Tuesday, 11 October 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-I move: That this House- (1) expresses its profound sympathy at the loss of the lives of Ministers and officials of the Government of the Republic of Korea in the bomb explosion in Rangoon, Burma on Sunday 9 October; (2) reaffirms its abhorrence of and opposition to terrorism; (3) reaffirms its support for the people of the Republic of Korea and calls on all nations with interests and concerns in the Korean Peninsula to exercise restraint and moderation at this difficult time, and (4) requests the Speaker to convey the terms of this resolution to the Speaker of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea. Mr Speaker, last Saturday 8 October, President Chun Doo Hwan of the Republic of Korea set out from Seoul to visit Burma, Sri Lanka, Australia, New Zealand and Brunei. He was to arrive, together with a substantial entourage, in Perth next Sunday 16 October. He was to come to Canberra on 17 October and hold discussions with us on 18 October before visiting Sydney on 19 October and departing for New Zealand on 20 October. As a result of tragic circumstances, that visit has been postponed to another time. At the beginning of President Chun's visit to Burma he was, on Sunday 10 October, to lay a wreath at the Martyrs' Mausoleum in Rangoon. Because of heavy traffic the President arrived late at the ceremony. The accompanying party had gone ahead of him. A large and savage bomb explosion killed 19 members of the accompanying party. A large number were injured seriously. A number of Burmese nationals were also among the casualties and to their families our sympathy is also extended. The members of the Korean official party who were killed included the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Economic Planning Board, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Commerce and Industry, the Minister of Energy and Resources, the Secretary-General to the President of the ruling Democratic Justice Party, the Vice-Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Senior Secretary to the President for Economic Affairs and the Co-ordinator of the Overseas Co-operation Council. Those seriously injured included the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Vice-Minister of Finance. The Governor-General and I have both sent messages of condolence to President Chun. On behalf of the Australian Government and people we have expressed deep shock in learning of the tragedy which befell President Chun's party in Rangoon. We have conveyed our condolences to the Government and people of the Republic of Korea and reaffirmed Australia's support for the Republic of Korea at this troubled time. We have asked President Chun to convey to the families of those who died our deep sympathy and we have wished a speedy recovery to the injured. In these messages and also in my own statement and the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) on Sunday, we have pointed to the fact that a number of the people who died were known personally to us and other members of the Government and indeed, I believe, to many members of the Opposition. President Chun had embarked on this overseas tour as part of the Republic of Korea's broadening of its contacts with the region. We had welcomed the growing role of the Republic of Korea in the region's affairs and the growing significance of its links with Australia. Since our Government took office we have had close and productive contact with the Republic of Korea. Before the visit planned for next week by President Chun there had been four high level visits between Australia and Korea since my Government took office. In May the Secretary-General to the President, Dr Hahm Pyong Choon, visited Australia. He called on me and several other Ministers. Dr Hahm has been for many years one of the most articulate spokesmen for the Republic of Korea. He was formerly, as honourable members would know, an ambassador of the Republic of Korea to the United States. Dr Hahm died in Rangoon. His death is recognised by us as a great loss to his country and he will be remembered with respect. In July, Mr Speaker, you visited the Republic of Korea as the guest of the Speaker of the National Assembly, Mr Chai Mun Shick. On that visit, you also met Dr Hahm and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Lee Bum Suk, as well as President Chun. Later that month, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, visited Seoul. He talked then with President Chun, with Dr Hahm, and with a number of others who died in Rangoon. He had extensive discussions with his counterpart, Foreign Minister Lee Bum Suk. Mr Lee had a long and distinguished career in managing the foreign relations of the Republic of Korea. In particular , during the 1970s, he managed the Republic of Korea's policy towards the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the conduct of discussions with the DPRK. Mr Lee died in Rangoon. At the end of August-six weeks ago-the annual round of ministerial trade talks between the Republic of Korea and Australia took place in Canberra. The leader of the Republic of Korea delegation was Mr Kim Dong Whie, Minister for Commerce and Industry. Mr Kim had had a distinguished career in the foreign service and was, until his appointment as Minister, permanent head of the Korean Foreign Ministry. Mr Kim also died in Rangoon. He will be remembered as a friend and a tough bargainer for his country and as a man of great enthusiasm and energy whose personal character contributed much to our relations. Mr Suh Sang Chul, the Minister of Energy and Resources, had a particular connection with and affection for Australia and had many friends here. Until several years ago Mr Suh was the Republic of Korea's representative at the World Bank in Washington. Australia and the Republic of Korea are members of the same constituency in the World Bank and so Mr Suh for several years worked closely with the Australian representative at the bank. Mr Suh died in Rangoon. Among the officials who died, Dr Kim Jae Ik stood out as an outstanding technocrat of great intellectual ability. He had become Senior Secretary to the President for Economic Affairs. He had been invited to Australia in his own right some time ago and only the assumption of high responsibilities had stopped him from coming earlier. He too had many friends