protection. Where do members of the National Party stand? Are they wets or dries? The Leader of the Opposition stood here for a quarter of an hour and lectured us in his usual pompous fashion, but in no way did he give us a clue as to where he stands on the question of protection. Increasing protection, decreasing protection, phased protection-where does he stand on tariffs? This Government's position has been made very clear, not only in the steel package but also in the other measures that we have incorporated in the Budget. Mr Peacock —Whom are you backing-Bill or Lionel? Mr JOHN BROWN —I am backing Parramatta to beat Manly, if the honourable gentleman must know. We have increased greatly the funds for industrial research . Yesterday the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) announced new measures to encourage the development of venture capital by allowing tax deductions for inscription into designated management investment companies. Did that ever happen under the previous Government? No, of course it did not. It is a positive measure to assist industry. These companies will inject risk capital into new ventures, especially the high technology areas. Those opposite used to have a bumbling Minister for Science and Technology, the former honourable member for Leichhardt , whom we used to call Basil Fawlty. He did not have the slightest clue about science and technology. Fortunately this Government has a Minister who has probably one of the best minds in the world in respect of high technology and new technology industries. His influence is reflected in the industry policies that are now flourishing. The Budget brought in a massive increase-a 36 per cent increase-in funding for training, funding which will contribute to higher levels of skill, higher productivity and greater industry competitiveness. The accord that we instituted in this place back in April of this year, combined with the policies we introduced in the Budget and with the imaginative efforts of the new Minister for Industry and Commerce, has given industry in Australia new hope and new life. Steel towns are now being resuscitated; employment is picking up. This marvellous tripartite arrangement that Senator Button has been able to introduce is a full example of how this Government views industry. Mr Peacock —Will you tell Bill Hayden that? Mr JOHN BROWN —Our long time aspirations are in line with the statements of the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden). We will move, of course, to a reduced level of protection-something which those opposite could never do. All they ever did was increase tariffs and protection, although they sprouted long and loud about their free trade propensities which never came to light. We will sensitively reduce protection over a period of years without in any way prejudicing the rights of the work force to jobs. By doing this we will provide long term hope for industry. Mr Peacock —When are you going to start? Mr JOHN BROWN —We have started already, you dope. If you would listen you would know. We will provide an incentive for industry to invest in its future. That is something which never happened under those opposite. They left industry in 1982 in an absolutely shocking state of disrepair. It has now revived because of this Government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Dr Harry Edwards —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Is it proper for the Minister to refer to a former Minister in this place in such disparaging terms when that former Minister is no longer here to defend himself? The former Minister, the Hon. David Thomson, initiated the inquiry that resulted in the very incentives for venture capital the Minister referred to a few moments ago. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The discussion is concluded. Debate resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mr Hayden: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering the International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill 1983, the International Monetary Fund (Quota Increase) Bill 1983 and the Asian Development Bank (Additional Subscription) Bill 1983 as they are associated measures. Separate questions, of course, will be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(4.12) —The International Development Association ( Special Contribution) Bill 1983 demonstrates the problems which ensue from ill- informed propaganda attacking the effectiveness of foreign aid programs. Honourable members will know that the World Bank has two lending systems. Hard loans at commercial interest rates are provided from funds obtained in the financial market. Funds for soft loans are provided to the World Bank's subsidiary, the International Development Association, by grants from governments. The IDA advances capital to the poorer countries in flexible and softer terms than does the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development . Unfortunately, in the United States Congressional opinion has been very reluctant to support a system of grants to the IDA. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) pointed out in his second reading speech, the Reagan Administration has decided to stretch its total contribution to the sixth replenishment over four years instead of three. Australia and other Western countries have decided to sustain the reputation of IDA by making special contributions to offset the loss of United States funding. As the Minister points out, there are some 20 donors to this special action including Japan, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Sweden and New Zealand. As the Minister indicates, the commitment to do this was made in 1982 under the previous Government. This legislation is consequential to that commitment. In Australia we see a great deal of the kind of criticism which gives foreign aid programs a bad name. This is not a perfect world and mistakes will always be made. A number of free wheeling comments are to hand in Australia, which proceed more from a desire for some groups to increase government subvention to their operations than it does from an objective and fair-minded view. Some very inappropriate language is used to describe the criticism of major programs. ' Trickle down effect' seems to be the only term used to describe large programs, with long term effects. The complaint is that the poor people for whom it is and should be intended do not get a benefit. This is countered by the argument that the benefits of the aid trickle down. The critics argue that aid should be organised on the basis of a welfare system, aiding the needy directly. I believe that this kind of discussion is sterile but highly popular with the critics, as much because the judgments are elusive as because they are facile. IDA aid places emphasis on building infrastructure on which to support sophisticated development programs. Major rearrangements in the world economy, precipitated by the quadrupling of oil prices, has put economic development in the poorer countries under considerable pressure. Money for development has been diverted to energy bills. Against this background it became important to sustain the work of IDA to ensure a stable program to develop the infrastructure of the poorer countries. Therefore, special action is being taken by Australia by way of this Bill, along with other countries-some of whom I mentioned-to maintain the program of IDA commitments. Many IDA recipients do not have alternative sources of finance and commercial bankers avoid the most heavily disadvantaged countries. There can be no doubt that the anti-aid lobby has been a force in this drawing back by the United States. India and China are both recipients of IDA financial assistance. China has only recently become a recipient, but it is clear that with the entry of China into the world bank system there will be considerable pressure on that system. It could be demonstrated that the development program increases imports from developed countries. But the United States does not get the feedback from IDA which other developed countries obtain. Australia has not entered the system to calculate indirect benefits in trade. Clearly, a country which has neighbours such as India and China has much to gain from a continuing stability in economic development programs. India has invested a great deal in infrastructure skills. This has paid off in the progress that India has made in food self-sufficiency. Much of the success has been due to the adaptation of the new rice strains. But, to do this, developmental research and developmental administration had to provide an exceptionally wide range of skills to adopt Indian agriculture to the new strains. This came from the infrastructure programs. There can be no doubt that development assistance has to show dramatic advances to compete with the problems of the accelerated growths in population. This population growth in the under-developed countries will continue dramatically to the end of the century. That such notable progress has been made in agriculture in India is a very real achievement indeed. Food production has a direct effect on the capacity of the country to meet the needs of the poor. But the results from infrastructure programs of necessity have to be measured in the long term and the benefits and mistakes cannot be demonstrated on the basis of an annual estimate. Clearly, therefore, a negative view of aid assistance is premature. We face mammoth human problems and there can be no certainties in the answers attempted. The destruction of the aid incentive can be just as certain if the blows come from pro-aid critics or from anti-aid critics. Governments have a job maintaining public confidence in its enterprise in this area. It is a timely development that the previous Fraser Government invited Sir Gordon Jackson to make himself available to head up an inquiry into Australia's foreign aid program. I was very pleased to see that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as one of his early decisions, proceeded to establish the inquiry, which I understand will report early next year. I assure the Minister that we on this side of the House look forward to a constructive relationship under the Government on this important issue. The Asian Development Bank (Additional Subscription) Bill 1983 seeks parliamentary approval for Australia to take up its entitlement to subscribe to additional shares in the capital stock of the Asian Development Bank. Just as background, the governors of the Bank approved in April a resolution increasing the authorised capital stock of the Bank by 105 per cent or approximately $US9 billion. Such a capital increase will enable the Bank to continue its assistance to developing member countries in the Asian region. Australia's current contributions comprise paid-in capital of $US17m and contributions to the Asian Development Bank fund totalling $US151m. Australia's entitlement under the resolution is an additional 52,433 shares, which represents $72m in Australian currency, of which the paid-in element amounts to $36m Australian. Forty per cent of the paid-in element will be paid in cash in five equal instalments of about $2.9m per year and the remaining 60 per cent will be paid in the form of five promissory notes. The last capital increase from Australia to the Bank occurred in 1977. We in the Opposition support the Bill in view of Australia's role as an active supporter of the Bank and the priority we attach to the needs of developing countries within our region. The third Bill is the International Monetary Fund (Quota Increase) Bill 1983. The purpose of this Bill is to authorise an increase in Australia's International Monetary Fund quota. It also provides for payment of the quota increase. Of course, this increase follows the eighth general revenue of quotas agreed to in March by the Fund's Board of Governors. The March resolution proposed a 47.5 per cent increase in the aggregate level of fund quotas to special drawing rights to the value of $90 billion. The increase in Australia's quota proposed under the review is from SDR 1,185m to SDR 1,619.2m. The Australian additional quota subscription will have no effect on Budget outlays or on the Consolidated Revenue Fund. But the increased quotas will help augment the Fund's financial resources, which have been depleted by a high level of drawing by its member countries over the past year. They will also provide temporary balance of payments assistance to members facing serious debt and external payments problems. Again the Opposition, taking a positive attitude to these matters, supports the Bills. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(4.21) —The International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill and the International Monetary Fund (Quota Increase) Bill effect an increase in Australia's quota in the International Monetary Fund and authorise a special contribution by Australia to the International Development Association, an affiliate of the World Bank devoted to providing development credits for the poorest countries. Both the IMF and the World Bank were established in the immediate post-war period, with the IMF designed to provide temporary financing for countries experiencing balance of payments difficulties and to promote orderly exchange arrangements and international monetary co- operation generally. The World Bank was established in 1945 as a new type of international investment institution to make or guarantee loans for reconstruction and development projects both from its own capital provided by member governments and through the mobilisation of private capital. Both these institutions have played a vastly significant role in the world economy since their inception, and this role has been highly controversial at times, particularly in the case of the IMF. In terms of influencing the policies of its members, the IMF is fulfilling a role which is most clearly provided for in its statutes and is the most formalised of the two. Hence I will focus on the IMF for the remainder of this speech. The IMF's policies have evolved considerably since it was first set up, and to some extent its priorities are different from those intended at Bretton Woods, at least by Britain and some other countries. Moreover, the IMF was not set up with the developing countries in mind and it was not foreseen that it would become so deeply involved in the policies of non-industrialised countries, expecially those in Latin America. The Fund's resources are provided through its members' subscriptions, based on quotas initially negotiated at Bretton Woods. The International Monetary Fund (Quota Increase) Bill allows Australia to increase its quota, pursuant to a decision made by the Fund in March this year, to increase the aggregate quota level by 47.5 per cent. As pointed out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford), individual member countries' quota increases vary around this aggregate figure, depending on a formula which provides a measure of each country's relative economic position. Based on this, Australia's increase is 36.6 per cent-significantly below the average. This most recent review of quotas was undertaken in the light of widespread concerns about the state of the international financial system, particularly the vast burden of debt incurred by countries of the Third World and East European Bloc. No accurate figure of the totality of this debt is available, though some have put it at around $650 billion. Some countries, Mexico and Brazil, each with debt in the order of $90 billion, being the most obvious examples, have faced grave difficulties in servicing this debt. In general, the problem has been the conjuction of high interest rates and deterioration in the terms of trade of developing countries, this deterioration itself a result of reduced demand for commodities caused by the recession in the industrialised world. The general quota increase has encountered a major snag in that approval of the United States share of the increase-some $8.4 billion-has become bogged down in Congress. Some ultra-conservatives there have opposed the increase on the ground that the IMF loans amount to a 'giveaway to Marxist and Third World countries'. It is interesting to read the accounts of the debate that took place in the United States Congress and the quite extraordinary language that was used to describe some of the recipients of IMF loans. The United States House of Representatives carried an amendment that requires the United States of America to oppose IMF loans to communist countries, which is obviously an untenable position to adopt. These delays have caused a serious financial squeeze for the IMF. The trust of pressures, emanating mainly from the United States, is for the IMF to play an even more blatantly interventionist and political role than it already does. Numerous instances of this can be pointed to in recent years, including the policy changes forced on the British Labour Government in the mid- 1970s. An IMF bail-out is given only subject to the recipient country agreeing to changes in its domestic and exchange rate policies designed to force it to ' live within its means'. What this means in practice is almost always a severe tightening of expenditure through contractionary fiscal and monetary policy measures such as the imposition of ceilings on net government borrowings and/or net domestic assets of the Central Bank, or an upward adjustment of nominal interest rates in those cases where rates are fixed by the Government. Approval also involves an understanding with the Fund on exchange rate policy and exchange rate arrangements. The understanding usually involves a substantial devaluation of the currency. Devaluation thus becomes part of a restrictive policy package which aims at improving the balance of payments of the country and its foreign exchange reserve position. In recent times, a number of countries have had to accept the IMF's bitter medicine. Portugal has been told, among other things, to reduce its Budget deficit from 11 to 6 per cent of gross domestic product, as the price of receiving $US300m from the IMF in the form of a loan. Yugoslavia has had to embark on an austerity program which, since last November, has produced a 10 per cent fall in living standards. But the most spectacular recent example is that of Brazil. Acquiescence to the IMF program by the Brazilian Government has produced an upsurge of social unrest , including strikes, demonstrations and riots. Events in the month of April in that country have caused a reassessment by observers of the potential for social revolt by that country's poor. A key element in the IMF program for Brazil is a substantial cut in real wages. This is to be brought about by the breaking of the index link between wages and price movements-a serious measure indeed in a country where inflation is currently running at 150 per cent. This is in a country in which the share of wages in the total value of production in manufacturing industry has declined from 17 per cent to 12 per cent over the past 30 years, and in which 49 per cent of all families live below the poverty line. The price to be exacted from Brazil is indicated by a paper produced by the Institute for International Economics in Washington, which calculates that if Brazil really did meet the IMF targets, its national output would collapse by 15 per cent, with employment following suit. This is superimposed on a situation where 1.5 million jobs have been lost in the past three years. The total work force is the same now as in 1973-meaning, in effect, that some 10 million people have been added to the jobless lists, if we take account of population growth. In saying all this, it is obviously not my intention to oppose the legislation. I do not adopt a position which would be the mirror image of that of the ultra conservatives in the United States. There can be no doubt as to the necessity for and the desirability of some organisation with the capacity to sort out the balance of payments problems of countries that run into difficulties for one reason or another. But I maintain that we need to be aware of the effects of conditions being imposed on countries, particularly Third World countries, that are the recipients of IMF loans, and to be aware of political pressures, particularly in the United States, to make this position worse. We ought to bring to bear such influence as we have in this organisation to end the imposition of draconian conditions on individual countries. I commend these Bills to the House. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(4.29) —We are dealing with the International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill, the International Monetary Fund (Quota Increase) Bill and the Asian Development Bank (Additional Subscription) Bill. These three related measures concern financial arrangements to assist developing countries in our region and in other parts of the world. As the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) mentioned earlier, they arise out of commitments made by the previous Government and they certainly deserve the support of the House. The International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill authorises a special contribution by Australia of $A67.84m towards the sixth replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association, or the IDA as it is commonly known. The IDA is an affiliate of the World Bank and assists poorer developing countries with funds for special development projects which they need. It should be said that many of these projects contributed to by the IDA are outside Australia's immediate region. One major recipient is India. In 1978 I had the pleasure of leading a delegation of this Parliament to India and we there saw a number of the projects which had been funded by the IDA. We saw at first hand the great value of the financial support being provided by the IDA. As the honourable member for Warringah said, both India and China are major recipients of funding from the IDA. They are countries with enormous populations and very special problems, and they certainly deserve continuing support. The second Bill that we are debating is the International Monetary Fund (Quota Increase) Bill, which seeks the consent of the Parliament to enable Australia to increase its quota in the International Monetary Fund and to make a consequent payment. We were informed by the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) in the second reading speech that this Bill is a financial transaction-as I understand it, in the form of essentially a paper transaction-and is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the Budget outlays or on the Budget deficit. That is a very pleasing feature, because the Government faces a very high deficit indeed this financial year, and we cannot afford to have any significant increases in that deficit because, as has been mentioned previously, that would only place increased pressures on a whole range of areas, including interest rates; but we are not talking now about interest rates. The third Bill is the Asian Development Bank (Additional Subscription) Bill 1983, and again this Bill seeks approval of the Parliament for Australia to take up its entitlement to additional shares in the capital stock of the Asian Development Bank. The Asian Development Bank has a very good record in providing loans at consessional rates of interest so that poorer nations in this general region can finance suitable projects. It is envisaged that the payments to be made under the proposed arrangements will be by five equal instalments of about $A2.9m a year from 1983-84-this financial year-and that the remaining 60 per cent would be in the form of five promissory notes in equal amounts to be encashed over the years 1988-92. These Bills highlight a serious crisis which has developed in recent times as the debt faced by the Third World has increased almost beyond control. This is a very serious situation that is faced by many nations around the world. I want to comment on it briefly. Before the price of oil began to skyrocket in 1973, the total debt owed outside the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries was about $100,000m. By the end of 1981, that debt had risen to $470,000m, and it is estimated that, by the end of last year, it would be some $530,000m. So in a short time we have seen a very dramatic increase in the debts faced by poor nations in many parts of the world. What has happened is that as principal and interest have become due, the loans have simply been turned over. The countries have not been able to pay off their obligations and have simply gone into further debt to pay off old loans. Of course, the same sort of predicament can be faced by individuals, by families or by companies, and the end result is not very dissimilar from the result that can occur to nations. In the end there can be a total financial collapse. But at this stage that has not yet occured, mainly because of the arrangements that have been made by lending institutions, both public and private, to give support to these nations. It has been said that the real crisis would occur only if banks stopped lending . But it is a dangerous path to go down when nations cannot fulfil their commitments and so the lenders simply provide further funds. It leads, I think, to a carelessness on the part of some countries, and it can certainly lead to inefficiencies. I would not want to point the finger at particular countries. We have heard a lot said about Brazil and its problems of late, and about Mexico. There has also been some criticism of the IMF. From my knowledge of the IMF, I think that it is a very well organised, very well managed, institution. It applies very strict conditions to the funds it lends. It takes a very keen interest in the projects which it is funding. I think that the crisis, essentially, has arisen from a whole range of different factors and circumstances which are occurring at present. But there is a need for strict supervision of any funds provided by taxpayers. Of course, in this package of Bills, in at least one of the Bills, we are dealing with funds being provided by the taxpayers. Therefore, we have an obligation as members of parliament to take a very keen interest in these Bills and to make sure that the funds that are provided are handled with care and are administered efficiently. On a more general note, it causes me some concern that we have so many different international bodies mushrooming up around the world at present. It is not a mushrooming just of different kinds of lending institutions-I think that there are pressures to create a Great South Bank, as it is called, and other banks around the world to help different countries-but of all kinds of different international organisations. Along with that we have the development in different parts of the world, within these international organisations, of huge bureaucracies, and they do not come cheaply. It costs a lot of money to maintain these organisations. Huge amounts of money are being spent by way of salaries at present. There is a problem that with an international organisation -I do not need to name them; honourable members know which they are-there is not the direct influence that the public can have, say, on our own national bureaucracy. They are, to some extent, removed from the real world. I do not want to be unfair to those directly involved, but I think it is a fact , and I think that many people involved in the organisations recognise this. If one attends an international conference or meeting of one of these organisations , one finds that it is a kind of club; people mix together, and they are removed from the feelings of the ordinary taxpayers, who are, after all, to a very large extent, paying their salaries and providing the funds that they must administer. As we have said many times in this House, particularly those of us on this side of the Parliament, we have a responsibility as trustees of public funds. It is not our money that we are spending. It is money that has been raised by hard working taxpayers in the main, and therefore we must be very careful about how we should spend such money and make sure that that money is not wasted. Having made those points, I want to indicate that, as has already been said, the Opposition supports these Bills. In fact, they were initiated by our joint Party some time ago. We generally approve of the activities of the organisations concerned and the sorts of projects in which they are involved. We have many problems within Australia at present. We have high unemployment, and it is tragic that in the Budget Papers, for example, it is indicated that unemployment will grow during this financial year. According to Budget Paper No. 1, it will edge up in this financial year. It is difficult to control unemployment at this time, so we must do all we can to try to overcome that problem. That does not mean that we do not have wider responsibilities as well. At the same time, we must be concerned about nations that are close to us and nations with special problems. There are poor countries around the world with very serious problems. There are people living in dire poverty. Certainly they deserve the help that we can provide, even though, compared with nations such as the United States of America, the assistance that we can provide is rather limited. We have a special responsibility, in particular, to help developing nations in the Asian region and in the Pacific Basin. It is important for our own self- interest that we do what we can to improve relations with out friends, the nations in the Pacific Basin and the member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. It is important particularly that we develop good relations with the countries to our near north-that is, the ASEAN countries. They are very important to us. I have made this point in the House on previous occasions. I do not think that our relations with the ASEAN countries are as close and as harmonious as they really ought to be. That is not to say that a lot of good work is not being done at present. In fact, a tremendous amount of work is being done to develop closer ties with our neighbours in the north. Businessmen are going from Australia on special visits to ASEAN countries. At the same time business people and civic and political leaders are coming from the ASEAN countries to Australia. So there is personal contact, which I think is very important. We have to back up that contact with some assistance where we can, and that is the purpose of these Bills. If there is a risk in the future of an external threat to Australia my feeling is that it will come from that area to the north. I do not wish to offend countries to the north. Countries can fall into different hands at different times. For example, Indonesia is a huge country with a very large population. We have good relations with Indonesia at present, but if it fell into the hands of people who were internationally irresponsible I think there could be very real dangers for Australia. Therefore, I again make this point: Let us try to do all we can to improve relations with countries to our near north-indeed with all countries, but particularly with those in our region. Another point relevant to the whole matter of aid and to these Bills is that we must ensure that the Soviet Union does not increase its influence in the Pacific Basin region. There is no doubt that an effort is being made by the Soviet Union to increase its influence in this important and sensitive region to Australia. The recent shooting down of the Korean commercial aircraft shocked the world. It was a disgraceful act by the Soviet Union. We are all very upset about that and the great loss of life that resulted. People in the Pacific region particularly are upset because they are so close to where that event occurred. They feel very strongly about that episode. As we reflect upon it we can see that it was a very sad and sorry episode in the history of the world. That episode will not improve the opportunities of the Soviet Union to increase, as it wants to, its influence in that very important part of the world. Recently the South Pacific Forum was held in Canberra, and from my reading of what happened at that meeting it was a very successful event. I think it is great that we are holding these sorts of forums regularly and that we are having this good contact with countries of the South Pacific. We are not trying to dominate these countries in the South Pacific, which is terribly important. It has to be a very sensitive kind of relationship. We were originally seen as an outpost of Europe controlled by Britain. We were seen as British, but I think we are now being seen as Australians. We are Australians, we are an independent nation, and this is being recognised by the countries in the South Pacific. It was good to see how successful the South Pacific Forum was and I congratulate the Government for the way it organised the Forum. I have heard comments made that it was a very successful meeting of leaders from around the Pacific area. I think the approach that has been taken by recent governments and the present Government-I give it credit-guided by the Department of Foreign Affairs in the area of aid and relations with our neighbours has been very good. We have an excellent Department of Foreign Affairs which is highly regarded throughout the region. The officers do an excellent job. They make sure that governments which sometimes stray off the path are put on the right path, and that is terribly important. Generally we welcome these Bills. We think it is important that we provide assistance to other countries in great need, and that will be achieved by the provisions of these Bills. Therefore, I support the Bills. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(4.45) —At present we are considering three Bills in this cognate debate. I would not like it to be thought that because I will concentrate most of my remarks on the International Monetary Fund (Quota Increase) Bill in any way I seek to diminish the importance of the other two Bills, namely, the International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill and the Asian Development Bank (Additional Subscription) Bill. Each of those Bills is concerned with extremely important international agencies, two of which are concerned with providing assistance to developing countries. The Bill on which I will concentrate most of my attention, the International Monetary Fund (Quota Increase) Bill, is concerned with an agency which has been charged with the responsibility of assisting to ensure national and international stability within and between countries, particularly in relation to their trading relationships, their exchange rates and their balance of payments. I congratulate my colleague the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) for the perceptive analysis he provided in his contribution to this debate and for his explanation of the way in which the responsibilities of the International Monetary Fund, as a result of events overtaking the IMF and, of course, other world developments, have changed since the IMF was first established. The passage of this Bill will provide Australia's consent to an increase in its quota to the IMF and for the payment of that increased quota. This represents our response to and an endorsement of the decision by the Fund's Board of Governors in March this year to increase the quota. That decision in March was necessitated by the fact that the funds available to the IMF had been very seriously depleted, particularly over the last 12 months and, more generally, over the last two years, as a result of extremely heavy demands that had been made on the IMF because of the extremely difficult international debt servicing position in which so many middle income countries had found themselves. This quota increase which the Fund's Board of Governors decided upon in March will not be effective until member countries which hold at least 70 per cent of the total quotas have indicated their consent. There is considerable and continuing concern at present, concern which has not yet been allayed, as to whether member countries which represent a significant percentage of the quota will, in fact, make a commitment to increase their share in time for that increase to become effective. Their consent must be provided by 30 November this year. Each country's subscription to the IMF is related to its economic and trading situation. As the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) said in his second reading speech, the proposed 47.5 per cent increase in the aggregate level of Fund quotas has been reapportioned. It has been reapportioned because 60 per cent of the increase will be distributed among members in proportion to their relative economic positions in the world. The remaining 40 per cent of the increased quota will be distributed among them in proportion to their existing quota shares. The result is that Australia's quota will be increased not by the 47.5 per cent average increase for the Fund as a whole but by 36.6 per cent. Australia's former quota share somewhat overstated our relative economic position in the world, so we qualify for a smaller quota increase than the average. This increase, which will be consented to as a result of the passage of this legislation in both this House and the Senate, will increase Australia's quota from SDR1,185m to SDR1,619.2m. The fact that the quota for Australia is to be increased of course will also increase Australia's capacity to draw on the Fund. Fortunately, as a relatively industrialised and developed country it has not been necessary on very many occasions in the past for Australia to draw on the Fund. The last occasion on which we drew on the Fund was on 2 July 1976, during the term of the previous Government. We withdrew $309m-its SDR equivalent is 332.5m-from the compensatory financing facility of the IMF. We had not previously borrowed from the Fund since 1961. The $309m which we borrowed on the last occasion represented the maximum that we were able to draw on the Fund, 50 per cent of the total quota. The reason that we drew on the Fund at that time was our balance of payments problem that year. Essentially two factors contributed to this problem-firstly, the recession, and, secondly, what was accepted then as being a significantly over-valued currency. As a result of that situation, over the whole of the year Australia's overall balance of payments deficit was $492m. Drawing from the IMF meant that our official reserve assets that year, instead of declining by $492m, declined by only $109m. At the end of June 1977 the market value of our official reserve assets was $2, 638m compared with $2,576m in June 1976. When one puts together those figures one sees that an anomaly results. That is largely due to the fact that there was an adjustment in the value of our reserve assets due to the devaluation which followed that year. During that year there was a need for devaluation but the Government of the time resisted it until November 1976, when the dollar was devalued by 17.5 per cent. Probably we all well recall the very serious in- fighting which took place on that occasion-it took place on so many other occasions when questions of the value of the Australian currency had to be determined-between the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party. That Government's whole approach to the value of the dollar was based more on political considerations-including that in-fighting to which I referred-than on sound economic judgment. This was not surprising. The former Government, right to the end of its final term, was prepared to sacrifice the stability of the Australian financial and economic system in favour of its miserable political objectives. That borrowing from the IMF caused considerable embarrassment to Australia at the time. It should not have been necessary in the first place. It caused us embarrassment in the international, financial and trading worlds. Apart from New Zealand, no developed country had ever held out its hand for one of those low interest rate loans. However, our subscription and quota do legally allow us to draw on the Fund. As I have said, the most recent occasion we did that was in 1976. The importance of the IMF should not be understated, although I endorse the reservations which were expressed by my colleague the honourable member for Sydney in connection with it. Those reservations are extremely well placed. There is considerable cause for us to entertain those reservations. In the time that is available to me I will give some justification for the point that I have made. The IMF is an important international agency. It is the only agency charged with the specific responsibilities which it fulfils. Although there are serious questions about the adequacy of the IMF, in terms of the specific functions it fulfils and the way in which it fulfils them, it is the only agency charged with them. For that reason it is important that Australia recognises its obligations under the provisions of the IMF. Of course, the passage of this Bill will be an indication of our acceptance of those responsibilities. I do not think there would be much argument about the fact that the International Monetary Fund (Quota Increase) Bill is the most important of the three Bills that we are considering at present. Probably even more important than this formal provision which we are making to agree to the increase in the quota which was made by the Board of Governors in March this year are the factors which lie behind that necessary step which was taken by the Board of Governors. This adjustment represents the eighth general review of quotas and was encouraged particularly by the world wide concern about the stability of the international financial system. The Fund's financial resources have been seriously depleted, especially over the past two years, by the very high level of drawings which so many of the member countries have been making because of their serious debt problems. The world financial system has been in crisis-some people would say in deep crisis- for some time. The current outstanding debts by some of the largest international debtors are as follows: Brazil, $90 billion; Mexico, $80 billion; and Argentina, $40 billion. Other countries which have very large debts at present include Poland. Poland is not a member of the IMF but some other socialist bloc countries are. Poland has a debt of about $26 billion and Venezuela also has a very large debt. The World Bank estimates that the total outstanding debt for developing countries at present is $700 billion. From an historic perspective that is an international debt of enormous dimensions and of enormous significance. Those amounts are owed to banks, to governments and to international agencies. There was some speculation about the middle of this year as to whether Australia was among this big league of debtors. At least one newspaper report at the time claimed that Australia's overseas debt was about $33 billion. That would place us almost in the same league as Argentina and considerably above Poland. That $33 billion, it was stated, consisted of $27 billion for enterprises, including government businesses, and another $6 billion for the Federal Government's overseas debt. Unfortunately that report did not take into account our overseas official reserve assets which totalled about $10 billion. If one takes that $10 billion away from the $33 billion it still leaves a very significant figure of $23 billion, but that is nowhere near as high as some commentators were claiming at that time. The most recent report of the IMF identified a number of very critical problems for the world economy. Among others were the problems of inflation, increased protectionism and the one to which I have referred, the indebtedness of developing countries and their problems in servicing that debt. Of course, interest rates are also of critical importance in connection with the capacity of developing countries to meet their debt servicing charges every year. For example, it has been estimated that every one per cent drop in United States interest rates will reduce the total debt servicing costs for developing countries by nearly $4,000m every year. From the point of view of those countries it is extremely important that accelerating high interest rates on a world wide scale be brought under control so that some of the pressure can be taken off them in their attempt to service their debts. A number of steps have been taken by international agencies to reschedule and restructure the debt for many middle income borrowers. The poorest countries are not in this league because most of the assistance available to them has been through official aid programs of various kinds. These moves have been necessary to avoid major default. It has been speculated that major default could bring about a collapse of the international financial system, and that is not an overstatement. We are not out of the woods yet. There are still very serious concerns not only about the adequacy of international agencies of this kind to handle the situation but also about the way in which major countries, in particular the United States at present, are responding to these very real needs and issues. As recently as last August one of the concerns in Brazil-I have already mentioned the size of its debt, and one can imagine the problem of debt servicing-was whether the Bank of Brazil would provide enough credit to permit private companies to pay their wage bills. It did so but only by allowing another bout of inflation with a further blowout in the money supply. Inflation then was already 125 per cent. My colleague the honourable member for Sydney said that it has more recently been assessed at a rate of 150 per cent. Brazil has sought IMF approval his year to allow it to have an inflation rate of 160 per cent. That puts the matter into perspective when we are talking of the sort of inflation rate we have been experiencing here in Australia. Most of these debt commitments, unfortunately, were entered into on the assumption and in the belief that a buoyant world economy and buoyant world trade would be maintained and that international oil prices would remain at a high level. All of those expectations were dashed. The extremely high debts which these developing countries had entered into left them with the continuing and serious problem of servicing them. Venezuela, for example, had to seek a rescheduling of over $US16 billion for obligations that fall due in the next 18 months. Argentina, the third largest world debtor after Brazil and Mexico, received approval for a third $300m instalment of a standby credit from the IMF as recently as August. In all, the IMF now has debt adjustment programs operating for 43 countries. In the last year commercial banks have renegotiated repayment terms on $90,000m worth of debt owed by 15 countries. That is 20 times higher than the maximum amount of any restructuring debt program undertaken in any previous year. The IMF has also completed $15.6 billion worth of loan agreements with 35 countries. There has been, as I indicated earlier, some legitimate and justified doubt about whether the United States Congress would approve the $8.4 billion increase in its quota. By the end of August only 31 of the Fund's 146 member countries had ratified the quota increase. They included only one industrialised country, and that was Britain. These countries also comprised only 15 per cent of the voting power of the Fund. I indicated that it has to be 70 per cent by 30 November, otherwise this attempt to increase the quota will fail. The problem in the United States is that the two Houses-the Senate and the House of Representatives-have passed different Bills approving the increase in the United States quota, and the differences, of course, will have to be ironed out in the normal parliamentary processes undertaken in the United States Congress. The Senate approved the increase on 8 June after defeating attempts by conservative Republicans to restrict the Fund's activities. The House of Representatives narrowly approved the increase on 3 August but only after a number of amendments were adopted. The House of Representatives adopted it by a vote of 217 to 211. That is how close it was. The United States provides roughly 20 per cent of the total funds available to the Fund. The honourable member for Sydney referred to the nature of the negotiations which went on during the consideration of those matters before the United States Congress. The operation of the IMF illustrates two contrasting realities of the nature of international agencies of this and similar kinds. First, there is a genuine desire to establish structures and procedures which are designed to maintain stability in the world economy, to establish sound and constructive relationships between member countries of the world community and to apply collective efforts and resources towards the solution of international and intranational problems. Secondly, there is the selfish pursuit of national and sectional interests, the intrigue of political deals, the manipulation and prostitution of economic structures for the pursuit of political objectives, and unfortunately the experience of the United States Congress in relation to this question expresses both of those conflicting positions. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Scholes) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Scholes) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Scholes) read a third time. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(5.08) —The Budget we are debating is this Labor Government' s first Budget, and I am pleased to support it. It reflects the priorities of equity of this Government in that it addresses the twin problems of recession and unemployment. There is no attempt in the Budget to gloss over these problems or to pretend that they will be corrected in the short term. I look on this Budget as being a stage 2 catalyst for the recovery of the economy while redistributing the benefits and burdens more equitably among the people of Australia. It continues the thrust of our desires in this respect which were set out in the economic statement or mini-Budget of May this year. The next stage will involve the reform of the taxation system so that everyone in the community will bear a fair share of the taxation burden. The other evening we heard from the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) who, like some of the so called members opposite, suggested that he has the answers to the economic problems facing Australia. What then was the true position earlier this year after seven years of Liberal- National Party rule? As was made clear at the National Economic Summit Conference the Australian economy we inherited has severe problems. In the year ended April 1983 the number of unemployed had increased by 271,000 to 707,000; that is, from 6.4 per cent to 10.2 per cent of the labour force. The numbers actually employed had declined by a net 154,000. Our inflation rate had increased to the point where, in February 1983, it was 11.4 per cent. Let me repeat those figures. We had an increase in unemployment of 10.2 per cent and an increase in the rate of inflation of 11.4 per cent. This is what we were left by a government that was going to beat inflation first. It not only failed dismally in that respect but also then called an early election and declared that it was not waiting for the world. I am sure that even some honourable members opposite would have cringed at the irony in the slogan: 'We are not waiting for the world'. The reality of course was that the world had left us behind. In March this year our seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 9.8 per cent, compared with an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country average of 8.9 per cent. Our inflation rate, measured in February 1983, was 11.4 per cent, compared with an OECD country average of 5.7 per cent. I seek the leave of the House to have incorporated in Hansard, tables showing unemployment and inflation rates in OECD countries for the period 1978 to 1983. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- 8.1 CONSUMER PRICES* (percent) *Australia O.E.C.D. 1978 7.9 7.9 1979 9.1 9.8 1980 10.2 12.8 1981 9.7 10.5 1982 11.2 7.8 1982- May 10.7 8.3 June . . 8.4 July . . 7.9 August 12.3 7.6 September . . 7 .2 October . . 7.0 November 10.9 6.5 December . . 6.1 1983- January . . 6.0 February 11.4 5.7 March . . 5.8 April . . 5.7 May 11.2 5.5 June . . 5.0 * Percentage change in Consumer Prices over same period of previous year. * Quarterly data shown in mid-quarter month. Source: Latest Trends in Consumer Prices. OECD. 8.2 UNEMPLOYMENT RATES* (percent) *Australia O.E.C.D. 1978 6.2 n.a. 1979 6.2 5.1 1980 6.0 5.8 1981 5.7 6.7 1982 7.1 8.1 1982- April 6.4 8.0 May 6.6 8.1 June 6.6 8.1 July 6.8 8.2 August 6.9 8.3 September 7.3 8.5 October 8.2 8.7 November 8.8 8.8 December 9.0 8.9 1983- January 9.1 8.8 February 9.6 8.9 March 9.9 9.0 April 10.3 8.9 May 10.3 9.0 * Seasonally adjusted. * Excludes member countries for which data is not available. Note: The Unemployment Rates shown above have been adjusted as necessary by the OECD to conform to international definitions and to ensure consistency over time . Source: Main Economic Indicators. OECD. Mr MOUNTFORD —I thank the House. The tables show only part of the story. For almost a decade now Australia's economic performance has deteriorated relative to the rest of the world. On 5 March the people of Australia saw the need for a change of government which would give a different direction. I am pleased to say that the Australian Government Party has a new strategy-a new direction for economic recovery. This strategy seeks to expand demand by spending funds on housing, public works and job creation schemes; to ensure that such expansion leads to higher production and further employment opportunities, not simply higher wages and prices; and to lay down the foundation for the future development of our economy by industry and manpower planning. This strategy has to be achieved whilst at the same time providing long overdue assistance to those most in need, such as the unemployed, low income earners and disadvantaged groups. We have pursued this strategy after lengthy discussions with, and after having received advice from, members of the business community and the union movement. From a forward planning point of view and from a budgetary position it would appear to be desirable for sound and sensible government. Members on this side of the House saw the need prior to the election of putting into place an agreement with the workers of Australia-an agreement limiting wage demands so as to bring down the inflation rate. This accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions was an historic one, on which will depend whether the economy will be placed on the the right track. By agreeing to limit wage demands the workers of Australia are saying that they are prepared to bear a heavy burden for the rest of the community. I congratulate them for their foresight and their national concern. I wish the same could be said for many of our business executives-many of whom I know have received hefty increases recently-and also some of our retail traders whose efforts in the last quarter lifted the consumer price index to abnormal heights. In return for limiting wage demands the Australian Labor Party agreed that the workers of Australia should share in a reallocation of resources which would necessitate a return to a central wage fixing system based on automatic cost of living adjustments and other equity related matters, including the provision of better and fairer health care and taxation and the establishment of a prices surveillance body. On coming to government the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wasted no time in implementing his election promise of bringing all sectors of the Australian community together at the National Economic Summit held in April. The Summit achieved its stated objective of securing broad agreement on the role of an incomes and prices policy and an understanding of its relationships with employment promotion and other economic policies, some of which I have just mentioned. There was general consensus that there would be difficulties for government in meeting the increasing costs of social security. It was agreed that those in genuine need must receive the highest priority. There was also agreement on the need for the Government to stimulate the economy so as to get Australia moving again. I put it to honourable members that the May mini-Budget and the Budget we are now debating will bring into effect many of the consensus recommendations of the Summit Conference. To get the economy moving again we have provided in this year's Budget a substantial but responsible fiscal stimulus. This stimulus has been carefully calculated to avoid disruptive pressures on financial markets, costs and prices and the balance of payments. Only a healthy economy will provide employment and good standards of living for all Australians and a proper distribution of the effects of growth. Some features of our approach have already been implemented directly and some we have progressed in co-operation with the States. We have implemented the community employment program involving very substantial increases in spending on job creation. Altogether we will be spending $958m on employment and training programs in 1983-84-an increase of 80 per cent on 1982-83 expenditure. In total we expect employment to grow by about 90,000 over the course of this financial year. We have replaced the special youth employment training program by a more effective job creation and training program for young people in the private sector. We have introduced the new first home owners scheme to assist people on low to moderate incomes into home ownership. We have introduced measures to increase significantly the availability of low cost rental accommodation. Our Medicare scheme will meet the need, set out in the accord, for a simple, universal and equitably funded scheme. We have increased spending on assistance to those most severely affected by recession; notably the unemployed and pensioners with children. Special steps were taken at the Premiers Conference to assist the States at a time of revenue difficulties, thereby reducing pressure on them to raise charges and taxes within their areas of responsibility. When we reduced outlays or assistance this was at the expense of the relatively better-off people in the community; at the expense of those who could afford it. The introduction of an income and assets test on pension entitlements, income testing on over-70 age pensions, taxation of lump sum superannuation payments and the termination of the housing interest rebate system, reflect this approach. A few weeks ago in this House we heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock ) accuse the new Labor Government of embarking on a wild spending spree which left the private sector no room to grow. Yet this is the same gentleman who criticised his own Government's Budget in 1981 as being 'too contractionary'. The Leader of the Opposition showed more sense as an outcast from his Party than he does now as Leader. One of the major problems of the previous Government's economic approach was that it contracted the economy to such an extent that no room was left for growth. It kept down the money supply and restricted government spending on the grounds that government would be competing with the private sector for funds. But such an approach was ludicrous in an environment lacking in confidence and with little private sector demand. In the half year ended December 1982 there was a shortfall of about $6,000m in private sector spending; that is, money spent in the private sector on things such as food, rent, fuel, purchase of motor vehicles, housing, et cetera, was $6,000m less than the private sector spent in 1981-82. In such an environment the Government would not have been competing for funds; it would have been taking up the slack. Quite the contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting, the Labor Government has not spent wildly. It has allocated $2.5 billion to its own spending priorities but it has done this mainly by cutting back on some of the Fraser Government's spending priorities which did not give assistance to those most in need and which did nothing to stimulate the economy. At the same time we have reduced the deficit of $9.6 billion inherited from the previous Government to a stimulatory deficit of $8.4 billion. I realise, of course, that for private sector recovery to be sustained there must be reductions in public sector demands in the financial markets as the recovery proceeds. We have laid the basis for a reduction in the structural deficit in future years. An ongoing process of expenditure review will be undertaken to ensure that the benefits of this are not wasted and that the current level of fiscal stimulus is reduced as recovery emerges. In September 1981, just two years ago, the honourable member for Kooyong said in this House that his Government needed to: . . . reassess its approach to spending, concentrating on the areas of genuine need, cutting out expenditure to those who do not need assistance . . . He went on to say: So much of government spending goes to people who demonstrably do not need government assistance. . . . . Needed decisions will demand a good deal