in Australia. I have mentioned these names to provide some indication of the depth of personal connections developed between Australia and the Republic of Korea at a very high level and to underscore the personal loss that we share. The Republic of Korea has lost a number of its most important leaders. These were men of intelligence and vigor, among the brightest and most open-minded of leaders in a society undergoing great changes. They will be difficult to replace. We had been looking forward to President Chun's visit in the expectation that it would contribute greatly to the growth of an already substantial and positive relationship. Australia has given consistent and principled support to the Republic of Korea for 35 years since its foundation in 1948. Australians fought and died in the Korean War. In a continued environment of hostility on the peninsula since then, South Korea has been obliged to maintain very large armed forces and there have been difficulties and frustrations in the development of a more open political system. We nonetheless have remained confident, and continue to remain confident, that the basis for a strong, growing and beneficial relationship between our countries can be sustained. The bomb explosion at the Martyrs' Mausoleum was a cruel blow. It has done nothing to contribute to a peaceful settlement of the problems of the Korean peninsula. It has deprived Korea of men of great experience and ability. No one can gain or draw satisfaction from this wanton act of terrorism. We can only hope that it will not irreversibly damage the cause of peace in an area where the balance of forces is otherwise so delicately poised. We convey to the Korean people our profound sympathy. As a mark of our respect, the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House will leave Australia tonight to represent the Government at the memorial service to honour the dead. The honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), who is currently leading the Australian delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in Seoul, will also attend the service. We would also urge all nations with interests in the Korean peninsula to exercise restraint. The cost of the losses suffered to Korea and to all those with an interest in peace is already too high. They should not now be added to or compounded. I commend the motion to the House. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —The Opposition supports the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and joins with the Government in expressing its condolences and support to the President and people of the Republic of Korea. Yesterday, I sent the following message to the President of the Republic of Korea: The Federal Opposition expresses its sympathy to yourself, your Government and the people of the Republic of Korea. We extend our special condolences to the families of those killed in this tragic attack which has outraged the Australian people. I also extend my deep personal sympathy. It is certainly correct to say that all Australians would be appalled at this assault on a presidential party, comprising the highest holders of executive office in that nation. The Prime Minister has correctly reminded the House of the capacities of the members of the President's party who lost their lives. Many were known personally to me and to the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony), the former Deputy Prime Minister, and others on this side of the House who, by virtue of our previous portfolios, had dealings with a significant number. We worked with them; we admired them; we respected them; and Korea's loss is felt deeply by those of us who were in that position. They were, as the Prime Minister has indicated, men of achievement and men of distinction, having contributed to the singular success of the Republic of Korea 's modernisation programs and the enhanced international stature of their country. It is virtually without precedent for a nation to have much of its leadership destroyed while on a goodwill visit, and this surely must be one of the most ruthless acts of modern times. The Australian Government will, of course, have the resources, including international contacts, which may help to bring to account those who perpetuated this dreadful deed. It is clear that it constitutes an affront to international morality of the utmost gravity, and tragically it follows the shooting down of the Korean airliner. Increasing acts of violence and terrorism emphasise the importance of the international community uniting against those who would have recourse to such measures. Australia has an important role to play in this process. Clearly, in current circumstances the Korean people need the reassurance of friends such as Australia, and it is the wish of the Opposition that every effort be made by the Australian Government in collaboration with Korea's other friends, be they the United States of America or Japan, to bring to the Korean people in their moment of national distress the strength of Australia's sympathy and support. This act of terrorism heightens the importance of maintaining a fundamental understanding of the role of the Republic of Korea and the role that it has played in developing into a modern nation with an aspiration to play an increasing constructive and creative part in world affairs. The purposes of this mission-to improve the links between the Korean people and others in the region- remain as valid today as at the moment of inception. The goodwill of the people of the Republic of Korea, demonstrated in the decision to embark on this mission , has received a terrible setback. But it would be a very sad development for the world if the high purposes that the President had in mind were allowed to be dissipated by these events. Despite the continuing tension in north-east Asia, the Republic of Korea has contributed to the stability of the region, and this is sometimes overlooked by those who have expressed dissatisfaction at the pace of political development. But the contribution that the Republic of Korea makes to the security of the region, particularly Japan, is of course of the highest importance. So it is with regret that we must accept the abandonment of the presidential visit and the cancellation of the tour of the Korean National Dance Company. When the time comes again-we hope that it is not too far in the future-for the visit to be reconsidered, we on this side of the House would want the Korean people to be clear that Australia welcomes the visit. I am sure the many Australians who have contact with the Republic would join me and the Prime Minister in the wish, the sympathy and the full measure of the motion that he has moved today. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —I join with the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in the expressions of concern and condolence which they have put before the House on behalf of this Parliament and the people of Australia. The great tragedy for the Republic of Korea is that the aching bereavement, so cruelly inflicted upon it but a matter of a few weeks ago with the inexcusable destruction of a civil airliner and the loss of nearly 300 lives, must be compounded by this horrific act. Whoever is responsible for it, whatever the motives, stands condemned. There can never be any excuse for this sort of wanton behaviour. The Prime Minister has very properly condemned this incident. At this stage we do not know who is responsible for it or what may have been the cause for taking such an unspeakable and indiscriminate course of action resulting in the death of some of the most talented people available to the Republic of Korea to administer its affairs and its development at a time of challenging transition. As the Prime Minister mentioned, there are those of us who have had the pleasure of personal contact with a number of the unfortunate representatives of the Government of the Republic of Korea who lost their lives in this incident. I am, as the Prime Minister pointed out, one such person. I enjoyed meeting Mr Lee Bum Suk, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, on several occasions and I greatly appreciated the support which he extended to Australia and to activity which I was undertaking on behalf of Australia. He was, it seemed to me, an outward looking man, well understanding small '1' liberal values of Western society. He was able to transmit successfully the views which I was seeking to put on behalf of the Australian Government on certain potentially provocative matters to senior members of his Government in a way which avoided what otherwise could have been an unpleasant confrontation. I was deeply grateful and much indebted to him for the help that he gave. I was, accordingly, very much bereaved, shocked and numbed, as was the rest of the world, when reports of this incident spread about the globe. Mr Kim Dong Whie, Minister for Commerce and Industry, was also well disposed towards Australia. In a situation in which questions have been asked about our trading policy and our trading relations-questions not unusual, I discover from time to time when there is a trade imbalance-Mr Kim had a genuine respect and regard for this country. With his murder, Australia has lost a helpful representative of the Government of the Republic of Korea. Mr Suh Sang Chul, Minister for Energy and Resources, who was a technocrat-I use the word in its most favourable sense-ably contributed towards the development of his country at a difficult and challenging time. His services too will be missed. Dr Hahm Pyong Choon, Secretary General to the President, was a man whose company I enjoyed on a number of occasions in Australia and in Korea. We inevitably had rather vigorous exchanges, at an intellectual and philosophical level, about the respective roles of our society and the influences which had worked upon them to shape them. I am afraid that I was often put on the defensive as I sought to justify the outlook that we westerners have on life, the style of life that we believe in and the sorts of values that we believe should predominate. The exchange, although always vigorous, was, I believe, at a fairly high intellectual level. Although it was not without its passion from time to time, I was always left with the greatest respect for a man who put the case of his Government faithfully and well. His intellectual credentials were extraordinarily impressive. They are the four men with whom I had had personal contact. They were four men shaping the destiny of their country; they were four men who, like the other men , were representatives of the Government both in a political system and in an administration and their murders now deprive the country of a number of very talented people, people whose losses will be very great in their effect of the development of Korea. Korea is a nation whose sadness is now bathed in a bitterness which inflames its sense of justifiable outrage at the experiences it has had in recent times. We have to recognise that the Korean peninsula is in a trip wire situation and an unfortunate incident could lead to a conflagration of dimensions which none of us would wish to occur. In all of the circumstances I endorse, as does this Government and certainly the Prime Minister, the case for restraint which the United States of America has urged upon the Government of Korea in circumstances which we all understand to be extraordinarily provocative , extraordinarily bitter and to leave great distress in the Republic of Korea. I join with all honourable members in expressing my condolences to the surviving members of the families of those unfortunate people who were killed in this mass murder. I particularly express my deeply felt sympathy to the surviving members of the families of those men with whom I had the opportunity, most productively, to be associated in the recent past. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I take this opportunity of joining with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his motion of condolence which was supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). It is hard for me to express the shock I felt when I first heard about the tragedy in Rangoon last Sunday. An outrage such as this is an affront to civilised people everywhere but for me there are some personal aspects which have affected me deeply as they have obviously affected the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I have visited the Republic of Korea several times, and I number many of its Ministers amongst my friends. Only last year I had the privilege of leading a trade mission to Burma where I received great warmth, courtesy and friendliness. When news of the explosion in Rangoon was confirmed my first reaction was naturally horror at what had occurred. I still find it difficult to express the depth of my revulsion toward any person or group which would commit such an outrage. I am fully aware of how deep a tragedy it is, both for Korea, which has lost so many of its most brilliant and able leaders, and also for Burma, which was host of the visit, and whose own people were amongst those killed and injured. My second reaction to news of the bomb explosion in Rangoon was fear that people I knew who were my friends would be amongst those killed and injured. Sadly, that was later confirmed. I knew a number of those from Korea who were accompanying President Chun on his visit. Amongst those killed was the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr Kim, whom I had spoken to again only recently when he was in Canberra for trade talks. On the Burmese side, among those injured was the Minister for Culture and Information, whom I met in Burma in March last year . I have already been in touch with the governments of both countries and expressed my horror at the event and my personal sympathies in regard to these two men in particular. This afternoon I would like to make a brief personal observation about this tragedy. Apart from the fact that friends of mine were amongst those killed and injured, this event had particular impact for me because of where it occurred. Many Australians will have visited the Shwedagon Pagoda in Rangoon. I had the privilege of laying a wreath at the Martyrs' Mausoleum there on 24 March last year. It is shocking for me to imagine the tranquillity and beauty of that area shattered and torn apart by the carnage of Sunday's bomb explosion. It is distressing to speculate on what the motive for detonating such a bomb could have been, and how any motive could justify such an outrage. Of course, such outrages are not unique. We sometimes seem to be almost in danger of becoming accustomed to them as we read of them, day by day, around the world. Those who perpetrate them try to justify their actions with the philosophy that 'the end justifies the means'. This is not a philosophy that is found only amongst terrorists. It is one which can tempt ordinary, quite decent people. I am not suggesting they are tempted to use a bomb, but by the philosphy . I suggest that many people who have a cause to fight for or a protest to make do not realise the implications of such a belief. The genuinely evil results of such a philosophy, carried to its ultimate end, are shown in Sunday's mass assassination in Rangoon. They are shown in an event such as the shooting down of the Korean Airlines plane only weeks before, with the loss of 269 lives. Is there any border so inviolate that hundreds of innocent people must die to preserve its sanctity? Is any cause so just that in its name over a score people on a peaceful mission must be murdered? I think that any rational, civilised, person can only say emphatically 'no' to those questions. In expressing our sympathy and our horror this afternoon at the events in Rangoon on Sunday, I hope we can also condemn the philosphy that leads to all tragedies like this, whenever and wherever they happen. The people of the Republic of Korea have suffered a grievous blow. Coming so soon after the tragedy of Korean Airlines flight 7, it must be doubly hard for them today. It is a matter of great good fortune that because of a traffic delay President Chun was spared. I offer the sympathy of my Party to the President and the Korean people. I also offer our sympathy to the Government and the people of Burma. I hope that this Parliament's actions here today show the people of both countries that, despite the events of Sunday, the majority of people around the world abhor and reject such actions and will work to prevent them from occurring . Mr SPEAKER —Before putting the question I am sure the House will allow me to add some remarks to those of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) regarding the assassination of the Korean Ministers and officials. In July of this year I was invited to attend the Conference of the Korean Institute of International Studies on Asia-Pacific Regional Co-operation and to deliver the opening paper. At the conclusion of the Conference I was the guest of the Speaker, Chae Mun Shick, for a few days. During that time I met and talked with many of those who met their deaths in Rangoon. They were friendly, hospitable and willing to talk over a wide range of subjects of mutual interest. I know that Korea, by our standards, has not attained the degree of freedom in civil rights, democracy and industrial conditions which we would prefer. However , Australia has strong associations with Korea. Australians are held in high regard because of their role during the Korean war. We are a major and valued trading partner. There is a history of association between our parliaments. The Australian-Korea Parliamentary Friendship Group was the first such group formed under the auspices of the Australian branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The country has shown a vitality in coping with industrial development and modern technology. I believe our dialogue with them will be a factor in developing further the democratic process in their country. Those whose lives were lost were, from my judgment and my association with them, people who were prepared to work very hard and devotedly to improve their country and the conditions of their people. They had skills, will and intelligence. With their deaths their country faces a great loss. I can only join in the expressions of horror at such a happening and offer the deepest sympathy to their country and their families in the loss that has been suffered by them. I have already conveyed a personal message of sympathy to the Speaker, but would be pleased to convey the motion of the House on its passage. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. 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 chiropractice services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann,Mr Andrew,Mr Cadman,Mrs Darling,Mr Drummond,Ms Fatin,Mr Hand and Mr McVeigh. 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 Robert Brown,Mr Brumby,Mrs Darling and Mr Dobie. 