of courage from Government leaders. It is hypocrisy for the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) to stand up and criticise this Government for doing the things his Government lacked the courage to do. One area he specifically mentioned is the rising expenditure on social security and welfare and the particular concern with the aging population . The expenditure problem created by this aging population is recognised by all major parties, but it is the Labor Government which has had actually to address the problem. In the May mini-Budget the Labor Government announced a means test on the base pension paid to people aged 70 years and over. In this Budget it announced its intention to reintroduce an assets test in relation to age pensions. These measures may have created some uncertainty in the community. Whilst this is regrettable, to a large extent it is unavoidable. Any change creates doubt and fear. But the Government has said in relation to the assets test that no change will be made for at least a year and only after discussions with pensioner organisations. I have spent many hours talking with pensioners and the majority of them agree that the proposed measures are reasonable. Most pensioners will not be affected and those who will be affected are those involved in schemes which artificially turn income into capital. The Labor Party finds abhorrent the situation whereby one pensioner may live from one pension pay day to the next, and another may live without any reserves, whereas another may have cash reserves of hundreds of thousands of dollars and still receive the full pension. The Labor Government has had the courage to act, not simply as a revenue raising measure, as the Leader of the Opposition quite incredibly suggests, but in order to bring equity back into the system. The measures are long term ones which hold no great revenue benefit to the Labor Government in the short term. The Labor Government is concerned with equity, but in restricting the pension to those who need it, we are also committed to raising the level of the pension from 22 per cent of the average weekly earnings to 25 per cent in our first term of office. In making these changes, the Government also recognises the need to give incentives to working people to provide a source of retirement income. If the social security age pension is to be regarded as a welfare pension for those in need, there needs to be an alternative system of income support, such as a national superannuation scheme. That is the direction in which we are heading. In the meantime, the Government continues to support superannuation schemes to the tune of $2.4 billion a year. Through the recent superannuation changes it has encouraged people to use their superannuation payments as a means of income support throughout retirement rather than to look on them as a lottery win. I do not propose for one moment to say that the Budget is a perfect document, but I can say that it has the basis for creating employment opportunities and engendering upward economic movements. In the past I have been very critical of increases in indirect taxes. I believe they are regressive in that they hit hardest those on lower incomes. I do not resile from such critisism when I say it is unfortunate that this Budget has again imposed increases in such taxes on a number of goods. As secretary to the Government economic committee I look forward to reviewing, with many of my colleagues, the whole of the revenue taxation system so that next year the Government will be in a position to consider introducing a fairer and more equitable taxation system. I see reform of the taxation system as stage three of the Government's economic recovery. It is only through such reform that a proper redistribution of wealth can occur. I see such a reform covering all forms of government revenue, including cash transfers. A careful scrutiny will also be necessary of the type of eligible deductions presently enjoyed by some of the business sector, many of which, however, are as good as non-taxable cash transfers in the hands of the recipient directors and senior executives. In conclusion, I say to Opposition members: 'You had the opportunity to do something for the people of Australia during your seven years of office. You failed miserably and you paid the penalty on 5 March this year. If you really care about the welfare of the people of this great nation you will be big enough to help us get the country moving again instead of opposing everything and carping and whining about inconsequential matters. Let us see you be positive by working with members of the Government so that all Australians will benefit by our actions'. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.25) —After listening to the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford) I certainly want to be positive because there is a big problem in Australia and that is, the problem concerning growing unemployment. This is the first Budget brought down by the Hawke Australian Labor Party Government. It claims that it is a government with the fundamental characteristic of being humanitarian, compassionate, concerned about the employment situation and dedicated to doing something about it. I consider that claim to be very difficult to accept. I believe that, in time, the Australian people will despair at looking to a Labor government to find the proper solution. This is a gambler's Budget, a cynical Budget, a Budget that will make the nation and its people weaker. It is a Budget of a government whose only vision is fatally flawed. It is a Budget built on a con job, a Budget which has built false hopes and which will lead to despair. After all, it is a Budget which does nothing to provide a lasting solution to the nation's greatest problem- unemployment. That is the real tragedy of this Budget. It is a tragedy for which this Government must take full responsibility. We have all heard over and over again the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his colleagues talking of their deep concern for the unemployed. We heard their promises to rebuild the economy and to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, but the reality is vastly different. Last week's unemployment figures showed how completely the Government has failed to keep its promises. It has been in office for just over six months. In that time, in the six months-- Mr Hand —What hypocritical nonsense. Mr ANTHONY —The honourable member should listen to me-only 100 new jobs have been created. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne must not interject when he is out of his place. The Leader of the National Party is entitled to be heard in silence. Mr ANTHONY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Since the Government came to office six months ago only 100 new jobs have been created. Those are the seasonally adjusted figures, but the raw figures, which show an increase of only 1,000 jobs , give the Government no encouragement at all. Seasonally adjusted, unemployment is now running at about 713,000. New jobs on this scale are only a drop in the bucket. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will remember the Prime Minister's promise to create 500,000 new jobs in three years. On the basis of 100 jobs being created in the last six months, it will take approximately 2,500 years to get 500,000 more jobs. There could be no crueller indictment of the Government's failure in its central policy objective than these figures; there could be no clearer demonstration that the policies of the Government are failing; there could be no stronger warning to the Government to abandon the strategy it has adopted in this Budget. Anyone who doubts that only has to look at how bad the unemployment situation is now and how much worse it is likely to become. Unemployment is now running at 10.2 per cent. On the Budget forecasts it could reach 10.8 per cent by next June . The Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, which is usually supportive of the Labor Party's policy, is expecting unemployment to reach 11 per cent by next June. As the Australian Financial Review pointed out on 12 September, if the number of people in employment increased by one per cent while the working population rose by 2 per cent and the participation rate stayed steady, unemployment by June could be 11.2 per cent. If one makes only a few changes to those figures, as the Australian Financial Review pointed out, with employment growth of 1.5 per cent and a participation rate of one per cent, we are looking at an unemployment rate of 12 per cent by next year. That prospect, I am sure, fills all Australians with horror. Concern on this issue is not one-sided. Honourable members on both sides of the House are worried about the massive problems, particularly social and personal problems, that our unemployment has created, especially for the young. But they can be only more concerned about the outlook for the coming financial year. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) warned in the Budget Speech that average unemployment for this year might not be very different from last year. He said that it would take time to reverse the rising unemployment. The Budget Papers were franker. They forecast that unemployment would increase. These expectations are gloomy enough. The terrifying thing is that they are based on the hope that everything goes right and in particular that the prices and incomes accord succeeds. The Government is telling us that, despite its make-work schemes, for the foreseeable future one in 10 and perhaps one in nine Australians will be out of work. It is telling us that for the foreseeable future one in four of young Australians will be out of work. It is telling us to forget the promises it made during the election campaign. It is telling us that the Labor Party, which claims to have a monopoly on compassion and concern for those out of work, is abandoning them. There can be no other interpretation of the policies set out in this Budget and their effect on the national economy so far. I repeat my earlier comment. The Prime Minister promised to create 500,000 new jobs in the next three years. At the rate he is going, it will take not three years but 2,500 years. Members opposite might be willing to wait that long, but the Opposition believes it is time this Government abandoned the pious hopes it has been peddling as a substitute for sound economic management and got down to some work. The Government cannot build up a nation by creating national discord, as it has over the Tasmanian dam issue, over the superannuation tax, over the assets test for pensioners, and over issue after issue in which it claims it has a mandate for action which extends the power of the central government and weakens the individual. Australians did not elect this Government to impose an assets test on the pensioners. They elected it to fix up unemployment, and it has failed. The Government cannot build up a nation by stifling productive industry, as it has with its attack on the rural sector, its confusion and dithering over uranium policy, and its obstructive approach to the productive and beneficial foreign investment that we need in this country. Australians did not elect this Government to halt the uranium industry. On the contrary, the opinion polls show clearly that the majority of Australians want the policies to continue. The elected the Government to fix up unemployment, and it is failing. There is a way ahead. It is not the way being followed by this Government, but it is very clear. It requires the unlocking of the vast resources of the nation and its people through private enterprise and initiative. It requires the Government to encourage private enterprise and not to stamp it out. It requires the Government to help the productive industries, not to stifle them. It requires the Government to stand back, to ease the burden of direct taxation which is falling so heavily on working Australians, and to encourage self- reliance, enterprise and thrift. If the Government wants to create more jobs in Australia there are several easy ways in which to do it. It might mean that some of the Labor Party's cherished myths will have to be thrown overboard, but the Government must face up to the fact that what Australians want is, in the words of the Premier of New South Wales, jobs, jobs and more jobs. The first move must be to take the brakes off the private sector and to ease the tax burden generally. The only way in which to do this is to cut the growth of government spending, to reduce the size of government, and to reduce government regulations , controls and interference in the market. In addition to this action, there are two concrete steps the Government could take immediately which would flow quickly into giving more jobs to people. The first is to abandon once and for all its absurd, unworkable and contradictory uranium policy. The second is to take a more liberal attitude to foreign investment in Australia. Since 5 March the Government has brought development in the uranium industry to a complete halt. An industry with the capacity to earn billions of export dollars yearly and to employ thousands more people has been put on the back burner while the Government struggles to sort out a policy. We have even seen Ministers contradicting each other and the Labor movement generally going into convulsions on this issue as it tries to resolve its internal dilemmas. The Prime Minister has made it plain that he supports development of the industry. He has even been able to gag the Australian Council of Trade Unions from speaking on the issue this week. The nation needs a clear signal that it has a government which will support productive enterprise and will provide more jobs. That is why the Government, which is due to resolve its policy next week, must permit the uranium industry to go ahead again on the foundations established by the Liberal-National Party Government if its commitment to job creation is to have a shred of credibility. For the same reasons the Government must relax the tight grip on foreign investment it has established since the election. In times when the nation needs every job it can get there is no justification for the Government refusing the entry of productive and healthy investment which can put Australia's human and natural resources to work. That is just what is happening, and it has far- reaching consequences. When the Government refuses a legitimate and reasonable investment proposal, the news travels around the world. Such decisions mean loss of jobs. Many more jobs could be taken up if such investment took place. There is another course of action the Government must take if it is to get the nation moving; that is, to take the hooks out of the rural sector. In the May mini-Budget itself the Government talked a great deal about sacrifice, but the Government's actions have ensured that a major share of the sacrifice has been forced on the rural sector and country people generally. It was a process which began in May with the mini-Budget, a document which lost the Government much of whatever goodwill it might have had in country areas. It was a process carried on in the Budget last month, a Budget that was totally unfair to primary industry. The total outlays in the Budget for the agricultural and pastoral industries in 1983-84 will fall by 10 per cent over 1982-83. Overall Budget outlays will increase by 16 per cent during the same period. Yet it is the rural sector on which the Government is depending for a large part of the basis of national economic recovery. The Government is slugging the rural sector at a time when it is least able to bear it. Its actions will cause the whole nation to suffer. The latest Bureau of Agricultural Economics figures show that in 1983-84 the net value of rural production in real terms will still be significantly below the levels of 1981-82 and 1980-81. Farmers need several years to recover from one of the worst droughts in our history. But instead they are being asked to bear the major share of the burden of the Government's economic policy. This is a strategy which again hits jobs-for example, the cancellation of the bi-centennial water resources program-and which damages the overall profitability of the rural sector and thus its ability to contribute to national economic recovery. At the same time, the whole stance of Government economic policy, with its acceptance of inflation and its readiness to allow further wage increases and a return to indexation, is damaging our international competitiveness. By doing that it is making it harder and harder for our efficient export industries to operate effectively-hitting hard again at the rural sector. There are concrete ways to get Australians working again. The key to lasting recovery is still, and will always remain, business profitability. One of the major factors in business profitability is wage levels and conditions. This Government has apparently forgotten that. As a result the nation is now on a very rocky road indeed. The wages pause brought in by the previous Government is effectively at an end. The prices and incomes accord, intended as a replacement, is cracking more and more ominously and frequently. We are in for a period of great turbulence and danger under a government barely six months old but already abandoning the principles on which it was elected by the Australian people. The Government must change course quickly or pay the price. The Government's attitude to a rigid central wage fixing system and the re-introduction of half yearly indexation will institutionalise inflation, further strangling business and locking more and more people out of work. The Government is committed to the trade union movement and therefore to those fortunate people who have jobs. The unemployed are treated as an inevitable employment surplus. They are the resultant wastage of high wage demands and conditions. Labour conditions have become so onerous in the country that business, particularly small business, is finding it difficult to employ other than what is absolutely necessary. There is no capacity and little inclination to employ more people. Small business, which employs 46 per cent of the work force, is frightened to employ more people. Increasing government regulations, greater union interference and more wage demands are discouraging businesses from putting more people on their payrolls. It is remarkable that Australia has been able to develop and sustain the working conditions we have which are unequalled in the world. We have a 35- to 40-hour working week. We have handsome overtime and penalty rates. There is annual leave and holiday bonuses. There is long service leave and sick leave provisions. In some industries a contribution is made to a wage retirement fund, a staff superannuation fund, a staff medical fund, annual leave air fares, educational assistance and re-location expenses; and, of course, all industry has to fund workers compensation and many industries must pay payroll tax. In the construction industry, for example, these additional costs for labour account for an approximately 72 per cent addition to the wage. We now hear the trade unions pressing for a redundancy or severance allowance to be allied to industry in general. It is little wonder that there is such a reluctance by industry to employ more people. Yet it is only from industry that we will create permanent jobs for people that will help to resolve our unemployment problem. Unless the Government and the trade unions take a more realistic attitude to the consequences of their policies on wages and industry, the young and the unemployed are destined to find it increasingly difficult to get a job in this country. The worrying unemployment situation that exists at the moment will grow and will become a chronic feature of the Australian employment scene unless a more sensible approach is taken to the problems facing the business sector of the community. This Budget has glossed over those problems. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(5.47) —We have just witnessed and heard a most sanctimonious performance by the Leader of the National Party, the right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony)-sanctimonious because he was one of the leaders of the previous Government who caused the huge unemployment which he spoke about in his speech. In my speech on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983- 84 I intend to put some emphasis on that situation and to explain to the House why the people on his side of the House stand condemned in the eyes of the elctorate of Australia. The people of this country have become accustomed in recent years to newspaper headlines pronouncing the sacking of large numbers of workers-in the steel industry, in the car industry, in the manufacturing industry and, more recently, in the coal industry. As the impact of these headlines has penetrated our national consciousness it would be difficult to find any Australian who would deny that the economic problems of this country are deep-seated and that they will not be solved quickly or by precipitate action. After eight years of Liberal government our country had not only caught the international recessionary disease but had developed a chronic case of it. According to international monetary statistics, Australia, since 1980, suffered the sharpest industrial downturn of all the industrial countries. During the past financial year our economy contracted by 2.5 per cent at a time when most other countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development experienced the first flush of recovery. It is very easy for me to stand here and recite statistics. I can provide honourable members with a bundle of disastrous figures although Australian industry was hardly at full stretch in 1982, since then things have gone from bad to worse. Steel output in the three months to May fell by more than 30 per cent. Brick and cement production went down by 27 per cent. Motor car production went down by 23 per cent. In every area of textile production output was down by at least 10 per cent compared with the same period last year. As I said, I can provide the House with any number of disastrous statistics to illustrate just how serious was the economic ruin we inherited from the previous Government. But all these figures hide the extent of human suffering and indignity which the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, and the former Treasurer, John Howard, and their band of merry men inflicted on the Australian people. The statistics show that during the past eight years Malcolm Fraser, in his faltering interpretation of Treasury's economic wizardry, has ignored the welfare of the people. When this Government took office nearly three-quarters of a million Australians were registered as out of work. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to remember that this is the official figure. How many more had given up and decided it was wasted effort even to register for work? But enough of the past: With the election of an Australian Labor Party Government and the introduction of our first Budget, we have begun to put this country back on the long path to economic prosperity. We have begun to deal with inflation and unemployment simultaneously. In line with traditional Labor priorities, we have increases by 19 per cent aid to the needy in our community. We have increased the rate of unemployment benefit for single persons aged 18 years and over by $2 a week more than is needed to allow for inflation. Commencing in May 1984, pensions will be automatically indexed for increases in the consumer price index. The indexation of these benefits will mean that no longer can they be eroded by inflation. In addition, to encourage unemployed people to seek casual and part time work, the income test is to be liberalised from March 1984. Assistance for families, the handicapped and those living in remote areas has been increased. In the Budget Speech we foreshadowed an assets and incomes test on pensions. I stress the word 'foreshadowed' because we intend to meet with pensioner groups and to listen to their arguments and a 12-month period will elapse before that test is introduced. Since the incomes and assets test was removed from pensioners in 1976, there has been considerable evidence of people who have large means at their disposal receiving the pension. These people have been able to maximise the capital gains and exploit the benefits of the pensioner system. However, as the Government does not have limitless coffers and we wish to help those most in need, we must, in the interests of fairness, ensure that full pensions are given to those who cannot support themselves. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) also allows for the establishment of a new and much needed health system-Medicare. We had a debate in this House yesterday and during the early hours of this morning. Fortunately, we have now seen the first step taken towards the establishment of a Medicare system that the country can be proud of. The Medicare system will allow for freedom of choice for those who wish to use their own doctors and those who wish to use private hospitals. Most importantly, it will cover those Australians who have been unable to afford private insurance. In addition, a central feature of our first Budget is the allocation of nearly $1 billion for re-employment and training schemes. Under the community employment program we will provide funds for local groups to establish jobs of long term benefit to the community. When fully operational, CEP is expected to generate 70,000 jobs. In addition, we will improve this country's infrastructure in such areas as roads and country water supplies. We have established a systems program for the benefit of local government. Those are old positive measures to stimulate employment as well as to provide work experience for the long term unemployed. To stimulate the housing industry so that it requires more labour, our housing programs provide increased and more flexible assistance for first home buyers and substantial additional funds for public housing. Our housing programs will present a 23 per cent increase on the funds allocated to this area under the previous Government. The spin-off effects of generating additional activity in the housing industry will be of special importance in my electorate of Moore. A leaflet on this issue put out by the Roy Weston real estate firm in Western Australia states: We would like to pay tribute to the Federal Government's initiatives in firstly , announcing the improved Home Deposit Assistance Scheme effective from 1st August and, secondly, in bringing down a responsible Budget which must certainly assist in building confidence in the community. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I applaud the Government for its recognition of the problems confronting the original inhabitants of this country. To increase the number of trained Aboriginal teachers, one hundred teacher training awards for mature age students will become available. This initiative recognises one of the greatest needs of the Aboriginal people-more of their own people in responsible positions . Mr Deputy Speaker, this Appropriation Bill is the vehicle for the first stage of a complete but gradual re-ordering of the previous Government's economic priorities. We must get this country moving again. We will get it moving again. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(5.57) —The prices and incomes accord has been acclaimed as a triumph by the Government, the Australian Labor Party election policy speech has been acclaimed a triumph by the Government, the National Economic Summit Conference has been acclaimed as a triumph by the Government, the mini-Budget has been acclaimed as a triumph by the Government and now the Budget has been acclaimed as a triumph by the Government. It is about time we considered where we are being led. Where is this promised land to which our leader is taking us? I compare him with Moses because we are promised a land of milk and honey provided we are patient enough. But how patient we must be depends on when we make an assessment. If we made it before the last Federal election we were told that the land of milk and honey was only a week or a month away; before the Summit Conference it might have been 12 months away; and today if we ask the Government when we will reach the promised land we learn that it might be before the next election but it might also be some time in the next 10 years. Let us look at the accord. The accord was an agreement between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Labor Party that committed each to full indexation for wages in return for wage moderation. Unemployment and other factors were mentioned as well. The Summit Conference was the vehicle for selling the accord to the business community of Australia and the accord was dressed up for the Summit as a prices and wages policy. The Summit Conference also decided that a deficit of $6,500m would be acceptable to the Australian community, and the aim expressed in the Summit communique was that there should be a joint attack on unemployment and inflation. Finally, but not least in significance, it is important to recall that the Government reached a pre- election accord. Subsequent to the election, the Government reaffirmed many of the precepts of the compact at the National Economic Summit Conference, even though the final communique tended to be conceptual rather than explicit in its implementations. The mini-Budget in May proposed cuts for everything. There were cuts all round. This is where the Australian community felt the bite. A process of reordering priorities was commenced in the mini-Budget. I do not think that I am misrepresenting the Government's statements. The Budget is the first economic package from the Government. It recognises the accord, the policy statements at the time of the election, the Summit, and the mini-Budget. There are cracks in the accord. It is failing. In today's edition of the Australian Financial Review , we see claims such as this: With a $15 to $17 wage increase spreading through the Victorian chemical processing industry, an arbitration commissioner yesterday questiond rank-and- file and union-organiser allegiance to the prices and incomes accord. Commissioner Graham Walker yesterday pointed to a danger of union leaders and their members moving 'in different directions' on wages, an issue he said went to the crux of the trade-union movement. In the building industry, the oil industry, the apparel industry and the food processing industry, we see the accord shattered and crumbling. The simple terms that the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) has used describe adequately where the accord stands today. It cannot be explained away. It cannot be said by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) that a 4.3 per cent increase in wages for the calendar year 1983 will be all that will be paid out in this year following the guidelins of the accord. As regards the Summit and the prices and wages policy, wages, as I have already mentioned, will blow out beyond the agreement that was conceptualised at the Summit. The retrospective wages decision now in progress and the Government's submission to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, involve a 4.2 per cent increase in wages between 1 January and 30 June. Early in January next year there will be another decision which will give a similar increase, making a total increase of wages for the year of the same percentage as the inflation rate. There has been an eight-day wage pause. The benefit to the community will be insubstantial. There will be an increase in inflation, and we shall have the cranking up of the economy by a wages-led inflation process. Mr Anthony —More unemployment. Mr CADMAN —The result of the consumer price index decisions that have now been consciously started by the Government will be more unemployment. The wages freeze was agreed to by all State governments, many of them Labor governments, and by the Federal Government. The Federal Government is now spending funds that have been saved in the wages pause; but the wages pause has been proved to be non-existent due to the decisions that the Government has just made. It seems to me that we are looking for a deficit in 1984 that will be considerably larger than the deficit outlined in this year's Budget. It is a cosy relationship between the Government and the trade union movement. The accord has failed because the Government has not understood that that was not a binding decision on the union movement. As regard employment, it is early days yet in the Government's effort to wind up the nation's capacity to employ people. But even so, the Budget spoke of employment having grown by more than 47,000 from its early April trough. If that Budget were to be written today, the speech-writers would have to reduce that 47 ,000 figure to 28,000. That is how good the record has been on unemployment. Looking at the participation rate, the rate at which people in the Australian community seek a job-those who have jobs are added to those who are seeking jobs and the percentage is taken of all people living in Australia-one finds that in August 1983 the lowest participation rate in at least 20 years, has meant that recorded unemployment was held up and will stay up. People have given up. There are not the prospects for employment. It is a dangerous circumstance in which the Government is creating false jobs and substituting them for real jobs. We have heard about employment creation programs and the community employment program. Those are false jobs, not lasting jobs. They are not jobs that will be of benefit for the young people of Australia. They will not apply a continuity and a prospect and hope for the future. When we look at unemployment factors, we must say that we need now to come to the Budget and see where the Summit, the accord and the policy speech fit together. The Budget is weak, and it is delicate in three areas. It is supposed to be a Budget aimed at buildings consensus and honing it to a fine edge. That is the statement, and that would be justified if the processes that have been gone through to arrive at the Budget were soundly based. But in so many areas, the accord and the agreements of the Summit have been shattered, and they no longer have the same relevance as they had when they were first settled. The Budget is weak in three key areas. It is weak because wages stability is a key factor in the Budget. Within days of the Budget being put through this place, the Government decided to backdate its wages decision before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission at the national wage hearing. It is backdating the wages decision so that there is an additional 3 per cent to 4 per cent increase in wages immediately that was not accounted for by the Budget. Wage increases will affect unemployment, interest rates and inflation. If wage rises go beyond the level predicted by the Budget, there will be dramatic effects in other sections of the economy. The gross domestic product, the real growth for Australia this year, was predicted in the Budget to be 3 per cent. The best advise that I can gain is that real growth in the Australian economy for the forthcoming year is likely to be 2 per cent. That growth is based on commodity prices, farm incomes, and the success of manufacturing industry. If there is a drop of one per cent in the Budget Estimates, there will be a dramatic change to the deficit, a change of $1,000m. That is how tenuous the basis of the Budget is. It is based on a wages policy which has crumbled and it is based on wages decisions that the Government is changing itself. It is based on a level of real growth in the economy which is tenuous in the extreme. It is based on the largest deficit on record that this nation has ever seen. Wages, again, will affect the deficit. The real growth of Australian product will affect the deficit. So the outcomes of the three factors which are so significant to the Budget are very substantial for employment, for interest rates and for inflation. Those are the factors which affect people in their daily lives-whether they have a job; whether they can pay off their home; and whether they can afford to borrow money to expand their business and so create employment for others. All three factors are interlocked. I think the House is aware of the significance of employment in Australia today. There is a need for the Government to understand what really creates jobs. A tentative Budget based on such delicate suppositions seems to me to be at risk if we are talking about creating jobs and giving people opportunities. But, at the best, the Government is not unfamiliar with hedging its bets. I return to 3 March of this year. In a report appearing in the Australian Financial Review three days before the election Anne Summers wrote: Already he-- the Prime Minister- is signalling that he would; as John Cain in Victoria and John Bannon in South Australia both cleverly did, disclose early in his term of office that the economic situation he inherits is far worse that the previous incumbents had let on- This will enable him to use national reconciliation as a vehicle for belt- tightening rather than for dispensing a lot of largesse. Second, Mr Hawke said again yesterday that his promises could be modified as a result of what emerges at the national economic summit. I think we had better look at some of those promises because they were the promises with which the Australian people expected to be led into the promised land. I quote from page 4 of the policy speech of the then Leader of the Opposition. It states: I believe that the Australian people have had enough of election promises made only to be broken. I offer no fistfull of dollars to be snatched back after the election. We must go on to look at other promises because that promise overrides all other promises. Page 7 of the policy speech states And in these great matters, as in everything else in this campaign and beyond, I am not in the business, and the Labor Party is not in the business, of making promises that cannot be fulfilled. That promise promised not to break promises. Mr Anthony —That is the official ALP document too. Mr CADMAN —It is the official Australian Labor Party document used by the current Prime Minister when he was running for election, trying to convince the Australian people that he could lead them to the promised land. I have another quotation from page 9. When talking about improving the economy the Prime Minister said: And that cannot be done by taking money out of the weekly pay packet or the pensioner's cheque. He has done that in this Budget. He has taken money from the average family. He said in his election policy speech that that was one thing that would not get the nation going. On page 10 he promises 'tax reductions for low and middle income earners'. We know what happened in that regard in the Budget. I refer to tax relief and tax reform. There are annexures to this policy speech of the current Prime Minister in which he announced his policies for the election on 5 March. Annexures to this document set out the tables showing the various rates of tax and the reductions people would actually receive. Mr Anthony —Laughable. Mr CADMAN —They are laughable. I will read some of them. The tables show that a person on $200 a week in fact would be $4.41 a week better off. The tables go through the categories of dependent spouses, children, people with dependants and pensioners. They tell everybody how much better off they would be under Labor immediately the Labor Party was elected. I refer to another item appearing on page 12 which states: A taxpayer without dependants earning $225 a week, for example, will get a tax cut of $4.76 a week. That is laughable. Nothing like that has happened in Australia. If we refer to the comments of Anne Summers on 3 March we see that she said that the now Prime Minister was already preparing to break his promises. Page 14 of this election document states: Those rejected policies-- he is talking about the previous Government's policies- would have imposed a 2 1/2 per cent tax on the necessities of life in this country. He was talking about a sales tax. In the House the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has complained about adjustments to his Budget that have been made in the Senate. They are nothing compared with what the Labor Party did to the previous Government's Budgets in so many ways. The policy speech also states: In addition to a contribution of $37 million to government schools, we shall provide a further $16 million to the most needy non-government schools in the first year. That promise has already been broken. I go to page 23 which states: Pensioner fringe benefit levels will be indexed. We have not seen that promise fulfilled yet. I could go on and on. I think the Australian people need to be aware that in addition to this great string of broken promises other measures have been introduced. We have seen introduced a withholding tax, an assets test and a tax on lump sum superannuation payments- all revenue raising exercises. They are all measures which were not promised in the election campaign and which increase the cost of living for an average family, but the Prime Minister said before the election that he would be reducing those costs. I think that the most expensive and attractive promises were broken. I think the Prime Minister knew that he intended to break them. Certainly Anne Summers predicted that he would break them. Mr Groom —Of course he knew. Mr CADMAN —He must have known. He must have known the size of the deficit or whatever factors he needed to know. I think the Labor Party certainly did know. It is terrible that a situation such as this exists in Australia. We will have this proposition put to the Prime Minister at the next election campaign: 'Mr Hawke, which promises are really promises? Which of those promises will lead us to the promised land?' I submit to the House that Moses was successful because of his surety and his steadfastness. He knew what he was doing and he kept his promise. The children of Israel were the ones who broke their promises. I suggest to the House that the Prime Minister is not a Moses. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(6.17) —I am delighted to have an opportunity tonight to comment on the Budget. In particular I wish to deal with Australia's foreign aid program which comes to the outstanding amount of $836m. I raise this issue tonight because I was recently a member of a parliamentary delegation which visited a number of developing nations on our doorstep such as Papua New Guinea, which was our former colony, the Solomon Islands, which was a former British protectorate, and Vanuatu, which was a condominium run by the French and the British governments. Our land faces many difficulties. We have the terrible curse of unemployment on us. Every member of parliament knows how difficult it is to sit at his or her desk and talk to a constituent who is unemployed. Every member knows how difficult it is to face across the desk someone who is a breadwinner with dependants and who has no job and no hope of getting a job in the present climate. This situation is exacerbated if that person has a little English, few skills or some health deficiency. The tragedy is brought home to all of us in this chamber, in the Senate and in State parliaments who interview constituents. Perhaps we see the harsh realities of unemployment more than most other groups in society. This is the task that the Australian Labor Party in government has set itself- to create jobs, an economy which will pick up and an economy which will launch the private sector into creating jobs. It is the private sector to which we must look. In the long term a government cannot create jobs in the Public Service, in the public sector. It must be a privately-led economic recovery. Every Australian recognises that, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) recognises that and the Government recognises that. Every Australia recognises the need for employment and for schemes to assist, train and help the unemployed. There are problems in the state schools and in the non-state schools. They all have needs. The hospitals and the ethnic communities have needs. Migrants are entitled to the opportunity to learn English and skills. The refugees we are bringing to Australia under the various international arrangements have great needs for housing and care. Our environment has claims on society for funds. Sydney desperately needs a second airport, and I am delighted that the Government is pressing ahead to nominate a site for it. However, we must never overlook the difficulties facing developing nations on our doorstep. These nations are our neighbours and I have found that they look upon us as the United States of the region. We are the big power in their area. They all have a large imbalance in their balance of payments with Australia. They trade with Australia, their communications are with Australia, and in some countries Australian currency almost circulates along with the local currency. We have problems here, but we are a rich country. We have a population with great enterprise, a population with great common sense. It is my belief that we will pull ourselves out of this economic trough, but we must never forget the economic commitments we have made to our neighbours, particularly to our former colony, Papua New Guinea and to all the other nations in the region, including Indonesia, Malaysia and Korea, which are all struggling to develop. The impression I gained from the countries I visited with the parliamentary delegation which has just returned was the need for public health assistance. The problem of malaria, which is endemic in all of the countries we visited, is quite overwhelming. One must not let it get out of perspective, but public health problems are something that Australia must assist with. I am delighted to see the enormous commitment to funding in our foreign aid program. Much of this money will go towards public health. Papua New Guinea will receive $302m in 1983 -84. Of that amount, $288m is a straight block grant as a Budget support. This is untied money given to the Papua New Guinea Government, which will spend it on programs that it considers suitable. We were shown many programs and activities that the Government is undertaking to develop the nation, to provide jobs and to improve public health and public safety. A significant proportion of this money will go towards education schemes and public health schemes. The health problems are such that they almost frightened members of the delegation. We were impressed by the quality of the Australian personnel working on aid projects as teachers, lecturers, public servants or advisers to government. There is a surfeit of various government bodies. In Papua New Guinea alone there are 19 provinces, which are somewhat equivalent to our States. As we went around the various provinces we called at many mission stations. It was quite distressing for me to come upon one mission station in the Solomon Islands where there were some Dominican nuns from my electorate. Some of those missionaries were just recovering from malaria. However, it is not malaria that causes trouble, it is the fact that when one is in a weakened condition one can pick up something else, such as dengue fever or blackwater fever. It is not the mortality from malaria but the morbidity that is the problem. A person who is weakened from having malaria can die from something else. The delegation spent eight days in the Solomon Islands and we had a tremendous opportunity to appreciate the achievements of the Australian aid scheme in that country. Australia has given the patrol boat Tulagi to the Solomon Islands; it makes up the entire navy of that country. The problem for the Solomon Islands is that it is almost impossible for the patrol boat to visit all its 2,000 islands and atolls to maintain law and order. It is particularly difficult in very rough weather. I am delighted that the Prime Minister has made a long term commitment to provide an additional patrol boat. I know that the Government of the Solomon Islands will appreciate this assistance. One of the needs in the Solomon Islands is technical training. The Australian aid program, as outlined in the Budget, will be of great assistance to the Solomon Islands, which is in great need of technical training for its people. The delegation got the impression that the Solomon Islands has been somewhat forgotten by the United Kingdom. It is a British protectorate which was the scene of some of the most horrendous battles in World War II. On Guadalcanal there were 26,000 American and Japanese casualties, the majority probably from malaria or starvation. We tend to overlook a country such as the Solomon Islands , but it is one to which we owe so much. Had it not been for the bravery of the Americans and of the Australian forces in the Solomon Islands our nation may well have been invaded in the Second World War. So we do owe a great debt to the Solomon Islands. Despite our real problems at home-problems that we must not and can never overlook-we still have a tremendous moral commitment to give substantial aid to all the nations on our doorstep. I know that all members of the House support the Government's bilateral aid program. We are proud of this program. I appreciate the opportunity I had to see at first hand the work of this program. In each of the three nations we visited we called at the communications centre. In the two smaller countries there were no newspapers and Australia, through its aid programs, has developed radio communications in the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. Australia built the broadcasting studios and transmitters in Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, where broadcasting is run by the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation. We appreciated the work that was done in these countries because, being essentially without communications, the people rely on the radio. The population is scattered over islands for hundreds of miles up and down the Coral Sea and the various other seas in that part of the Pacific. A big problem facing these nations is to provide communication from island to island, or between the central government and the outer areas. We had a very practical tour. We saw at first hand what Australian money is doing in these countries. The taxpayer is literally getting his dollars worth out of the aid which is given to these countries. The leaders of these nations were most appreciative of what Australia have done. They felt that Australian aid was being administered sensibly. In no case was there any evidence of waste or duplication. It was my impression that the people who were working in the various high commissions or as aid officers in the field were people of total dedication. If they had ideas to improve the distribution of aid or had criticisms of projects that were under way, they were not slow in coming forward with them. They certainly were not slow in passing on comments to members of the delegation. I believe that Australians can be proud of what we are doing in all of these countries through our aid program. Naturally in a time of recession, such as the time we are now going through, people are extremely critical of overseas aid. Many people have said to me privately that we are giving too much money to such and such a country and we should be spending this money at home. The DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! It being 6.30 p.m. the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member for Lowe will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Parliament House Lawns-Queensland Government-Education-Australian Industry: 'Buy Australian' Policy-Excise on Grape Spirit-Dried Fruit Industry-Federal Grants- Freedom-Government's Industrial Policies-Australian National Animal Health Laboratory-Education Funding-Advertising-Nuclear Industry-Returned Services League National Congress Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.00) —Mr Speaker, in this House on 5 June 1981 I addressed a question to the then Minister for the Capital Territory, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). The question was: Does the Minister for the Capital Territory propose action to formalise Canberra's latest caravan park, now located in front of Parliament House, so that the obvious benefits of free camping will be available to all Australians? If so, does he propose that it will still be necessary to display a protest sign . . . Let me remind honourable members of the date of that inquiry. It was June 1981. On that occasion the Minister gave me some encouragement in his reply and in fact shortly afterwards, through correspondence, we were able to reach agreement that there was absolutely no need to have protest camps and the campers were removed. However, since that time there has been a change of government. To my dismay I, as a great supporter of this institution, again saw a proliferation of tents and other camping equipment appearing on the lawns in front of our Parliament, and, of course, obstructing people's view of what is an excellent vista-our lawns, fountains, and Lake Burley Griffin. Consequently, as many honourable members present are aware, I addressed a further question to the Minister of the day, the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren). Might I add that in the previous correspondence I had with Mr Hodgman, the then Minister, I threatened that if he was not prepared to take some action I would join the protesters. I directly asked the present Minister what his intentions were and whether he would give me the same permission as other people seemed to have, contrary to the general laws of Australia. The House is well and truly aware of the answer I received. It was an answer all about protesting. The Minister said that this Government stands for freedom of assembly and freedom of protest. I stand for freedom of assembly and freedom of protest. Might I add one word and say the freedom of peaceful protest . Of course, most honourable members opposite at the moment do not remember the disgraceful occasion when certain people found it necessary to kick in the door of this place. Mr Hollis —I was there. They were my constituents. Mr TUCKEY —I am terribly sorry for the honourable member. I am glad that the remark is in Hansard because that also was an assault on the democracy of Australia. Democracy is something for which we should be very grateful. We should be very grateful that in any hotel or public place we may criticise the Government of the day and not expect knocks on our doors at midnight. That is what we have and that is what I am protecting. This is why I want to raise some of the issues raised subsequent to my action this week when I chose to park a caravan-carefully on the concrete, I might add, so as not to damage the lawn-and place some protest signs on it to draw Australia's attention to the fact that it is absolutely and completely unnecessary to have a tent in order to protest. There is a little history attached to this matter. The first ever protest of this nature was the Aboriginal tent embassy. It was significant. In fact the protesters thought they needed a structure because they did not have an embassy. That action suddenly created a pattern for Australia. We have protest by tent. Canvas has gone ahead of people. One does not need to stand in front of the Parliament; all one needs is some canvas and one is a protester. Of course there are some good reasons for that. The principal reason, as I understand it, is contained in the American guidelines to protesting which state that one can protest all one likes provided one holds one's sign aloft and keeps moving. That is a good test of a protester. It tests his dedication and determines whether he is prepared to walk around and suffer some discomfort in the interest of his cause. Our protesters want to erect their tents and hang up some signs. As most honourable members opposite know, on nine reasons out of 10 when we walk out of this Parliament we see no people there at all. There are only tents there. It is protest by tent. Mr O'Neil —That is not true. Mr TUCKEY —I am sorry, the honourable member must go out at different times to me. I do not say this as a criticism of the Government. It is a criticism of a set of circumstances. I hope that the Government takes this matter on board. It is quite proper for a person to present himself in front of the Parliament-it is not only proper but also desirable-and display to members of the Parliament his concern, whatever it might be. Of course, in order to protest he needs a sign. He does not need a tent; he does not need to put something on the lawns week after week. I take honourable members back to the circumstances of my original question. When I walked over there the other day a person came to me and said: ' You are up to what Hodgman did to us in 1981'. I reminded him that I was the reason why Mr Hodgman did it to him, and I am quite satisfied that he understood that reason. The point I make is this: How often can he come back here and occupy the lawns of Parliament House? The other point is that this is a Government of consensus, I am told, and consensus must have some implication of fair play. There is a huge area opposite the Parliament. If it is to be a place for people to camp, what of the rights of the law abiding citizen? Every law abiding citizen clearly knows that his responsibility when he takes off with his tent or caravan is to go to the places designated for camping or caravaning. I understand that that is basically to protect public health. Of course State Governments-and this Government in respect of the Australian Capital Territory-put down legislation or regulations to that effect. I respect that. I also respect the fact that just as we stop for a red light at a traffic intersection, quite legally we go to caravan parks or whatever may be the designated area. That is not a trade restriction; it is because local authorities and others realise the need for it. A protest sign suddenly defeats all those carefully thought out, carefully constructed laws. That is the way the Government thinks that things should operate. I remind honourable members that the previous Government did not see it that way. It upheld the law above the canvas and consequently it said: 'No, we will not have the tents'. There is absolutely nothing on record that says that we will not have the protesters. We said we will not have the tents. We will not have camping, whether it be in a caravan or otherwise. In this regard, I must be evenhanded and say that I was not all that rapt about the big banana, either. I am not convinced that commercial enterprises should be allowed to use that area in that fashion. When representatives of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation wished to entertain members of the Australian Parliament and demonstrate what they are doing they went to the rose gardens, put up their tents, turned on their barbecues, ate, packed up and went away. If there are events like that that cannot be held in this place, maybe another place should be found. Mr Speaker, you are involved in arrangements concerning the new Parliament House. What is the future of protest by tent, this protest of canvas? We have a magnificent arrangement that suggests that people will be able to walk over the top of the people's Parliament-a magnificent architectural concept. My question is: Will people be able to wend their way through the tents? It is equally serious to suggest that tent dwellers could put tents all over the top of it. It is time that honourable members opposite, within Caucus, asked themselves whether they can differentiate between the words 'protest' and 'tent' because the rest of the world is able to do so. I submit to honourable members opposite that the previous Government was able to do so. It is a simple decision that this Government seriously should be able to take. I am not trying to criticise this Government; I am just saying that it is confusing the difference. Finally, I ask the Government not to let tents get on top of people. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(8.10) —Honourable members will know that the destruction of the Queensland coalition Government arose from a decision of the Liberal Minister, Terry White, to support the Liberal Party of Australia policy which calls for the establishment of a public accounts committee. Equally important would be the need for a public works committee in that Queensland Parliament. Both of these committees will be formed in Queensland after the election as it is part of the policy of the Australian Labor Party to do so. Press reports last week outlined a radical departure from recognised government tendering procedures in Queensland. These have highlighted the urgent need for a public works committee in Queensland. Last week the Queensland Government offered five selected construction companies up to $25,000 each to tender for hospital projects because it wants to publicise those projects for election purposes prior to 22 October. The offer refers to new hospital facilities at Nambour, Brisbane, Townsville and Southport. Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr KEOGH —The truth hurts a bit. Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker-- Mr KEOGH —Come on, sit down. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs will come to his point of order. Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, I assume that I obey you rather than listen to obnoxious remarks. Mr SPEAKER —That is right. You should obey the Chair, as do all honourable members. Please come to your point of order. Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, the honourable member made a terrible remark. Obviously he is misinformed because it was on a design and construct basis. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr KEOGH —I understand that the companies selectively invited are Civil and Civic Pty Ltd, Watkins Ltd, Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd, Concrete Constructions (Queensland) Pty Ltd and John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd. I have no doubt that, in the present economic climate in Queensland, with all construction companies finding work difficult to get, all these companies would have been most anxious to submit quotations for this work without the offer of a gratuitous payment by the Queensland Government. In fact, probably up to 100 companies in Queensland that are actively engaged in construction work in that State could and would be most anxious to undertake the work. Even if this most irregular tender arrangement had not been proposed, the action of this unelected Government in Queensland to blatantly set aside its own 'Standard Code of Tendering' for political propaganda purposes is wholly unwarranted. I have a copy of that Government's code of tendering. Part 4 states that: No authority or department shall enter into any contracts, save in accordance with the code. The code specifically says that tenders shall be invited by public tender, published in such a manner as to encourage a reasonable measure of competition. But that was not done in Queensland on this occasion. This opens up the likelihood of a massive misuse of public money, by way of not only the already agreed payment of $25,000 to each of these selected tenderers but also the likely further misuse of unknown amounts because of the open-ended cost of the project while under construction. The method has been rightly condemned by the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Keith Wright. It has likewise been condemned by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and the Queensland Master Builders Association, whose Executive Director, Mr Des Hodgman, said: . . . the lastest approach was a departure from normal government tendering procedures. I am certain there are builders in all parts of the state who have the capacity to do these projects and are screaming out for work in those areas . . . The Deputy Leader of the Queensland Parliamentary Liberal Party also condemned the proposal that has been put into effect by the Queensland Government. He said : . . . the latest situation would never have arisen if Queensland still had Liberal Ministers. It is wrong. It defies the rules of open tendering . . . Of course he is in disagreement with his colleague the ex-Minister for Health, Mr Austin, who agrees with the idea. He said that he supported it when he was Minister of Health. Queenslanders can be reassured by two decisions of the Labor Opposition Leader, Keith Wright. The first is that on election to office, the Labor Government will re-call tenders in accordance with the recognised code of tendering. Secondly, after 22 October, the Labor Government in Queensland will establish a public works committee to guard against unwarranted and sometimes corrupt practices such as those adopted by the present Queensland Government. This public works committee will operate very much along the same lines as those of the Joint Committee on Public Works of this Parliament. I put it to honourable members that what is proposed could not happen at a Federal level under the guidelines that are laid down for public works. Should there be justification for urgency in proceeding with these hospital projects they could be undertaken speedily by the well-established method of construction management. This would allow virtually an immediate start on the work before one line is drawn on a plan by overlapping design and construction arrangements. However, it would control both the cost limits and the design standards. In recent days I have had the opportunity to consult with and discuss senior officers of the Department of Housing and Construction some of the tender practices. As honourable members will know, this Department is the construction authority for Federal projects carried out on behalf of the Federal government of the time. The officers to whom I spoke condemned the proposal in the strongest possible terms. They were clear in their assessment of the grave dangers of awarding any construction contract following receipt of tenders on the basis that the Queensland Government has called them by this most irregular method. In their words, to compare the various tenders received would be like comparing apples with pears. There will be no clear basis for comparison of the various projects submitted prior to selection of a successful tenderer. I was told that there would be insurmountable practical difficulties and it would be impossible to make a comparative evaluation of these proposals. It would obviously come back to a subjective judgment by those who were making the assessment on behalf of the self-appointed, National Party Government in Queensland. I am sure that no clear cut, fair decision could be made. Many experienced people within the Public Service and within private enterprise have agreed with those observations. They concur with my opinion that it would be most unlikely in the end to lead to anything but favouritism by those making the selection. Because of the wide variety of building materials and design practices that could be included in the various submissions, any decision would leave many reasons for the unsuccessful tenderers to dispute the decision. Furthermore, there would be no arrangement whereby the total, overall cost of the project could be controlled once a tenderer had used the $25,000 present that had been received from the Queensland Government and had to submit a proposal. This is a scandalous abuse of public money. It is a scandalous abuse of privilege. The National Party has taken it upon itself to run the Government of that State even though, as a National Party, it was not elected to the position of government of that State. The sooner the people of Queensland have the opportunity, as they will on 22 October, to dismiss the Government and get decent, stable government in Queensland through electing a Labor Government, the better. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.20) —I wish to take the time of the House for a few moments this evening to discuss the funding of education in Australia. It has been a matter of some concern to me that Australia, over a period, has adopted a fairly equal and even-handed approach to the funding of education, but within the last 12 months or so there has been significant pressure for a change in the funding processes. I believe part of this pressure is from the former Defence of Government Schools organisation which was unsuccessful in a claim to the High Court of Australia against the Commonwealth. In part, I believe the pressure comes from teachers federations around Australia. I think there is an element of envy and concern and an element of jealousy between the various types of education available that is completely unwarranted. This is not based on any real reasons or factual circumstances but is perhaps based on a fear of competition. It is a conservative attitude amongst teachers that seems to indicate that they do not wish to have equality of what they do really tested. One way of avoiding that test of competition between various sectors within the government sector and also within the non-government sector is to ensure that there is only one system of education. I think it is very unfortunate because, generally speaking, education in Australia has served the nation well. I am aware of some factors within the government sector that do need attention. Some government schools do need additional assistance. The slow-moving difficult planning procedures of many departments of education makes it very difficult for those departments to meet effectively the needs of the community that they serve . On the other hand, in the non-government sector, there has been a growing interest in non-government education amongst parents. Parents see this as an alternative. Many of them see the prospect of giving their children non- government education as a capacity for them to choose a type of school that most closely reflects the home environment. That is an important aspect of education. It is an aspect that gives both parents and children confidence when they know that the standards, values and attitudes of the home are being expressed on a daily basis in the lives of the children whilst they are at study at school. The matter that has caused me concern is the way in which the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has dealt with these vexed problems, the way in which she has chosen to make decisions and the funding of all education areas during the period that the Australian Labor Party has been in office. In my view, many people have a broader understanding and are not so narrow in their outlook as the Minister appears to be. I know that the Australian Labor Party has had some difficulty in finding a successful spokesman for education. I remember the honourable member for Perth made an attempt and then the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) for a period was a spokesman-- Mr Barry Jones —Fremantle. Mr CADMAN —The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins). Mr Howard —He was unloaded because he was an embarrassment. Mr CADMAN —Yes, I felt that. I wanted to be non- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest the Deputy Leader of the Opposition allow his colleague to address the House. Mr CADMAN —Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was not my intention to provoke anybody until later in my speech. I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard ) for his assistance. The honourable member for Fremantle did prove to be a real embarrassment because his ideological attitudes in fact prevented him from coming to grips with the complexities of education. He went into his job as spokesman with very fixed ideas. It was impossible for him to shift his views and so he was removed. Then we had Mr Hurford who- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows he should refer to the honourable member either by his electorate or ministry. Mr CADMAN —Yes indeed, Mr Speaker. The current Minister for Housing and Construction for a period was in fact the spokesman for education. He blurred the edges sufficiently to make everybody moderately happy and yet moderately unhappy until the Labor Party was successfully through the elections. We have the third attempt in the Australian Labor Party to have a Minister or spokesperson on education. It is very worrying. Mr Groom —I reckon Mr Jones should be the Minister. Mr CADMAN —We would be entertained, informed and at least have a capacity within this House to discuss the real issues of education if the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) who is at the table were in fact the Minister for Education. We would be able to explore education well, in detail and with a great deal of interest. It really does concern me that some of the commitments made by the Australian Labor Party before the election have not been met, despite the commitments made by the honourable member for Adelaide. I have with me a Press release from the honourable member for Adelaide who was shadow Minister for Education, which was issued on 28 February 1983. He stated: As Bob Hawke stated in Labor's Policy Speech: 'I say frankly and unequivocally that under (Labor's) proposals 98% of children in the Catholic education system will be better off in terms of Commonwealth assistance'. Indeed, he could have gone further and stated that not even the other 2% would be worse off under our proposals. The facts are that in the Budget the figures do not meet those commitments. I know the Minister has recently made an additional $5m available to non- government education. This still does not reach the target figure that the shadow spokesman, the honourable member for Adelaide, spoke about, wrote about and issued to hundreds of school principals and schools. Those schools are extremely worried about how they will make ends meet during this financial year and the coming financial year. We have seen the chopping block process where a number of schools, from next year, will lose a considerable amount of their funds. I will not explore that area except to say that there has been an indication of another technique which may be used by the Government to reduce funding for non-government schools. This is the process of changing their categorisation, of taking schools which are currently categorised as poor or having low incomes, raising them to a different category and, by that technique, reducing the recurrent funding and the current funds that they depend upon to run their schools. Within the Sydney area a number of schools have been affected , or threatened with this process. That process has also been delayed. I wish to warn the Government that it is embarking on a most dangerous course if it wishes to interfere with what has been an established process, an accepted process of choice in education. This is regarded by all Australians as their right. It is indeed a privilege that is experienced by a few parents in a few countries. Australians value the choice, the competition and the chance of sending their children to a school which does give them the opportunity to have some say in the type of education their children receive. Some comments have been made by the Australian Labor Party that the needs of schools will be met. I do not know how governments can make these decisions. To me a wealthy parent sending a child to a State school will probably have fewer needs than a poorer parent sending a child to a school which is a non-government school and making great sacrifices to do so. Governments cannot make these judgments well. The Government needs to adopt a great deal of caution and a sensitive understanding of the need for choice in education to meet the exciting challenge that can be provided to a government in developing education policies that are sound and practical and that serve the total community. That is certainly not the case at the moment, and the Government has embarked upon a most dangerous process. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(8.30) —In this my first speech in a grievance debate I raise a topic that should interest every member of this House and indeed every Australian. I refer to the need to encourage Australian industry. I do not refer necessarily to large industry in this country but to small industries which employ many Australians and which often do not have the resources to fight off foreign competition. I accept that trade between countries is often finely balanced and I do not wish to get involved at this stage in the tariff argument about whether we are unnecessarily protecting geriatric industries. Others more competent than I will no doubt conduct this debate. But I will argue to save the jobs of Australians. On 10 May in this chamber I drew attention to the fact that my office in this building was supplied with a two-hole punch made in Shanghai, China. Not only was the punch made in China but so was the box it was packed in. This seemed to fascinate one Ian Warden who I believe sits in the Press gallery for the Canberra Times during Question Time. Mr Warden waxed lyrical about my question: A star was born in the House of Representatives yesterday when one of the talented new Labor members who soared into the Parliament on March 5, at last got a chance to let the full radiance of his intellect dazzle the chamber. Those are not my words but the words of this particular journalist. He went on to make a few snide and cheap comments about my question. I have never regarded trying to save Australian jobs or industry as anything to be ashamed of. He returned to the topic on 26 August when he was again reporting on a question from me to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which he wrongly claimed was a dorothy dixer, although I do not quite know what that means. The Prime Minister, during his answer to me, momentarily lost touch with where I was sitting. Mr Warden reported from the gallery: The member for Macarthur will always be remembered as the man who adorned one Question Time in May by complaining to Mr Speaker that the two-hole punches available from the stationery department of the House were not made from good Aussie steel but came from Shanghai, China. Over the last two years more than 8,000 steel workers in my electorate have lost their jobs and nationally more than 15,000 jobs in the steel industry have been lost, in the main because Australian steel was not being used. I am not suggesting a two-hole punch-led economic recovery, but let us buy Australian wherever possible or appropriate. I mentioned steel workers, but supplying the steel industry are also coal miners and many other related or dependent large and small industries. The journalist from the Canberra Times and others of his profession could help instead of smart-Alick remarks trying to prove how clever they are by knocking: Why do they not use their skills and position to promote Australian-made goods? But no, it is easier to knock than to make constructive suggestions. I suggest to Mr Warden that when he is replaced by a word processor , most likely an imported one probably made from South Korean steel for an American multinational, it is to his local Federal member that he will scream loud and long. I return to the two-hole punch saga. After asking my question in the House I went back to my office and checked my desk. I suggest that other honourable members and indeed anybody who is listening do likewise. What I found was staggering. I have already mentioned the two-hole punch made in China, and I have it here. My stapler was made in Japan; the staples in it in Singapore; the thumb tacks in England; the paper clips in Taiwan; another lot of small staples in Taiwan; the dispenser in Hong Kong; the ruler in Germany; the letter opener in Austria; and the highlighter in Germany. Even the out-tray was made in New Zealand. The scissors were made in Germany and the chair that I sit on, I found today, was made in Canada. My friend the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Chynoweth) reminds me that the milk jugs supplied in this building are also made in Taiwan. This list is by no means exhaustive. I am sure that a closer search would reveal many other examples. I am by nature an internationalist. My philosophy is such, as indeed is my training. I believe in free trade, but only if all engage in it. I do not see why our markets should be swamped while our exporters are denied access to foreign markets and small businesses go broke. The purpose of my question on 10 May was to direct attention to the way in which even this House was being swamped with foreign goods. I said then and I repeat: This House should set an example to the rest of Australia by buying Australian first. If we do not set the example, who will? How do I reply to a deputation about imported steel when my office desk is brimming with foreign trinkets? The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) over recent months has rightly been drawing attention to sunrise industries. We must be receptive to these new industries but we must not overlook the possibility of developing or expanding our traditional industries. Thumb tacks might not make national headlines, but they can keep some Australians in jobs. The manufacturing of paper clips may not employ many people but, given our current economic situation inherited from the policies of those who now sit opposite-and there are not many sitting there at the moment-every job is important. This is nowhere better shown then in my electorate. There is a paper mill in my electorate. How could I face retrenched workers there if the paper in this House, of any kind, were imported? My speech this evening is not a reflection on this House or its purchasing officers. What happens here is repeated in many offices throughout Australia. I just want people to be more aware when they purchase goods. Whenever appropriate , they should buy Australian, especially if the goods have a steel component. My friends the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) and the honourable member for Flinders, both from steel electorates, support me in this. In my electorate and in that of my colleage the honourable member for Cunningham and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) many people are anxiously awaiting details of the Governments special regional steel assistance program. As well as skill training no doubt to be carried out by the excellent colleges of technical and further education at Wollongong, Shellharbour and Dapto, it is important that new industries be established. The sum of $100m is to be spent in the Illawarra, Hunter and Whyalla areas on capital works projects over five years. I hope that, if any industrial complex is established in the Illawarra, part of it will be devoted to small industries-supplying office equipment, shall we say. It might not necessarily be an advanced technology application complex, but it could help provide jobs. It is often said that Australian industry suffers because of our small domestic market, but I am sure that we could supply our own paper clips, staples, thumb tacks to other users of Australian materials and not import them, as happens so often now. I hope all Australians take more care in their purchasing. I hope those in this House responsible for ordering do likewise. In this regard I was heartened to receive a letter from Mr Speaker after my 10 May question in which he assured me that he had instructed the staff of the parliamentary departments for which he is solely or jointly administratively responsible that, where they do not already do so, they are to add to their assessment of the acquisition of stores wherever there is an Australian equivalent product and take its availability and price into account. We must always remember that by buying Australian we are saving Australian jobs. I hope that at least on that there is consensus in this House. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(8.40) —Earlier this week I informed members of the Government back bench of the disastrous impact of the excise which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) had imposed on grape spirit used in the production of fortified wines. We know that when calculated as part of the cost of a tonne of grapes used in fortified wine production this massive tax will increase the cost of grapes by up to $250 per tonne. This will have a number of effects. Firstly, it will result in a reduction of grapes required and received by wineries and so reduce returns to growers. Secondly, it will result in reduced sales of the manufactured product. Thirdly, it will necessitate increased borrowings by winemakers. Fourthly, it will stimulate increased imports and further restrict access to the domestic market by producers. Tonight I bring to the attention of the Parliament and to the Minister responsible for Primary Industry other serious problems that exist and will be aggravated by this outrageous decision, a decision that I remind the House broke a promise made by the Hawke Government to grapegrowers in Griffith in the heat of the election campaign in a desperate but dishonest attempt to win the seat of Riverina. Mr Howard —That attempt failed. Mr FISHER —Fortunately for the House and for the people of Riverina, as my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, that attempt failed and Riverina re-elected the honourable member for Riverina, (Mr Noel Hicks) and rejected this promise as the gimmick and the sham that it obviously has now proved to be. By their nature, products of the Australian grape industry, which include dried fruit, fresh table grapes and wine, are complementary and the fortunes of each are very rapidly reflected upon each other. Therefore, the resulting surplus of wine grapes, which could well be in the vicinity of 150,000 tonnes this vintage will place an unbearable oversupply situation on an already depressed dried fruit market. I do not intend to pursue the reasons for the difficult world market scene, except to say that it is due to a combination of oversupply, overseas subsidisation of inefficient industries in some producer countries and, of course, our own high domestic costs of production. My grievance tonight is the failure by the Government to respond rapidly and appropriately to these very real problems. I acknowledge that the Minister for Primary Industry has called for an inquiry into the industry by the Industries Assistance Commission and that the circumstances in the dried fruit industry prior to the introduction of the wine tax were not the Government's making. The terms of reference of this inquiry state: . . . the following matter to the Industries Assistance Commission for inquiry and report within 12 months of the date of receipt of this reference-whether assistance should be accorded to the industry producing dried vine fruits in Australia for the 1985 and subsequent seasons, and, if so, what should be the nature, extent and duration of such assistance. The reference goes on: . . . pending its report in accordance . . . the Commission provide a report within 90 days of the date of receipt of this reference on whether short term assistance should be provided during the 1984 season and, if so, the nature and extent of such assistance. In relation to the IAC it continues: specify that in its reports . . . take into account the alternative uses of multi purpose grapes, the regional concentration of the industry and the prospects for alternative crops and include advice on: (a) the efficiency of industry marketing arrangements (b) whether assistance accorded to the industry by means of underwriting should be varied, and (c) whether the existing provisions of the Rural Adjustment Scheme, including its household support and rehabilitation provisions, are adequate to meet the immediate or emerging adjustment and welfare needs of producers of multi-purpose grapes. I appreciate that under the legislation of this Parliament the Minister has no alternative than to introduce an IAC inquiry into developing or changing the long term specific measures of assistance to any Australian industry. I acknowledge that the Minister has had discussion with the Australian dried fruit industry and I agree with the matters that are to be looked at. These include the need for rationalisation of production in the areas of on-farm efficiency and a reduction in reliance on export markets. The inquiry is to look at the predictability of returns by means of alternative crop financing methods, with particular reference to the powers of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation and the use of a government guarantee. Other matters to be looked at include whether there should be an increase in the underwriting level for dried sultanas for the 1983 and 1984 seasons from 90 per cent to 95 per cent of the three-year average of returns; the collection of better statistics through vineyard registration to provide better information on productive capability; and the interrelationship of dried fruits and the vine grape industry, with particular reference to the effects on dried vine fruit production of multi-purpose varieties; wine grape pricing legislation; and the possible tax on wine. They also include the functions of equalisation of returns from dried vine fruit production. Of curse, this inquiry will also be looking at the retention of the Australian market for Australian producers, something that I think the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) was referring to in his remarks a few moments ago. This inquiry, which of course is a political inquiry, means that there will be a delay of at least 15 months before any long term recommendations are made in relation to the grape industry. Unfortunately, many individuals cannot live through such a delay. Problems are immediate. I ask in a bipartisan way for the Government to seek short term measures to alleviate the serious social aspects of communities in these horticultural areas. I am advised that in the Sunraysia region alone over 500 fruit growing blocks are on the market with little prospect of sale. A significant number of these growers have not even been able to pay their rates this year. Last year a significant number were not able to pay their water rates; they are two years in arrears. These problems are acute, particularly in some sections of the ethnic community. An article in the Age last Tuesday, 13 September, states: Poverty, debt and the spectre of bankruptcy is the reward for many families' labours according to the president of the Turkish Association . . . families made less . . . from their fruit blocks last year. For one in five Turkish families, there is no hope of staying in business . . . Moreover, many of the region's 65 Turkish growers bought in in 1980, a year when prices for fruit and therefore also fruit blocks, were unusually high . . . high interest payments are now a big problem. The result is that many of the areas 65 Turkish growers have virtually no income and must take second jobs, if they can find them . . . Many Turkish families are being summonsed for unpaid bills; many of them have already borrowed heavily from relatives just to stay afloat. Of course this situation is tragic. Similar cases exist in varying degrees throughout the industry. Many established growers are having to dig very deep into their reserves to carry on. I propose that two immediate and short term measures be implemented, firstly through the social security system to families in immediate need of household and income support; and secondly, through the operation of the rural adjustment scheme. I know that some discretion and flexibility will be required in the administration of both these areas, but my Government was able to respond in earlier years to similar crises. I mention in particular the dairy industry crisis in the early 1970s and the devastating hail storms that occurred through the Sunraysia and Riverland areas in the mid-1970s. The grape industry is today suffering a very severe recession. The announcement of the IAC inquiry means a long period of uncertainty for growers. Other short term measures are now needed to meet the adjustment already taking place, but it must be accompanied by many instances of severe financial and social hardship. I conclude by pointing out to the honourable member for Macarthur, who made a very interesting speech tonight in relation to some of the imports into this country, that it is only by importing that this country can also expect to trade some of its highly efficient rural and manufacturing exports. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(8.50) —One of the great privileges and pleasures of a politician's life is the ability to give away other people's money. We in this House spend a good deal of time doing that-allocating Federal funds to one or another worthy cause. On this side of the House we get great pleasure and satisfaction when we are able to allocate Federal funds to improving housing or social security or to generating jobs. Unfortunately, we live in a middle-heavy three-tiered system of government where the middle tier is not always committed to the same ideals as that of the top tier, the Federal Parliament. Some of these other tiers of government are staffed by people whose low horizons and administrative incompetence make the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, look like a visionary, and the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), look like an economist. One of the organisations to which I refer is the Government of Johannes Bjelke- Petersen. I wish tonight to inform the House and the Australian people of a number of allocations of Federal funds-funds which would have been of great value to the people who live in the area that I represent-which were lost or dissipated through the inaction, the incompetence, the ineptitude or the sheer inability of the Bjelke-Petersen Government. Let us start with the small sums because the former Treasurer, who is sitting opposite, will understand them better. In 1982 an offer of $45,000 for Aboriginal welfare was made by the then Fraser Government. That sum was offered for a second time by the Hawke Government. The funding was to be for a linking-back project to assist Aboriginals to trace their cultural heritage and also for a Cairns-based Aboriginal liaison officer to help Aboriginals who were having trouble with the law. The then Queensland Minister for Welfare Services, Mr Terry White, my most famous constituent, refused to establish the advisory board which the Federal Government regarded as a condition of the grant. In consequence, this $45,000 project, which would have been of very great value to the Aboriginal people living in Queensland, was lost . In the period 1981-83 the Fraser Government made another offer of $6.77m under the Commonwealth-State hospital cost-sharing agreement which expired in June 1981. The same offer was made later by the Hawke Government. The Queensland Government refused to accept this sum because it said that it wanted more. This has been going on for some time. The offer is still available. The sum of $6.77m would employ many nurses or produce a good deal of life-saving hospital machinery. The lives of Australians are being afflicted while the Bjelke- Petersen Government fiddles, trying to decide whether it will accept $6.77m. That offer is still open. The Queensland Government could have that sum today but it is resting on its rights. Again in 1982 the Fraser Government offered $3.1m for emergency mortgage relief as part of a program for rental housing construction for low income earners. This sum was knocked back by the Queensland Government on the grounds that it did not need it. The Queensland Government could still have the second sum to which I have referred. The third one, in my judgment, would still be negotiable. But because of the inaction of the Bjelke-Petersen Government that money is not available to the people that I represent. Let us go back into history a little. In 1975, $7m was lost because of Queensland's late participation in the Medibank scheme. Queensland was the second last State to participate in that scheme. While the Queensland Government was messing around trying to work out what it was supposed to be doing and whether it could come to grips with its ideological commitment to providing inferior medical treatment to the people it was supposed to represent, that $7m was lost. In 1976-77-this is another topic which is very dear to the heart of the present Leader of the Queensland Liberal Party who now has the image of an angry young man but who a few years ago had the image of a passive servant of the Bjelke-Petersen Government -the sum of $12,692 for womens' refuges was lost because the Queensland Government was not prepared to make a dollar for dollar grant for that cause. In 1977-78, $33,534 was lost for the same reason and from the same cause. In 1973-74, $4.2m was lost from the decentralisation and growth centre program because the Queensland Government was late in participating. Mr Howard —You really think he is going to win, don't you? Mr WELLS —The honourable member for Bennelong asks: 'Do you really think that Mr Wright will win?' I certainly do think he will win. Therein lies the only hope for the Queensland people and for efficient co-operation between the State and the Federal governments. Even the honourable member for Bennelong would have had his projects implemented more successfully if we had had a Wright government instead of the Bjelke-Petersen Government to receive the first three grants which the honourable member's Government offered to Queensland. Mr Howard —You are going to get done like a dinner in Queensland. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Bennelong will cease interjecting. Mr WELLS —Mr Deputy Speaker, the only thing that can be said in favour of the honourable member for Bennelong is that he is better at interjecting than he is at making budgets. The areas which were most affected by the $4.2m lost from the project to which I have just referred, the decentralisation and growth centre program, were the Townsville and Fitzroy-Moreton areas. I now come to some really large sums of money. The former Treasurer might understand these too because he is used to working out Budget deficits. In the period 1973-75 a land commission was established by the then Whitlam Government. Queensland, under a possible scenario, could have got $78m. That was the sum which was offered to the South Australian Government. Mr Spender —Which possible scenario was it? Mr WELLS —The honourable member for North Sydney wishes to know which possible scenario it was. It was the one in which the Bjelke-Petersen Government could have been a little more competent than it in fact was. The $78m which was offered to South Australia was offered to a State slightly smaller in population than Queensland. The South Australian Government was a good deal more effective and moved a good deal more quickly than did the Queensland Government. The Queensland Government missed out altogether. The program involved grants to States for purchases of land on the outskirts of cities, which land would be serviced by the State Government and sold cheaply to families establishing their first home. That could have meant the purchasing of homes or home land on the Redcliffe Peninsula, in Aspley, Carseldine, Bracken Ridge or Albany Creek. Constituents of mine who have since moved into these areas at very great expense could have moved into them at considerably less expense had this grant been taken up by the Bjelke-Petersen Government. From 1975 to 1978, $3m in Federal grants for Aboriginal welfare was not spent. This amounted to 10 per cent of all Aboriginal aid to Queensland. It included $ 450,000 to replace Aboriginal housing which was destroyed by a cyclone and $175, 000 for Aboriginal health problems. The official reason given by the Bjelke- Petersen Government for not spending this money for cyclone relief was that it was not necessary. That sum did not include the cost of the trachoma program which the Queensland Government also diverted in 1977. In addition, the Queensland Government has refused to take up Federal loans and instead has got the money from other sources at a higher rate of interest. The Bjelke-Petersen Government put the allocation of $115m for the wages pause program in the bank, where it earned interest instead of creating jobs for young Australians. Mr Hollis —It put it on the short term money market. Mr WELLS —As my honourable friend has pointed out, it put it on the short term money market where it earned interest for the Queensland Government. It was not subsequently re-invested into generating jobs for Australians who live in my electorate and nearby electorates. To add insult to injury, the community employment program-an excellent program established by this Government and a program which holds out the hope of employment and, indeed, of a career, for thousands of young Australians-has been shelved by the Bjelke-Petersen Government simply because of its inactivity and its inability to establish the relevant committee of six people to advise on the program. In all, these sums come to over $100m. There is much more. This is merely the tip of the iceberg. I placed on notice a question seeking the exact figures in these cases and in all other cases. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WELLS —I thank the House. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(9.00) —I want to speak tonight about what I believe to be one of the fundamental issues of today. Australians have inherited the greatest heritage of all-that of freedom. It concerns me that fundamental freedoms are being greatly eroded right under our noses. By 'freedom', I mean the right of Australians to think what they will, to go where they want to go, and to privacy as decent, law-abiding citizens. Freedom, as we all realise, carries with it great responsibilities, and there must be powers and rules to protect freedom. But these powers and rules can be abused, and, if they are abused, freedom will be quickly destroyed. The responsibility for protecting freedom rests with the whole community. If people see freedom being abused, they must speak out. Every citizen has a duty to be vigilant. But judges and magistrates have a very special duty to understand just how fragile freedom is and to be watchful for any threat to it. Tonight I want to point to two instances where I believe freedom is at present under threat; one is general and the other is more specific. The first instance concerns the power to enter a person's house against his will. This is a power which has been greatly extended lately. It is a power that we must watch with very special care, because next to personal freedom Australians value most the freedom of their homes. It is part of our tradition. The principle was best expressed by the great Earl of Chatham, when he said: The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. The cottage may be frail-its roof may shake-the wind may blow through it-the storm may enter-the rain may enter-but the King of England cannot enter-all his forces dare not cross the threshhold. Originally the power to enter a house was very limited. Even the King's officers were not allowed to enter a person's house simply to search to see whether anything unlawful was going on within that house. The rights of a landlord to enter premises which were occupied by his tenant were likewise very strictly limited. But the sad fact is that in recent times this freedom to occupy a house in peace has been severely eroded. There are now at least 38 Commonwealth statutes which contain provisions that permit the issue of warrants to enter and search premises, including houses. These powers are contained not only in general criminal or policing legislation but in a broad range of Acts of Parliament. I take an example that is close to my heart-the Apple and Pear Stabilisation Act 1971-73, which contains very broad powers of entry and search. Section 22 (1) of that Act provides that a justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising a person to enter premises 'with such assistance that he thinks necessary', and 'during such hours of the day or night as the warrant specifies or, if the warrant so specifies, at any time, if necessary by force'. Sub-paragraph 5 states: A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, obstruct or hinder an authorised person acting in pursuance of a warrant granted under sub-section (3) of this section'. It is interesting to note that a justice of the peace is now not permitted to witness a passport application, yet he is empowered to issue a warrant to enter a person's house under that Act, and under many other Acts of this Parliament. Under a vast array of Acts, officers of many government departments can enter into private premises without even obtaining a warrant. Obviously, in many cases these powers are necessary in the community interest. But the danger is that they can be abused and, indeed, are often abused. Judges must sharpen their recognition of the importance of the privacy of a person's house and private property and must never allow any powers to be oppressively or unreasonably applied. I think that courts in general are not as concerned as they ought to be about that freedom. I now turn to the specific instance to which I referred. It is the so-called Combe affair. It concerns me that in public evidence officials have been making judgments about the conduct of Mr Combe and other individuals. They have absolutely no right to do so if Australia is to continue to be a genuinely free society. No person has any right to dictate to another what his religious beliefs should be, or what his philosophy or politics should be. We are all free to think our own thoughts, to hold opinions and to criticise. We should be allowed to mix freely with whoever we wish, subject only to the law of the land. It is always dangerous to make moral judgments, but it is particularly dangerous for officials to make moral judgments about someone's conduct. In this country we are governed by the rule of law and not by the prejudices of other people. There are laws providing penalties for espionage, for the passing on of official secrets and for similar offences. If there is evidence of such conduct, the individual concerned should be charged. A judge and jury can then determine guilt or innocence on the basis of admissible evidence according to the established rules of law. It is not what some official thinks or what some politician might think; it is what the law says which should be the official guide to community conduct. In recent times we have seen wholesale character assassinations of individuals through the media because of their associations, expressed thoughts or very vague allegations of misconduct. This is a very dangerous trend and it makes a mockery of justice. Some of the mud always sticks. Regrettably, the media's interest in royal commissions often compounds this serious problem. Royal commissions have become media circuses-entertainment at the expense of a person' s reputation or career. Courts of law traditionally stand between the state and the individual, but royal commissions are really an extension of the executive arm of government and do not have the same degree of independence, despite the integrity and the standing of commissioners. There is a danger that royal commissions may judge and convict an individual even though that person faces no specific charge and is not formally on trial. It is essential that there remains a clear separation between judicial and executive power. That separation can be blurred in the case of royal commissions appointed for the purpose of inquiring into a particular subject matter. Guilt or innocence should therefore be determined only by proper legal proceedings in a court of law; not by Nationwide , not by Sixty Minutes, and not by a royal commission. We are fast approaching 1984. Regrettably, some of George Orwell's predictions appear to be coming true. As members of parliament, we must ensure, in dealing with legislation, that we never overlook the rights of individuals. As I said earlier, our judges and magistrates can be better champions of freedom. If we forget the rights of any individual, we shall pay an enormous price. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(9.8) —Honourable members will recall that some months ago, in my maiden speech, I referred to the future of industries in cities such as Newcastle, and the fact that such cities have, since federation, felt the lack of national policies regarding steel and manufacturing industries. In recent days there has been a great deal of discussion about trade and protection, and like matters. Tonight I address myself to what I perceive to be the current situation. The election on 5 March showed a fairly dramatic change in the attitudes and direction of Australians. Many members of parliament elected to represent industrial electorates were very aware that within our electorates our industries and their leadership had been operating for many years in a vacuum of policies, directives and actions. Worse than that, they had been operating in a quagmire of confusion and conflict. One of my first actions after the election was to attempt to bring to Newcastle Ministers of the Crown to discuss with local industries and the local community what was happening. The first of those was the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). Mr McVeigh —Wouldn't you ask your brother? Wouldn't he come? Mr ALLAN MORRIS —He does not have an industrial portfolio. The fact was that the Minister's visit was very productive. It made people in my area think about what was happening to them and to Australia. It also meant that we, as a government, were getting positive feedback from people who, in some cases, know a lot more than us and from people who actually do the work rather than posture about it, as we heard honourable members do this afternoon. The second visit was by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). From Newcastle's point of view he brought with him the most dramatic breakthrough in manufacturing policy in Newcastle's history. We have been a steel city for 70 years but in all of those 70 years there has not been a national steel policy and that is to the shame of honourable members on the other side. The third visit just this week, in fact, was by the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe). That visit consisted of looking at some of our industries that are involved in the defence field. But perhaps more importantly it involved talking to the metal trades industry in Newcastle, most of whom had never before spoken to a Minister and most of whom felt that the previous Government had not cared, had not been concerned and had thought that their industry did not matter very much. Mr Robert Brown —They didn't care about our area. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —I think the honourable member for Hunter is certainly correct in making that assertion. In fact, what has been becoming clear in my mind, and my attitude is being formed out in the community, in the real world, and not in the artificial world of Canberra which seems to suit members of the shadow Ministry so well, is the fact that industry desperately wants to work. It wants to invest and develop. But for many years it has not been able to do that with any sense of confidence. It has not been able to do that in a climate in which it knew where it was going. The clearest indication of that is that Australia, of all the industrialised nations, has the least number of positive incentives to industry and the greatest number of negative incentives. If one looks at the philosophy of the previous Government one sees that what it was partly saying was that if we can buy a commodity cheaper somewhere else we should. The logic of that was that by importing a product which was cheaper we would force down prices locally, we would therefore make our local industries more competitive and we would also reduce the rate of inflation. For seven years that philosophy was tested and found to be fallacous for a number of reasons, the major one being that the commercial market forces suggest that a product will be sold at just below the prevailing price. What we have seen for many years has been massive investment in advertising to capture markets with equally or slightly lower priced products. Therefore, the effect on inflation was nil and, in fact, if anything, negative. The effect on foreign trade was disastrous and, of course, we can all perceive the effect on employment in our electorates today. That simplistic notion that those forces can work was very prevalent in the previous Cabinet. It was a bricks on the wall situation in which, if an industry went to the Government in a disaster situation, the Government put more bricks on the wall and if things looked good it took a few bricks off. That kind of blind mentality has been so disastrous and it has been an enormous abdication of responsibility on the part of conservative governments. Our industries are not opposed to the concept of government understanding what they are doing and of government being involved in what they are doing, but it must be positive, constructive and continuing involvement. I come to the foreign trade situation. It is quite clear that Australia's future in foreign trade is in South East Asia. That is where we live, it is where our neighbours are and it is where our future is. One of the concepts brought forward by the Minister for Science and Technology, which has been applied perhaps in another way, has been the need for Australia to seek niches. By niches he means us to develop things that we are good at and things that we can do well and, therefore, export. That does not apply only to sunrise industries. It applies to all industries. The fact is that we as a nation have encouraged South East Asian nations to produce exactly the same things as we produce and that is obviously destructive. We end up with conflicts between us. We end up with a very mindless situation of industries not being able to compete or being forced to be propped up. The fact is that we and South East Asian countries must trade to mutual benefit. That will be pointless unless we and they can establish the areas in which we can trade productively. The complexity of the tariff situation includes such things as developing country preferences, the other nation preference and, of course, that clanger of all, dumping. Dumping, as I have mentioned in a previous speech, is a matter about which the previous Government spoke a lot but never came to terms with. One should think back to what Senator Button announced in the steel plan-a concept of fast track dumping, a recognition that there has to be a much more responsive way to address the question of dumping as it occurs in Australia so that industries know what the Government's response is within months, not years later as seemed to be the case. This Government, in fact, has set about a complete rethinking of the industrial policies and directions of Australia. I have mentioned that the steel plan was the most dramatic breakthrough in manufacturing industry. It is a pioneering effort. It sets a pattern which I am confident will flow into other industries, with two major concepts involved. The first concept is that of interaction between government and industry whereby we know what they are doing and they know what we are doing through a neutral body which connects us-a linkage of a positive nature. Rather than industry coming to Ministers lobbying on its knees, being degraded and being ashamed to try to make the industry survive, what in fact has to happen is that the machinery of communication between us must be permanent, positive and neutral so that we can meet with industry in that neutral area in terms of our policy evolution and development. The second major part of the steel plan was the fact that it involved accountability because in protection the bricks on the wall must have eyes. They must watch what is happening behind them and they never have. The steel plan involves accountability. The industry has to account for what it is doing both to government and the community at large which, in fact, subsidise it. That accountability is the fundamental component in future protection. When that is in place as a general principle for our industries in Australia, of course tariffs will naturally reduce in a positive and constructive way. The positive aspects of the Government's attitude to actions in just six months, not seven years, can be seen in the report of the Espie High Technology Financing Committee. It increased venture capital and provided increased capital for the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Industry representatives said to me yesterday that they should have made the last Government do all these things and they did not bother. The fact was that they said 'made' because they saw that they had some capacity to influence. In fact, what they did not realise was that the last Government did not want to know. Newcastle now is looking positive. It is looking good. We will come out of the recession by our hard work and by this Government's positive actions. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(9.18) —The Government is causing extreme and increasing concern among Australia's livestock industry over its confused and apparently changing attitude towards the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong. Initial concern was caused by the Government's failure in the Budget to allocate any funds needed for sufficient new positions required to maintain the Laboratory's commissioning and setting to work program. It failed to provide sufficient dollars for the continuing development of the Laboratory's vaccine system and it failed to provide funds for Australian scientists to go overseas to study foot and mouth disease, such recommendation having been made by the responsible Australian Science and Technology Council. This is all that is required to commission a facility, the total value of which has been estimated to be $157m. This action of the Hawke Government has thrown the entire schedule to commission and make the Laboratory operational by the end of 1984 completely up in the air. No one, not even those currently working at the Laboratory, has the remotest idea of what is going on. On behalf of the Opposition I issued a statement on 31 August calling on the Government to clarify immediately its policy with regard to the future of the Laboratory. But we heard absolutely nothing from the Government until the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) made that rather extraordinary statement to the House on 6 September, following a dorothy dixer addressed to him, that the Government 'is very concerned about the future of ANAHL'. That statement has clarified absolutely nothing. The Minister told us that while the ANAHL building has been under construction a revolution has been taking place in the diagnosis of animal disease. So what? Why does this so-called revolution-I am not questioning whether it has taken place-have to have any effect on government policy towards the Laboratory? The truth is that it does not. The Government is merely using a difference of scientific opinion as an excuse for not maintaining its commitment to this vital project. Mr Dawkins —Who wrote this, Tom? Mr McVEIGH —Keep quiet you political masturbator. It is no exaggeration to say that the Cattle Council of Australia is outraged at the Government's ineptitude over this issue. The Cattle Council has been totally unable to get any satisfactory answers out of the Minister. It, like everyone else, does not know what is going on in the Government's mind and it cannot understand why, all of a sudden, the future of ANAHL is at risk. The National Farmers Federation is similarly inclined. Perhaps the Government, in its traditional ignorance of rural issues, believes that just because farmer organisations were, in the main, opposed to the importation of live foot and mouth disease virus they do not want this Laboratory to proceed to full operation. If that is so this Government is more foolish and more ignorant than I thought. On 6 September the Minister for Science and Technology told us that a ministerial committee will be set up to consider the future of ANAHL. The committee will consist of the Minister for Science and Technology, the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes)-because the Laboratory is in his electorate-the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). Mr Deputy Speaker, for your information this will be the seventh review to be undertaken on the ANAHL project. All previous reviews found that ANAHL was needed; its functions were valid. I understand that this great gathering of Ministers will hold its first meeting on Tuesday, that it will consider a list of set questions-they would not have enough sense to think up their own-and after that, who knows? The ministerial committee may never reconvene. Irrespective of whether or not it does one thing is abundantly clear. This ministerial committee is hardly going to give the project a thorough consideration. It all smacks of a one-day wonder affair, a simple endorsement by a group of non-caring Ministers of a policy decision that has already been taken. They will not fool anyone. The Australian of 2 September reported that the review will look at the Laboratory's viability after the Government's decision earlier this year not to allow the import of live foot and mouth virus for research. Again I ask: 'Why does everything about this Laboratory seemingly have to hang on the foot and mouth question?' Is the Government trying to say that all this facility can do its work on foot and mouth disease? I thought we had enough of that from Government Ministers when they answered questions. What about other exotic diseases such as African swine fever and blue tongue disease? The Government has not heard about them; it is not interested in them. What about the need for training veterinarians in the recognition of these diseases and the need for continuing research, vaccine production and testing? It is not all foot and mouth disease and nothing more. There is a far wider scope and need for this Laboratory which demands that it proceed according to schedule. The Australian report of 2 September went on to say that the ministerial review would examine a number of options, including mothballing the Laboratory, operating it at a reduced level and deferring its opening until 1985 or 1986. I repeat: The option to mothball the Laboratory, which from all I hear around the traps is the direction in which it is heading, must not be allowed to happen. It is general knowledge that the Minister for Science and Technology wants to mothball it and so do some of his colleagues. This morning on one of the radio programs I heard Mr Ralph Sarich indicate his view on the Minister for Science and Technology, the man who knows nothing about anything. Obviously the Government is so dim witted and ill informed that it cannot understand the need for ANAHL. The Minister for Primary Industry has in the past, as is his custom when he is faced with a hostile audience, expressed support not only for the Laboratory but also for the use of live viruses in it. On 5 May 1982, the present Minister for Primary Industry, the fellow who is not in Cabinet, said: I am of the view that if we have a maximum security laboratory and the security is maximum there should be no inhibition about having a live virus in it. That is what the present Minister for Primary Industry said in this place 12 months ago. His view is different from the view of the Minister for Science and Technology. So that is the Minister's view, but we all know that he gets rolled all the time-he never wins. So we cannot place too much confidence in his ability to sway the argument. Once again the sincerity of Labor's election promises comes under very serious question. Labor's policy for agriculture document said that the facilities of ANAHL would be developed. I call on this Government and this Minister to state here and now whether that election commitment will be carried out or whether, like so many of their other election commitments it will be dishonoured. I hope that they will not be as deceitful in this case as they have been in all other cases. The Government-whether through the Minister for Science and Technology or the Minister who never wins anything, the Minister for Primary Industry-owes an immediate explanation to our livestock industries. It also owes an explanation to those who have put very many hours of dedication into bringing the ANAHL project to the stage it has now reached. Furthermore it owes an explanation to the international scientific community. The comments by the Minister for Science and Technology so far have done absolutely nothing to clarify what has become a mass of confusion that he has created. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(9.28) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the honourable members who have just made their maiden speeches. (Quorum formed) I was in the process of congratulating the honourable members who have just made their maiden speeches. They gave quite impressive orations to the House. I was most impressed by the calibre of their performances and by the subject matter they presented to the Parliament. I wish them all well for their futures in this Parliament. I know they will be here for a long time, just as this Government will be in power for a record term, the longest term since Federation. I have an important grievance to raise, but in passing I must not let the rather frivolous remarks of the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) pass without pointing out to him that the Ministers reviewing the future of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory are the ones most closely involved in its work. They are the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), and the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). There will be a full review of the way in which this huge facility can best meet the needs of the 1980s. There has been no prejudgment of the outcome. I should also like to touch briefly on the matter he mentioned about public funding of political parties in New South Wales. I point out to him that any moneys I have received from public funding are the property of the Australian Labor Party and are in the hands of the Australian Labor Party. I wrote a letter today to the Sydney Morning Herald pointing this out. The item in the Sydney Morning Herald was quite erroneous. Since my election to Parliament I have on many occasions had the opportunity to raise the needs and problems of schools, both state and non-state. Tonight I wish to canvass the funding problems which beset two non-government schools within the electorate of Lowe. The Catholic Education Office does not operate any secondary school in Lowe to the matriculation level. However, in the same area six state high schools enrol boys and girls to the level of matriculation. The main reason why there is no Catholic Education Office systemic high school is that there are two long-established private Catholic high schools, in the suburb of Strathfield, namely Santa Sabina College, a girls' school administered by the Dominican Sisters, and Saint Patrick's College, a boys' school run by the Christian Brothers. It is the funding program for these schools on which I wish to comment tonight. Both Santa Sabina and Saint Patrick's draw pupils from across the entire economic spectrum of Lowe, that is, from rich families, poor families and middle income families. The fees of these schools equate to the systemic high schools run by the Catholic Education Office. Being private schools, each of the colleges must do all the paper work involved in applying each year for recurrent funding. They are subject to an annual income test, the guidelines for which were laid down by the previous Government. In the past two or three years each college has raised considerable funds for essential extensions, unfortunately, in raising this money each of the colleges technically breached the funding guidelines. Parents panicked and became very distressed when they thought the schools were to lose funding. Letters were fowarded to the schools stating that they might go out of the most needy category into category 2. In the case of Santa Sabina College, this meant a funding loss of $108,000. The shock of this has been resolved and the matter has been settled because it was a technicality. In the process many families explained to me that had the schools lost funding they would have had to take away their daughters. They could not have afforded a possible increase in the vicinity of $130 a pupil per term. Through my contact with these parents I got the impression that many of them were struggling to send their children to school and to pay the fees. I appreciate the real financial sacrifice that many people make for secondary education. In the short term the problems have been resolved, but I wish to raise the problem of the revenue guidelines set by the Schools Commission. In these schools, of the 55 teachers at Santa Sabina 10 are teaching nuns. These sisters, the same as the brothers at the Christian Brothers College, receive a stipend set by the archdiocese of $8,000 per annum. The stipend is low because the religious teachers have taken a vow of poverty. Regrettably, the formula used by the Schools Commission to determine a school's resources deems every teacher, whether that teacher be a religious teacher or a lay teacher, to get a certain salary within the award range. There is an averaging provision which discriminates against schools which have religious teachers or other teachers who work in a voluntary capacity or receive less than the award wage. The schools suffer because the salary forgone by these dedicated teachers is deemed to be income even though the schools do not ever receive the money. The most glaring example of discrimination in this formula is obvious when we consider the case of the principal of each school. Sister Rosemary Lewins, the principal of Santa Sabina, and Brother O'Shea each receive the standard diocesan stipend, yet the Schools Commission deems them to be in receipt of a notional salary of $40,000 per year. I recognise that the Schools Commission has a hard task in establishing fair levels of funding to the various non-government schools. Mr Fisher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask how the honourable member for Lowe can justify this statement when your Government has removed so much money from the non-government schools. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr MAHER —I said that the Schools Commission has a hard task, but non-profit, non-government schools have to operate as efficiently as possible. In my opinion the present school system leaves much to be desired, and in my opinion it would not stand up if it were challenged in legal proceedings. Non-government schools either have recurrent resources or they do not. The concept of contributed services works against the private school, be it Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, Uniting Church, Lutheran or non-denominational. In any of these schools where teachers or anyone else give their services those are called contributed services and they act to discriminate against the school when funding is being considered. The Schools Commission has a duty to establish the real economic situation in each non-government school because it is distributing government funds. It must accept the reality that many dedicated Australian men and women will work for a pittance to educate young people, often in old buildings, in overcrowded class rooms, and without adequate teaching aids or remedial assistance. Our Federal Labor Government is committed to assisting non-government schools in accordance with their needs. This is a policy which is firmly based upon principles of social justice. I congratulate the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) for launching a participation and equity program to encourage boys and girls to complete their secondary education. The Minister has certainly done her bit for many young men and women in Lowe, who will now be able to finish their secondary education. I also pay tribute to the former shadow Minister, the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), for the work he did in establishing Labor's philosophy in regard to education and for visiting needy schools in my electorate. When the former Minister refused to come out to the schools he visited them and was shocked by what he saw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! the honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(9.38) —This morning I had in mind to bring one grievance to the House during this debate. A short while ago in my office, listening to the proceedings of the House over the relay, a second grievance took its rise. It sprung from the remarks of the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) who, with quite creditable diligence and efficiency, has emulated the behaviour of many in this House-I make this statement quite apologetically-by misusing and abusing this institution, for which I have a very strong feeling, in order to put aside the matters of a very urgent nature which should command all our time and all our resources, and divert the attention of this place into distant areas to campaign for a party in a State election. Mr Dawkins —Oh Clarrie, come on. Don't bung it on. Mr MILLAR —I respond to the mild interjection by the Minister for Finance. I recognise immediately that I could be charged with a degree of naivete. My most painful experiences relate to an occasion when we sat on that side of the House. There was shocking abuse day after day and week after week while the urgent affairs of this nation, which should primarily concern us, were put aside. I think that those who have special responsibilities in other areas should be left to their own devices and we should be able to address ourselves to the matters peculiarly attached to this House. I do not impugn the honourable member in a personal sense. I recognise the diligence and the efficiency with which he has pursued a customary practice. There is no personal admonition in my statement. I merely speak for the House. Mr Wells —But they were Federal funds. Mr MILLAR —I understand. I shall not argue that at this juncture because it would rob me of the opportunity to deal with the more substantial matter that I wish to bring before the House. I venture to say that, in general terms, it would be true to say that our society has become conditioned to hard-sell practices in the market place. These practices usually take the form of patently extravagant television, radio and printed media using all the gimmickry that a pseudo-sophisticated advertising industry can bring to its command. Whilst market research proves the cash benefit of this device, John and Jane Citizen tend to recognise, by the very nature of the hard-sell technique, that there is a risk that they could be subjected to a degree of tongue-in-cheek conning by the advertiser. Therefore, it does not really do any mischief. However, my concern today relates to the other end of the spectrum, namely, the soft-sell practice or, more particularly, the Press article or presentation which, whilst invariably well motivated, leads to a situation which could be described as the soft sell not to sell. In essence I speak of the impact on the sugar industry resulting from the misconception placed in people's minds that sugar inescapably has a deleterious effect on health. The fact is that there is no substantiated evidence to detract from the proposition that sugar is a safe foodstuff. Indeed, no lesser body than the United States Food and Drug Administration established this fact and affirms sucrose as a safe foodstuff. This conclusion was arrived at after a specially appointed committee, chosen for the credentials within the members' disciplines, had examined 1,980 scientific papers during its study. True it is that the committee concluded that reasonable evidence exists that sucrose is a contributor to the formation of dental caries. But, at the same time, it must be noted that dental caries occur in populations which have never used sugar or any other processed foodstuffs. Many foods which contain little or no sucrose but which contain other fermentable carbohydrates are capable of causing dental decay. Good dental hygiene, including the use of fluoridated toothpastes can substantially reduce the risk of dental caries. It certainly seems less than fair or sensible that an industry as important as the sugar industry should be placed in jeopardy by the seemingly never-ending spate of views-many of them not accredited-which seek to discourage the use of sugar on the basis that it is injurious to health. I would not suggest for one minute that sugar, along with all other foodstuffs, should not be subject to continuing scientific examination as to its application to consumer needs. But until such time as research results can be endorsed by a properly constituted body, common logic and mutuality of benefit must surely invite, if not demand, some restraint in influencing usage of the commodity. Many criticisms of sugar- albeit the critics enjoy professional qualifications-have been dismissed by expert committees of scientists because no scientific evience existed to support the criticisms. Should any foodstuff, or any item for that matter, attract condemnation, let that condemnation at least carry the seal of unimpeachable authority. Having said that, one would have to allow that the Commonwealth Department of Health and the National Health and Medical Research Council could fairly lay claim to come within the ambit of a reliable authority on matters I am presently discussing. The National Health and Medical Research Council, in pursuit of its commission, adopted dietary guidelines and, not illogically, made those guidelines available to the community by way of public statement. No doubt the National Health and Medical Research Council had an arguable, in-depth case to sustain its conclusions. The public, for all sorts of totally acceptable reasons , tends not to concern itself so much with detailed presentation but rather retains the encapsulated impression of cryptic captions. As a result, modified dietary guidelines for Australians are put out by the Council for use in nutrition publications for the community. Let us look at these guidelines. Firstly, these guidelines suggest that breastfeeding should be promoted. That seems a sensible operation. I guess all honourable members can say that they know what that means, although, on reflection, I must allow for the possibility that, in this age of elimination of all forms of sexual discrimination, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that we too may be left nursing the baby. Secondly, the guidelines suggest that we should choose a nutritious diet from a variety of foods. That is commendable. Nobody can argue with that. But what does it mean? No more than is perceived. People are left to make their own conclusions on the captions used. If people want to go away and read about it and be educated in the matter they might be better informed as to what they require. But people snap captions and take them on the run and opinions are formed. Thirdly, the guidelines suggest that we should control our weight. Of course we control our weight. We think we know what this means. But who is to say that there is somebody who believes that to control one's weight means not letting it fall off the chair? It does not spell it out. Fourthly, the guidelines suggest that we should avoid eating too much fat. All right, avoid eating too much fat and lean to good health. It makes good sense. But what is too much fat? Fifthly, it suggests that we should avoid eating too much sugar. What does that mean? Does it mean we should eat more than 46 kilograms a year, which is approximately the consumption of the average Australian, or 20 kilograms, 80 kilograms or 100 kilograms? Sixthly, it states that we should eat more breads and cereals. Seventhly, we are told to limit alcohol consumption. Should we reduce our consumption of 18 tinnies a day to 12? What sort of limit do we put on it? We believe that we should limit it to a negligible level but people are left to form their own impressions. Lastly, just to rub salt in the wounds, the guidelines recommend that we should use less salt. All these things are quite laudable in themselves but people are left to form their own impressions. In laying down all these things it is absurd not to emphasise that they must go hand in hand with all those other requirements that attend good health in the ordinary man or woman. How silly to be worrying about all these things if we do not exercise, if we abuse that wonderful machine that is in our custody and charge. It is somewhat synonymous with not attending to the right mix for a combustion engine. If one gets things right and one works that engine one does not have the problems. But any of these elements that are introduced as serious potential problems for man are not necessarily serious problems if the total requirements for good health are attended to. I think the sugar industry deserves better because of its importance to this country and to many people. I hope that the Council and all the other bodies are mindful that when they put out these encapsulated slogans the full story is put to the people . Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(9.47) —I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions about the nuclear industry and its attendant problems. I make no apology for bringing the matter before the House once again because it is a life and death issue in view of the ever increasing number of nuclear weapons, the hundreds of accidents in nuclear power stations so ably documented by Senator Ruth Coleman, the poor economic future of the nuclear industry and the complete failure of scientists and engineers to develop any satisfactory method of disposing of radioactive wastes. Nuclear power represents an energy source which the human race may find extracts a terrible price for its power. In this debate I want to concentrate on what I perceive to be the core problem of the whole debate, namely, the failure of the nuclear industry to develop effective waste disposal mechanisms and its failure to develop satisfactory arrangements for the storage or disposal of the products of uranium mining, such as equipment or material contaminated by radioactivity, spent fuel, plutonium and depleted uranium as products of reprocessing and high level wastes separated by reprocessing. Federal Labor Party policy is quite clear that, if radioactive wastes cannot be satisfactorily contained, an Australian Labor Government will utilise its right to apply trade embargos to ensure that those conditions are met. With about 260 nuclear power plants currently operating in some 27 countries and another 230 on order or under construction, it can readily be seen that there is a waste disposal problem which cannot be contained. However, when one also takes into account the 350 nuclear warships of the United States Navy, together with the growing number of nuclear warships of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Britain and France, the magnitude of the problem becomes horrendous. High level radioactive waste comes from the spent fuel rods of the nuclear reactors and, finally, the reactor itself when its working life has ended. Low level wastes arise from the operation and maintenance of the nuclear power stations. Great store has been set by the new material called synroc which was created by Professor Ted Ringwood and a team of research workers at the Australian National University. In a recently published discussion paper, Professor Ringwood has claimed that independent scientific studies have confirmed synroc as a generally accepted method of containing high level nuclear wastes. However, there are two problems associated with synroc which have not been solved. Firstly, it has yet to be proven whether the substance can be produced on a large scale at economic cost. A study is at present being funded by the Australian Government for three years to ascertain whether synroc is an economic proposition. The 1983-84 Budget indicates a figure of nearly $1 1/2m has been allocated to the study. In this respect, Professor Ringwood in his discussion paper has quoted a recent Swedish report which estimates the total costs of the incorporation of spent fuel, intermediate storage, final geological disposal and decommissioning of reactors at about 10 per cent of the value of the electric power produced by the reactor. Of course, this does not include the costs of vast quantities of existing high level waste, nor the cost of the waste from reactors used for military purposes, nor the cost of low level wastes. The second and more important point I wish to make about synroc is not that it may or may not be more than a laboratory experiment, but rather what happens to the high level nuclear wastes before they are incorporated into synroc. Professor Ringwood in his article is rather vague about the time span involved. In fact, the high level wastes must be retained in cooling ponds for periods from five to 10 years to enable the more intense radioactivity to be dissipated; that is, when the radioactivity is at its highest. A number of questions immediately present themselves. First: How many of these cooling ponds will be necessary? How large will they be, bearing in mind that the nuclear industry is establishing itself in many countries? How safe will these many hundreds of cooling lakes be? Would anybody listening tonight like to have one located anywhere near his home or place of work? It is too much to expect that the nuclear industry will be able consistently and to safely handle the large quantities of this highly dangerous liquid, given its present accident prone record. A newspaper article in the Melbourne Age today indicates that the companies involved in clearing up after the Three Mile Island nuclear power station accident has 'been circumventing proper procedures and adopting others that may not be safe'. An additional problem is the fact that the surface storage lakes will be prime targets in the event of a war with the conventional weapons being used against the cooling ponds to cause similar fatal consequences to that of a nuclear bomb. All my present references to high level wastes have been in relation to spent fuel rods. I would now like to consider the high level wastes contained in uranium mill tailings. Several hundred thousand tonnes of uranium ore must be mined to provide the fuel for one large reactor to operate for one year. The residue of this milling process is discarded in a tailings pond or lake and eventually allowed to dry. Mill tailings contain radioactive thorium which decays to radon gas, radium and other radioactive elements, usually mixed with sand. The radioactive material has frequently been used as construction materials. In the United States of America some 800 individual structures have been found to contain the waste. The estimated cost to the public has been over $US17m. It has been estimated that by the year 2000 mill tailings from all the uranium mines will total some 1.5 billion metric tonnes. This huge amount is hard to imagine, but it would bury the entire 31 square kilometres of Canberra under 85 feet of radioactive tailings. The sheer enormity of the mill tailings disposal is, I presume, one of the matters currently being investigated as part of the feasibility study of synroc. I would now like to turn to the problem of the disposal of low level nuclear wastes. Nuclear power stations use, for cooling purposes, huge quantities of water which becomes radioactive. The power stations also emit radioactive gas into the atmosphere. In addition, other material, such as tools and protective clothing, become radioactive in the nuclear cycle production. For some years the United States of America has dumped its low level wastes into the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Britain, Belgium, Switzerland and Holland dump their radioactive wastes into the Atlantic Ocean. A newspaper article, again in today' s Age, reports plans by the Department of Home Affairs and Environment to the British Government to go even further with its dumping of wastes by dumping high level radioactive wastes into the sea. The Department has let out two contracts, one for the design of containers for placing high level nuclear wastes onto the ocean bed and the second for land disposal. The article goes on to report that the Department admitted that going ahead with its plans would directly contravene the Multilateral Consultation and Surveillance Mechanism for Sea Dumping of Radioactive Waste which Britain signed in 1972. International agreements are obviously not worth the paper they are written on when the nuclear industry is involved. The Japanese nuclear industry has an enormous problem on its hands as it is holding 41,000 44-gallon drums of low level radioactive waste. The quantity of drums is likely to rise to 70,000 by 1990. The Japanese Government is keen to dump the drums in the Pacific Ocean to the north of the northern Marianas Islands, but the Pacific islanders are strongly opposed to the Japanese plans. The Japanese Government plans to dump the drums and then monitor the effect for several years. If the monitoring indicates there are no leakage problems, they will then dump the balance of thousands of drums into the Pacific despite the fact that the monitoring should take place for at least 20 years to ascertain whether leaks are occurring. The Japanese are proposing to carry out their dumping despite the fact that the London dumping convention approved a two-year moratorium on nuclear waste dumping to allow more time for further scientific studies. As is the case of the British Government, where nuclear power is involved the Japanese have decided that the international agreement is not binding on them. The nuclear ships of the Soviet Union, United States of America, France and Britain are constantly discharging radioactive waste materials into the sea. For example, when a nuclear submarine shuts down its engines it releases 500 gallons of radioactive cooler water into the sea. When the engines are started up again another 500 gallons is discharged. Mr Hand —Shame. That's pollution. Mr MILTON —The honourable member for Melbourne is quite correct. It is horrendous. The situation is getting worse all the time. Other radioactive wastes, such as resin and decontamination solids used in maintenance work and reactor shield water, are also discharged. The liquids and resins are routinely dumped 20 kilometres from shore when the vessel is on patrol. The solids are buried on shore. It is estimated that some 40 million gallons of nuclear waste is polluting the seas annually from nuclear ships. Taiwan also in May last year began dumping its low level radioactive wastes from two nuclear power plants on a small island named Lanyu, 60 kilometres south of Taiwan. The Taiwan Government plans to have 12 nuclear power plants by 1989, and used the island of Lanyu as a nuclear dump because it is far from the Taiwanese mainland. The local Aboriginal fishing people, the Yami, are very worried that the storage site will affect their fishing grounds. They are also worried about the long term radiation dangers. This is one final example of the irresponsibility of government in relation to nuclear power. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.57) —I rise tonight for a couple of moments to mention a news report in today's Canberra Times containing a coverage of yesterday's events at the Returned Services League National Congress. I raise these matters as they concern me very deeply. The article states: The Returned Services League will oppose the granting of special privileges to Aborigines in the Northern Territory and South Australia. I just wonder what prompts an organisation like the RSL to pass that type of resolution. The article continues: . . . oppose any attempt by subversive elements to fragment Australia into two nations-black and white . . . The RSL criticised the use of the Aboriginal flag. To top it off, a gentleman by the name of Mr Geoff McDonald, a former member of the Communist Party of Australia, spoke to the Congress. I think he has been criticised and banned from just about every trade union organisation he has ever been attached to. He claimed that the Aboriginal movement had been infiltrated by communist activists for many years. He cited an article in a communist newspaper of September 1931 as his proof. As chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I wish the House to take note of the events which occurred yesterday at the RSL National Congress. If an organisation like that is taking notice of a person of the calibre of Geoff McDonald, shame on the RSL. I sincerely hope that the Government will raise-through its officers and the Ministers-with the RSL what prompted it to make or pass such resolutions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Death of Elsa Chauvel-Educational Programs for the Deaf-Poker Machines-'Youth Forum'-Libyan Delegation-Electoral Division of Flinders Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(10.00) -Next Monday at 1.15 p.m. at St James Church, King Street, Sydney, people from many different walks of life will gather- millionaires and poor people. They will be united to pay tribute to a great Australian who also happened to be a constituent of mine. I refer to Elsa Chauvel who died in Toowoomba on 22 August. Elsa Chauvel was, above all, as she described herself, 'savagely Australian'. I recall a statement she made when she retired some years ago as to her remaining goal. Her statement is worth repeating. Elsa wanted to talk to every women's club in Australia and to tell them to forget about egg prices and flowers and to fight for a national film industry. She said: 'Australia deserves one but I am afraid that it might be a lost cause'. Elsa lived to see what she and her late husband Charles had fought for. Their dream had become a reality. On behalf of all Australians interested in films I extend to her daughter, Mrs Susanne Carlsson, and her two grandchildren, my deepest sympathy. Elsa looked with great pride on such Australian films as The Man from Snowy River and We of the Never Never. I spoke to her about those when she was obviously very ill in the Toowoomba hospital. She reminded me of the trials and tribulations which she and her late husband Charles had gone through. Charles, of course, was also a product of the Darling Downs, having been born in Warwick. I am thrilled to know that through Elsa's work films such as Forty Thousand Horsemen, Sons of Matthew and Jedda, the first colour film made in Australia, are now in the archives of the National Library. They are there to record the development of the great Australian film industry, an industry which owes its existence to Charles and Elsa. In an era when people expect government handouts we should remember that Charles and Elsa developed that industry without any assistance. It was a tough, hard and uncompromising Australia that they faced. But they had mateship, no matter where Charles went, whether it was the Northern Territory, the wilds of Queensland, Pitcairn Island or in London being entertained by Errol Flynn. They found Errol Flynn and developed him. Elsa was always the same. She was one of the few people who smiled with their eyes and she had an enormous love of people. I admired her loyalty. I had great personal respect for her. Had honourable members had the opportunity, like me, of hearing her talk about her late husband and just calling him Charles, they would know what real love, loyalty and respect meant. Elsa walked with princes and she also loved the poor. Notwithstanding her great achievements, she had great pride in the fact that after Charles died she devoted her life to looking after people who were deaf and blind and to caring for people in Dr Barnardo Homes. Elsa and Charles made their films on a shoestring budget. They were often hungry. But Elsa had often told me how in films like Sons of Matthew, Charles- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(10.5) —I want to bring to the attention of the House tonight the fact that in our country, where the right of every child to gain access to a decent education is taken for granted, that basic right is denied to deaf students wishing to continue their education beyond secondary level. I think it is immoral that in Australia we do not meet the educational needs of the deaf. Indeed we give a low priority to educational programs for the deaf and at tertiary level ignore completely their special needs on the basis that there is not sufficient demand. I believe there is no demand because the services are not available. Deaf persons wishing to go to university have their dreams shattered because they are denied equal access to information. No one in this House would disagree that the opportunity to learn is our birthright and society has a responsibility to provide a setting in which a student can achieve educational goals. No student should be induced into accepting an educational environment in which he or she has limited services, gross disadvantages and little possibility of realising the central academic objectives of schooling. America, for instance, is far in advance of us in the education of the deaf. There is legislation in the form of the Education for all Handicapped Children Act 1975 which provides educational assistance to all handicapped children. In addition, assistance is provided for deaf students at many of the major universities. In Rochester, for instance, there is the National Technical Institute for the Deaf attached to the university and funded by Federal funds. This innovation has been highly successful and is a model for Australia to examine and to consider. Here in Australia when students reach tertiary level they can do one of two things. If they have financial means they can go to America and study for a degree. If they have no financial means they can just forget tertiary education because their chance of getting a degree at a university in Australia is nil. I first became aware of this problem when constituents in my electorate, which contains the largest university in Australia, came to see me for assistance for their son who is studying for a science degree by correspondence at Macquarie University on the other side of Sydney. He needs to attend the University for laboratory work and for some class work but finds himself at a complete disadvantage because of the non-existence of interpreter and note-taking services. Like so many other deaf students who are keen enough, their son left Australia to go to America where the facilities are available but came home because the alienation from his family and friends was overwhelming. This discrimination against the deaf cannot be rectified overnight but, as our Labor Government cares about equality of opportunity for all Australians, we should attempt to make the education of all handicapped persons a higher priority than it is at present. I will present to the House some figures given to me by the Adult Deaf Society of New South Wales. In Australia between the years 1964 and 1976, 4,600 deaf children were born. In the next few years most of them will be adults. In Australia at the moment there are one million Australians with varying degrees of deafness. In New South Wales there are 2,000 school-age children who are deaf. These people are a minority but they should not for that reason be made inferior. Deafness Awareness Week will be held around Australia at the end of September. What an excellent opportunity for our Government to begin to look seriously at what measures we can introduce to protect the universal rights of the deaf, for example, the right to the same educational opportunities as the majority of Australians. The goal to aim for is to set up a model like the National Technical Institute for the Deaf in America attached to one of our major universities, perhaps even the University of New South Wales. This would be the most ideal concept to begin with, one which will bring some hope and purpose to the lives of deaf people wishing to complete their education and to take their rightful place in society. I believe that once the model exists and the facility is there the demand for its services will be evident. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(10.10) —In my State of Victoria diverse interests covering a wide spectrum of community and business have expressed their views on poker machines and their legalisation or otherwise. I do not wish to prejudice or pre- empt the current inquiry into this subject by Mr Wilcox, QC. However, it is the pre-emption of the inquiry that concerns me. Let me read a transcript of a conversation that took place on Sunday, 5 May of this year in the driveway of 12 Cole Cresent, Chadstone: Mr M.: They-- the poker machines- are coming in and that's it. The casino inquiry was just a red herring. Mr V.: Look I helped put you and Gerry in and I'll go against you if you're going to do this. Mr M.: I've done my counting. I'm all right. Mr V.: What about Gerry Vaughan? Mr M.: He's all right too-look we are going to make $60 million or $70 million out of this. We need the money and that's it. Mr V.: How do you know poker machines will go through? Mr M.: We've got the numbers in the centre and the right will be coming in. Mr V.: What about the small clubs? Mr M.: They will just have to join together or something. This conversation may sound innocent. But let me tell honourable members that ' Mr M.' is Mr Race Mathews, the Victorian Minister for Police and Emergency Services, a senior Cabinet Minister in the Cain Labor Government. The other individual is a former Australian Labor Party Branch President and an operator of a bingo centre. At a time when Ministers, including the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) make much of ministerial integrity, at a time when Ministers are stood down and at a time when a Victorian Minister is forced to resign we have yet another challenge to the whole integrity of ministerial responsibility. The question of the integrity of the Victorian Minister for Police is not limited to this one conversation. It is the same man-this cut price Whitlam disciple-who claims that he is not influenced by lobby groups and who tells everyone that he researches his speeches and is an independent thinker. Yet it was Mr Mathews who , on 23 March 1982, delivered a speech to the meeting of the Licenced Clubs Association of Victoria outlining ALP policy on poker machines. In that speech Mr Mathews vehemently attacked allegations that the Labor Party was deluded and influenced by the pokie lobby. He said in that speech: Labor has been deluded by nobody. We are committed to nobody. Deluded by nobody? Let me now refer to the official transcript of proceedings of the Victorian poker machine inquiry of 7 September during which Mr Vibert, from the pokie lobby, admits that his lobby group misled Mr Mathews. In fact, Mr Mathews' speech, which purported to espouse ALP policy was written by the pokie lobby. As Mr McPhee, QC, told the inquiry: Mr Race Mathews appears in that speech to have been adopting Dr Holsman's conclusion. Dr Holsman is a consultant for the pokie lobby. Mr McPhee then went on to say that Mr Mathews would have been one person at least expected to re-evaluate seriously the situation in the light of other people's views. But what did Mr Mathews do? He took the pokie lobby speech and said that it was a sober, factual and economic evaluation of the situation. In fact, Mr Mathews took the pokie handout and smartly added two words: 'ALP policy'. He then wrote his name to it. The Labor Party is a bankrupt party. It is bankrupt of ideas, bankrupt of integrity and bankrupt of honesty. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(10.14) —Youth Forum is a project which gives young people in New South Wales in the 14 to 19-years age group the access, tools, resources, information and opportunity to define, prevent and/or solve some of their own problems at a school or community level. While at this stage it is limited to New South Wales, plans are being made to include students from other States of Australia in future Youth Forums. In the experience of the Youth Forum organisers, solutions to the problems of young people are frequently created without the influence and participation of young people-those most affected by the problem. This absence of participation often leads to youth apathy and indifference to community problems. Youth Forum encourages the active involvement of young people in the identification and solution of their own problems. Free and open communication plays an important role in this process. Youth Forum holds an annual Youth Forum conference at which approximately 300 young people from all over New South Wales identify perceived problems, share and develop ideas on solutions and work out action plans to be implemented in their school or community during the following 12 months. This conference is held at the Mitchell College of Advanced Education in Bathurst during July. It has been held in Bathurst since its inception in 1977. There is also a series of leadership workshops for Youth Forum Committee members who are elected at each annual conference. It also provides resources, ideas, advice, assistance and encouragement to local action groups to help them with their action plans. Youth Forum actively promotes views of young people on issues which affect them. Importantly, Youth Forum encourages decision makers at all levels of government to listen to young people's views on decisions which affect them. Its plans for 1984 include a State-wide Youth Forum in July 1984, leadership training for the present Youth Forum Committee and regional and local Youth Forums in seven country regions of New South Wales-at Coffs Harbour, Cooma, Broken Hill, Moss Vale, Newcastle, Wagga and West Wyalong. The establishment by International Youth Year 1985 of a youth policy institute in New South Wales will also help to monitor, analyse and report on government and private expenditure on youth programs and initiatives in New South Wales. Some $320,000 has been contributed by corporate sponsorship since 1979. Sponsors include the Law Foundation of New South Wales-a body that was established by statute and reports annually to the New South Wales Parliament. The Foundation is primarily concerned with supporting programs and research which increase community access to the law and to the legal system. Youth Forum was started by the Foundation in 1979. The National Australia Bank has funded Youth Forum since 1980. Esso Australia Ltd joined the Foundation and the Bank as a co-founder of Youth Forum in 1982. The New South Wales Department of Education provides accommodation for the Youth Forum secretariat. Unilever Australia Ltd assisted with the publicity for Youth Forum in 1983. The International Youth Committee secretariat provided $15,000 in 1979. I might add that that is the only source of government funding so far made to Youth Forum. Yesterday, the office of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) met with the ex-Director of Youth Forum, Julia Young; an honorary consultant to Youth Forum, John Engel and two students from Monaro High School in Cooma, Mary Mitchell and Caroline Soucek, who have been or are active supporters of the concept. Youth Forum has an immediate cash shortfall of $15, 000 to enable it to continue until February next year when it hopes to receive the corporate sponsorship that I mentioned. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs is now aware of this problem. Following the group's visit to the Schools Commission today, I am hopeful that that body will also understand the need to keep Youth Forum afloat. It would be a great tragedy indeed if, for want of a comparatively small allocation of funding-be it private or public-the concept was left to wither on the vine. Youth Forum deserves continued support. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(10.19) —During Question Time yesterday the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) a question about the Libyan delegation presently visiting Australia led by a man who has been reported to be a former director of the Libyan Foreign Liaison Office, which is an important element in international Libyan terrorism. The honourable member for Warringah was seeking information. He wanted to know on what basis the Minister had granted this man entry to Australia. I repeat: The honourable member was seeking information. The Minister told us that he had examined the matter and that there was no perceived threat to the security of Australia and no perceived threat of terrorism. He stated that he was, in effect-I am paraphrasing now-against political censorship in immigration matters. There are two points to be made. One, of course, concerns the leadership of this delegation and the other the extraordinary and notorious record of terrorism of the Libyan regimes. I shall start with the second point, which is of great concern throughout the world. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Libyans in various countries despise the Gaddafi regime and want to see their country move in the direction of democracy. If they are persuasive and outspoken they go on a hit list for 'physical liquidation', in the words of the Libyan revolutionary committee at Benghazi in 1979. After that Benghazi decision, four Libyans were murdered in Rome, two in London, one in Bonn, one in Athens and one in Milan. Mr Hand —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it honourable for an honourable member to raise these issues and criticise a country, and the leader of a delegation from that country, with which this country does $100m worth of trade? Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr COLEMAN —After the Milan killing in June 1980 Colonel Gaddafi called for an end to these liquidations, except in the case of Libyans collaborating with the United States of America, Israel and Egypt, which of course would be a large number. He also warned, I believe cynically, that he was sure he could not control the revolutionary enthusiasm of the revolutionary committees. So in Colorado in October 1980 another Libyan student took two bullets in the head. When we add to this the reports of the Libyan revolutionary sponsorship of the murder of 11 Israelis in Munich and two American diplomats in Khartoum, the shooting of 33 passengers on a Pan Am plane in Rome, and the kidnapping of Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries oil Ministers in Vienna, and then add reports of Libya seething with up to 20,000 foreign terrorists in training, we get some idea of why Britain and the United States have expelled Libyan representatives and why many Australians wonder why Libyans are permitted to be so active in Australia, with their offices, their newspaper, their friendship association, their East German connections, and their attempt to recruit mercenaries in Australia. The concern was even greater when it was noted that the Foreign Liaison Office in Tripoli is a key unit in the organisation of Libyan terrorism and that the leader of the delegation visiting Australia, with the approval of the Minister, is Mr Ahmed Shuhati, once the head of that Office. Of course, Mr Shuhati may have had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorism to which I have referred, I simply do not know, but the Minister's reply evaded the issue. He said, in effect, that he saw no evidence that Mr Shuhati would be a threat to Australia's security. That may be so, but it is an inadequate criterion. The Foreign Liaison Office establishes a network of agents of influence in foreign capitals-- Mr Milton —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Surely this is a misrepresentation of the Minister and an insult to the-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr COLEMAN —The Office does not necessarily kill people everywhere, but people are concerned that Australia should not play a role in that international network. The Minister carefully did not say, and would not say, whether he had sought advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs or from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Why will he not tell us where he got his advice from? Was it from Mr Bill Hartley? The House is entitled to know. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders)(10.24) —I feel that at the end of this hectic week it is quite apt that I should rise to deliver a small speech. I hope that all honourable members will take notice of it. I have risen this evening to tell honourable members about the beauties of Flinders. I hear many honourable members in this House discussing specific items in their electorates. However, they fail to mention the surrounding environment of their electorates. I am extremely proud that I live in an electorate which is environmentally conscious. Many of the residents of Flinders took an extremely active part in saving for the world the south-west of Tasmania. Future generations will thank us for this action. I am quite certain that many people in the world will travel to Tasmania to see one of the beauties of Australia. I live on a peninsula which has on one side the fine bay of Port Phillip, on the other side Western Port Bay, and on the southern end Bass Strait. This geographic positioning gives Flinders its fine and pleasant climate. We are extremely proud of our magnificent coastal national park in Flinders, to which over 100,000 visitors a year come to gaze with awe at the beauties of nature. These visitors can travel easily over the peninsula and be treated to magnificent coastal views, rolling hills and superb mountain views overlooking Phillip Island, French Island and Bass Strait. We have many areas set aside for tourists, and tourism is a major industry on the peninsula. Flinders offers much to its many thousands of visitors. Our unique flora and fauna attract some of the world's most famous botanists. We also have the following attractions: Five beaches, water sports, fishing, camping, bushwalking , surfing, windsurfing, golf, bowls-that would be interesting to members of the Opposition-theatre, good libraries, fine hotels, and magnificent restaurants. Those are only a few of the attractions Flinders can offer. I urge all within this House to come to see the beauties of this area. I have travelled widely throughout Australia and throughout the world and nowhere have I seen an area which offers so much to a visitor. I urge all honourable members when they get the time to visit us in Flinders. They will be treated to a magnificent area. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.28 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Lionel Bowen to move- That, contingent on any Bill being brought in and read a first time, I shall move-That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the second reading being made an order of the day for a later hour. I also give notice that, contingent on any report being received from a committee or any report being adopted, I shall move-That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the remaining stages being passed without delay. I also give notice that, contingent on any message being received from the Senate transmitting any Bill for concurrence, I shall move-That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through all its stages without delay. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 159 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: 1. Will he bring up to date the information given by his predecessor in answer to my question No. 4123, part (1) (Hansard, 18 August 1982, pages 557-8) in relation to (a) which trials of dissidents Australian Embassy officials have attended, or attempted to attend, in the Soviet Union, (b) where these trials were held, (c) the date on which these trials were held, (d) in each case (i) the charges and (ii) the sentences, (e) the reasons given for denial of access to Australian officials where applicable and (f) what representatives from other countries attended, or attempted to attend, these trials. 2. Further to his predecessor's answer to question No. 4123, part (2), has the Australian Government supported any subsequent initiatives to support the release of Dr Yuri Orlov or Mr Anatoli Shcharansky. 3. Will he bring up to date the information given by his predecessor in answer to question No. 4123, part (3), in relation to (a) how many family reunions of Soviet citizens who wished to join relatives in Australia occurred in 1982 and ( b) the total number of persons emigrating to Australia from the USSR in 1982. 4. Has the Government considered the establishment, in the Commonwealth Parliament, of a Standing Committee on Human Rights to report on serious violations of human rights in any country, including Australia, in accordance with paragraph 65 of the final chapter of the Report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Human Rights in the Soviet Union. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Australian Embassy officials have attempted to attend the following trials since January 1983: (i) (a) Kanevsky, Boris; Geltser, Ilya (b) Moscow (c) 18-19 January 1983 (d) (i ) Section 190-1 (ii) Five years internal exile (Kanevsky); three years suspended sentence (Gelster) (e) 'court full' (f) no representative permitted to attend-UK , USA attempted. (ii) (a) Yankov, Vadim (b) Moscow (c) 20-21 January 1983 (d) (i) Section 70 (1) (ii) Four years imprisonment plus three years internal exile (e) 'court full' (f ) no representative permitted to attend-USA attempted. (iii) (a) Senderov, Valery (b) Moscow (c) 28-29 February 1983 (d) (i) Section 70 (1) (ii) Seven years imprisonment plus five years internal exile (e) 'court full' (f) no representative permitted to attend-US, Canada attempted. (iv) (a) Smirnov, Alexei (b) Moscow (c) 12-13 May 1983 (d) (i) Section 70 (1) ( ii) Six years imprisonment plus four years internal exile (e) 'no places available', 'a pass is needed to enter' (f) no representative permitted to attend-USA, Canada attempted. 2. No representations have been made on behalf of Orlov and Shcharansky since Mr Jacobi's 1982 question. 3. (a) After July of 1982 the previous category of 'family reunion' was expanded to include non-dependent children and siblings. The category was renamed 'family migration'. Under this category 11 Soviet citizens came to join relatives in Australia between July and December of 1982. (b) the total number of persons emigrating from the USSR to Australia in 1982 was 47. 4. As my predecessor noted in his reply to a similar question put by Mr Jacobi in August 1982, the question of whether a Standing Committee to deal with human rights is to be established by the Parliament is one for that body rather than the Government itself to address. The broader question of respect for human rights both overseas and within Australia is, however, high on the Government's list of priority concerns. The Government has signalled its heightened interest in the universal protection and promotion of human rights on a number of recent occasions in countries as diverse as the Philippines, Turkey, Uganda, Chile and Poland. In addition to bilateral approaches, Australia's firm commitment to and support for the UN and other multilateral bodies, such as the ILO, seized of human rights questions, will be strengthened under this Government. In the domestic sphere, the Attorney-General has initiated a review of the role and structure of the Human Rights Commission with a view to increasing the effectiveness of federal human rights machinery. Members of Parliament play an important role in raising domestic and international human rights questions in both Houses and in existing Parliamentary committees, such as those dealing with Foreign Affairs and Defence . The Government, of course, supports Parliamentary activities aimed at promoting and protecting human rights both within Australia and internationally. Question No. 240 Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: (1) Are any Commonwealth public servants working on a permanent part-time basis ; if so, (a) what are their conditions of service and (b) are loadings being paid to them for permanent part-time work. (2) Does he intend extending the option of permanent part-time work in the Commonwealth public service; if so, what action is being taken towards its introduction on a more widespread basis. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Persons presently employed on a formal part-time basis in the Australian Public Service are all temporary employees. Those who work for at least 24 hours a week over at least 4 days are entitled to recreation and sick leave credits and maternity leave. Those who work less than this do not receive these leave benefits but receive a 15 per cent pay loading. All part-time staff are entitled to long service leave and workers' compensation. (2) Considerable work has been done on developing a possible scheme of permanent part-time employment, including establishment and staffing arrangements and the application of pro-rata terms and conditions of employment. The Public Service Board has held discussions with the Department of Finance in relation to the question of superannuation provisions for part-time staff, and with the peak councils of staff organisations. The issues that need to be taken into consideration are the efficient operating requirements of departments, staff interests, union attitudes, and conditions of employment, including superannuation arrangements. The latter, in particular, has wider implications. The Government is to consider these issues further, before a decision is reached on the development of a possible scheme for the Australian Public Service. Question No. 320 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Will the Government upgrade onground facilities to receive high resolution Thematic Mapper data from Landsat 4; if so, when. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government has fully funded the Australian Landsat Station to process the data available from the current generation of satellites at the present level. At the same time it is concerned at the level of recovery of operating costs and has directed that my Department, in conjunction with the Department of Finance, develop a plan for progressively increasing the level of cost recovery. The Government fully recognises the benefits that can be obtained from the high resolution Thematic Mapper data but, in view of some present uncertainties as to the performance and reliability of the present satellites and the extremely difficult budgetary constraints it was unable to fund it this year. The Government will reconsider the upgrade when economic conditions improve. Question No. 373 Mr Chynoweth asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) What steps are being taken towards advancing Australian research on the biochip. (2) Will this device make the silicon chip obsolete. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As far as I can ascertain there is no current Australian research on the biochip; however a US biochip expert (Dr James McAlear) will be visiting Australia in September to speak at a two-day conference on the subject organised by the Florey Institute. Dr McAlear will also attend the National Technology Conference in September. (2) The potential for silicon technology is far from fully realised and investment in the technology is high. Competing technologies at present in the development stage are based on Gallium Arsenide, Josephson Junction and Indium Phosphide. Further into the future is optical switching technology. While ultimately 'electronic' components may be reduced to the molecular level, and bio-logic may be the only feasible way to achieve this, it is still some time into the future.