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 Convention 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 work force, 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 in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann,Mr Ian Cameron and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms. entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations. deny to parents their rights to insist that the school 'community' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr,Mr Hodgman and Mr Newman. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We urge the Government to declare a moratorium on uranium mining and treatment in Australia; We urge the Government to repudiate any commitment of a non-Labor Government to the mining, processing or export of Australia's uranium; We urge the Government to not permit the mining, processing or export of uranium pursuant to agreements entered into contrary to ALP policy; and We urge the Government to discontinue the Roxby Uranium Mine development. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton and Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 1983 Budget imposition of the excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine places at risk the future of the fortified wine industry in Australia. That the requirement to pay the excise within 7 days of the fortification occurring is inequitable. That the excise will be reflected in increased costs to the consumers of fortified wines of up to 100 per cent and consumer choice will be restricted. That this will cause reduced fortified wine sales which will result in reduced intake of grapes from grapegrowers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and either withdraw this tax of modify its method of application and collection. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: That, at present, certain infertility treatments, including hormonal drugs, procedures and laboratory services, are not covered by any health insurance due to non-itemisation on the Commonwealth Rebate List. The psychological and emotional stress of infertility is therefore increased by the added financial stress. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament will view our plight to create life with sympathy by recognising our needs and taking action to include the abovementioned items on the Commonwealth Rebate List. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: (a) That the Australian Government signed the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women in Copenhagen in 1980; (b) that the Convention came into force on 3 September 1981; (c) that Australian women suffer serious disadvantage in employment, education, accommodation, membership of licensed clubs, provision of goods and services including services relating to banking, insurance and the provision of grants, loans, credit or finance; (d) that this disadvantage could be overcome by (i) making unlawful certain discrimination on the grounds of sex and marital status, (ii) eliminating discrimination on the grounds of sex and marital status and (iii) promoting affirmative action for women in employment; Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Parliament pass the Sex and Marital Status Discrimination Bill 1981. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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, inter alia, 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 in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Holders of the health care card and pensioner health benefits card cannot receive any level of free dental care from private dentists, as they can medical care from private doctors. The existing network of private dental practices will need to be the principle mode of dental care delivery. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: Holders of the health care card and pensioner health benefits card should be provided with free dental care through private dentists, immediately. Dental care be included in the formulation of medicare. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That continued use of animal ingredients in cosmetic products, and the inhumane use of animals in scientific research for cosmetic products, is abhorrent and barbaric. That the Industries Assistance Commission, because of the Commission's terms of reference, seems unable to impose any regulation or recommend any regulation which might restrict the activities of cosmetic companies which produce cosmetics in which animal ingredients have been used, or for which animals were subjected to research. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will: Legislate to require comprehensive labelling of perfumes, cosmetics and toilet preparations to indicate- (1) Whether a product contains any animal derivative. If so, the ingredients and source should be indicated. (2) Whether the research and development of that product or any of its ingredients involved experimentation on animals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. 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: 1. The continued use of animal ingredients in cosmetic products, and the inhuman use of animals in scientific research for cosmetic products, is abhorrent and barbaric. 2. That no central records exist on such inhumane use of live animals for experimentation purposes, yet research institutions in several Australian States engage in such a practice. 3. That there exists no uniform legislation between the States concerning responsible standards of research conduct; indeed, in some States, there is a complete lack of legislation altogether. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will enact legislation to require- (a) the Australian Bureau of Statistics to produce annual statistics on the number of live animals involved in research, and provide information as to research purposes; and (b) the National Health and Medical Research Council to develop humane and responsible standards of conduct for researchers using live animals in all government, industry and educational research laboratories; and (c) that in the absence of uniform legislation between States, the Commonwealth introduce legislation to enable the enforcement of humane and responsible conduct for researchers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The students of Narrabundah College condemn the interruption to their educational program and want the asbestos contained and areas decontaminated as soon as possible to allow classes to recommence with the assurance that the asbestos will be removed at a later date. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. 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. 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 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 in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: 1. The basis of our Australian society is the family; 2. that the family operates at its best when the decisions of parents together within the family determine the actions of all members of the family; 3. that, in today's society, the full age is 18 years; and 4. that, under the new Medicare system, the right to determine whether or not medical treatment will be sought is removed from the parents in the family and is given to those who are not old enough to know their own mind or properly determine their own actions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives, before passing legislation to introduce Medicare, remove those sections from the legislation which will give minors, living in a family situation, the right to have their own Medicare card and the right to seek medical treatment apart from that determined by their parents. 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. We, the undersigned, do hereby request that plans to introduce a withholding tax be discontinued as it will result in grave financial consequences for many small businesses causing bankruptcies and loss of employment. At very least, we request that its implementation be delayed to allow for an evaluation of its effects and education in its operation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are acutely aware of the adverse economic impact on the grain growing industry of the 15 per cent tariff duty on imported grain harvesters. Your petitioners are aware that the Federal Government as the duly elected National Government of the Australian people apparently wishes to assist the local grain harvester manufacturing industry. Your petitioners are aware that the cost of that protection is being involuntarily borne by the grain growing industry. We petition the Federal Government to relieve the grain growing industry of the unfair and discriminatory tariff duty on imported grain harvesters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. 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 West. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully show: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Darling and Dr Everingham. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the citizens of South Australia respectfully shows: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales respectfully shows: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sinclair. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth: That the current shortage of housing in the Australian Capital Territory is causing extreme hardship for low income earners to an extent never before experienced in the Territory, and that Havelock House provides ideal accommodation for these people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the decision by the Minister for Administrative Services to allocate Havelock House to the Australian Federal Police for use as office space be rescinded and that Havelock House be made available to the community for use as low-cost accommodation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. A petition of certain citizens of the Northern Territory of Australia shows: 1. That the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of South Australia entered into an agreement on 7 December 1907 requiring the Commonwealth of Australia to construct the Transcontinental (North/South) Railway from Darwin to South Australia. 2. That the Transcontinental (North/South) Railway has not yet been constructed . 3. That the construction of the Transcontinental (North/South) Railway is the linchpin for the further development of the Northern Territory of Australia. 4. That the Transcontinental (North/South) Railway will provide employment through construction work, steel production and manufacturing and it will assist in ensuring the defence and security of northern Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Commonwealth of Australia commence and complete construction of the Transcontinental (North/South) Railway at an early date. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Reeves. 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 be 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. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Minister for Finance for his insulting and offensive remarks and his blatant attack upon the judgment of Tasmanian voters in a speech he delivered to the Tasmanian State Australian Labor Party Council meeting in Hobart on Saturday, 8 October 1983. Mr KENT(Hotham) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the heavy-handed and costly action taken by Telecom Australia which resulted in the gaoling of homeless youths in Melbourne on the weekend of 8-9 October 1983, and (2) calls on the Minister for Communications to intervene to arrange negotiations between Telecom Australia and the Victorian Minister of Housing with a view to the Ministry of Housing buying the property Bona Vista which was vacant for seven years at a time of acute public housing shortage. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Prime Minister for- (1) making statements during his recent trip to Queensland which: (a) cannot be substantiated in relation to Queensland's spending programs, and (b) demeaned the office of Prime Minister by making unsubstantiated statements; (2) damaging Commonwealth-Queensland relations by making allegations in regard to the Community Employment Program; and (3) attempting to create an atmosphere of uncertainty where there is strong confidence in the Queensland economy. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) supports the Burke Labor Government's decision to buy into the Argyle diamond project; (2) recognises that the decision to purchase Northern Mining Corporation NL represents a significant shift in public equity in Australian resource projects; and (3) notes that this 5 per cent interest in the world's biggest diamond mine will involve the Australian community in resource ownership in a way that was not pursued under previous State and Federal Liberal governments. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the decision of the Government to dismiss the National Women's Advisory Council; (2) regards the decision to substitute a bureaucratic system of consultation with women as inadequate and as failing to recognise women of achievement; (3) calls on the Government to substantiate in exact detail the comment made by the Prime Minister that the existing process of consultation had not been working satisfactorily; and (4) commends and expresses its appreciation for the contribution made to the nation on behalf of all women, by the diligence and drive of Quentin Bryce, Beryl Ashe, Catherine Branson, Oriel Clerk, Robyn Crane, Edith Hall, Mary Lane, Joyce McConnell, Caryl McQuestin, Paula Masselos, Jennifer Saunders and Debra Trembath. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates Mr Gavin Troy MLA for his well deserved victory in the by- election for the State electorate of Mundaring, Western Australia; (2) commends the Prime Minister for his efforts on behalf of Mr Troy; and (3) notes that this is a further illustration of the confidence of the general public in the policies of both the Western Australian and the Commonwealth governments. Mr KATTER(Kennedy) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns Government Ministers for wantonly and inaccurately misrepresenting the true financial standing of Queensland; (2) notes that Queensland's accumulated deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund since 1859 is only $769,000; and (3) congratulates the Premier of Queensland for his excellent management of Queensland's economy which makes it the most progressive and successful State in mainland Australia. Mr BILNEY(Kingston) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Government on its energetic, imaginative and businesslike approach to the promotion of the tourist industry in Australia, with all the potential that industry has for the generation of thousands of permanent and productive jobs for Australians; (2) notes with pleasure the agreement of prominent Australians such as Mr Paul Hogan to put their considerable talents, free of charge, at the disposal of the Australian Government to assist in the promotion of this important industry; and (3) expresses its confidence that these efforts will result in the achievement of the Government's objective of doubling tourist visitors to Australia by the 1988 bicentennial year. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Tangey (Mr Gear). Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Government to develop a program of action and designate 1984 as the year of small business in Australia especially in view of the IBIS Corporate Services Pty Ltd report showing the importance of small and medium business in generating current and future employment. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That in view of the fact that the Queensland Government has Supply until mid- December 1983, the Prime Minister, the Queensland Leader of the Opposition, and the Queensland Branch of the Australian Labor Party be condemned for- (1) perpetrating false statements in relation to Queensland's economic stability; (2) attempting to fabricate a constitutional crisis on the same issue; (3) attempting to embroil the office of the Queensland Governor in political affairs ; and (4) unnecessarily causing concern amongst Queensland Government employees, suppliers and contractors. Mr SPEAKER —Order! One of the responsibilities of the Speaker is to determine whether notices of motion are in order. I heard so few words of the last one that I am not sure whether or not it was in order. Mr Ian Cameron —On a point of order, Mr Speaker, it is a top notice of motion. I can assure you that it is well and truly in order. Mr SPEAKER —I accept the honourable member's assurance. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Queensland Government on its distribution of electricity to 99 per cent of Queenslanders at a price less than the capital city prices of Melbourne and Perth; (2) endorses its policy of equalisation of domestic power to all areas of the State over the next three years; (3) condemns the Queensland State Opposition Leader for his unsubstantiated claims made in connection with power industry staff; and (4) notes his blatant politicking in promising electricity rebates at a time when the Commonwealth Government has broken so many of its own election promises , particularly, the reduction in the price of fuel. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Prime Minister for expanding the avenues of direct access by Australian women to the Government; (2) notes the intention of Australian Labor Party female members of parliament to encourage participation in policy making by all women both in women's organisations and out, in the work place and in the home; and (3) acknowledges the past work by the National Women's Advisory Council and other women's organisations in Australia. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Minister for Health for introducing a national health scheme which will cause several Victorian bush nursing hospitals to close; and (2) calls on the Minister for Health to reassess the effect of Medicare on bush nursing hospitals to ensure their survival. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. In light of his statements to the House last Thursday and the Prime Minister's subsequent Press statement regarding the Minister's financial affairs, will the Minister now withdraw the unfounded allegations of impropriety made by him under the cover of parliamentary privilege last year against a number of reputable and law abiding Australians such as Mr John Reid, who, incidentally, continues to serve the Government of which the honourable gentleman is a member with considerable commitment and distinction? Mr DAWKINS —I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has now decided to come out of the closet and get involved in this matter rather than hide behind one of his more disreputable back benchers as he did last week. Since the election I have met Mr Reid on, I think, three occasions. I was delighted to respond to an invitation from Mr Reid to open a branch of Barclay's finance organisation in Canberra a couple of weeks ago. I was also delighted to respond to an invitation from Mr Reid to attend the Bathurst 1000. I was also delighted to be able to address a meeting, which Mr Reid attended, of the Committee for Economic Development of Australia in Sydney. On two of those occasions I raised with him the contents of his report in relation to Public Service reform. As a result of those discussions he has indicated his perfectly happy preparedness to co-operate with the Government as it develops its White Paper on Public Service reform. Any outstanding matters that might exist between me and Mr Reid I think are matters for Mr Reid and me to deal with, and indeed they have been addressed . I was caused to reflect on other people last year. The Leader of the Opposition and those behind him know that the affairs of one of those people, Denis Byrne Horgan, were investigated thoroughly by a Mr von Doussa, who was appointed by the former Treasurer to investigate those matters. I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would like the full contents of the von Doussa report tabled and the commentary of both the former Attorney-General and the former Minister for Finance on it. If they would like those documents tabled, perhaps they would indicate their preparedness and I am sure I could discuss accommodating their wishes with the Prime Minister. Mr HUMPHREYS —Can the Prime Minister indicate whether the Premier of Tasmania will sign the interim financial agreement with the Commonwealth, following cessation of works on the Gordon below Franklin Dam, before or after the Premier travels to Queensland to campaign for the National Party? Mr HAWKE —I spoke to the Premier of Tasmania on the phone on Friday. He indicated that he had signed the agreement and sent it off to me with what he said were a couple of minor amendments. That letter, with his signature, arrived in my office yesterday. I am having it examined and I am informed that there are only a couple of minor amendments. He signed it on the basis that he believed it would expedite matters. We will examine those minor amendments, which he referred to. I am certain that the matter will be very quickly sorted out. Mr Speaker, you will recall the answer I gave in this House last week in which I contrasted the very constructive approach of the Premier of Tasmania in this matter with the attitude of the Tasmanian representatives in this House. I drew to the attention of the House the comments that the Premier made in respect of the Tasmanian representatives, whose conduct he deplored. He pointed out that all they were doing was seeking to gain cheap publicity and that they were ignoring the real interests of the State they purported to represent. The question refers to the activities of the Premier of Tasmania in relation to Queensland. That is a very interesting reference. It is somewhat strange that the Premier of Tasmania is going to Queensland to work on behalf of the Government of Queensland, because the actions of the Government of Queensland and the Premier of that State are in very marked contrast to his attitude and actions. Whereas, faced with a real problem in Tasmania, the Premier of Tasmania has attempted to work constructively with this Government, the action and attitude of the Premier of Queensland are in stark contrast. I ask the House to take note of three events. Mr Anthony —You were supposed to be building the Burdekin Dam. Mr HAWKE —I am glad that the right honourable member asked about the Burdekin Dam. I will give him the Burdekin Dam until it is coming out of his ears. The Leader of the National Party should not have tempted me on the Burdekin Dam, but with great reluctance I will take the bait. I contrast the attitude of the Premier of Tasmania with the attitude of the Premier of Queensland. I give three examples. In this House on 11 April we held the National Economic Summit Conference which involved representatives of business, large and small, representatives from all States and representatives from the major Australian organisations. Every one of them, in the spirit of trying to bring Australia together, indicated his support for the communique except for one man, the Premier of Queensland. We then set up the Economic Planning Advisory Council, again with representatives from all the great organisations of Australia. I offered the Premier of Queensland and the Government of Queensland the opportunity of being represented on the Economic Planning Advisory Council, and the Premier refused. I now refer to the next example and hope members of the Opposition do not seek to get any joy or comfort out of it. Under the great program of this Government $300m was made available by way of a great community employment program directed to try to secure employment for the most disadvantaged amongst the unemployed. Every State in Australia has set up the machinery to co-operate with the Commonwealth Government so that we can get these projects going to create employment for the most disadvantaged amongst our unemployed. The sum of $41m is available for the State of Queensland to get projects going to provide work for the unemployed, and Queensland is the only State to this point which has not set up the co-operative machinery. That shows the concern which the Premier of Queensland has in this matter. I am not surprised that Mr Gray, the Liberal Premier of Tasmania, is going to Queensland to campaign for the National Party because, after all, he knows the total chaos of the Liberal Party. The decision of the Liberal Premier of Tasmania to campaign against the Liberal Party in Queensland has caused the Leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland to designate the Liberal Premier of Tasmania as a traitor. That is the state of play at the moment in that once great Party, the Liberal Party. The Leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland referred to the Leader of the Liberal Party in Tasmania as a traitor. Mr White was not satisfied simply with describing the Leader of the Liberal Party in Tasmania as a traitor. Today he added somewhat to his observations on the subject. I am sure that members of the House-at least the great majority of them -would like to hear exactly what Mr White has had to say about Mr Gray. He said: Mr Gray is disloyal to the Liberals and is out of step with Party officials in his own State. That statement is very mild. He went on to say something more: Liberal Premier Robin Gray is a bad apple from Tasmania . . . Can honourable members think of anything worse? He is a bad apple from Tasmania! I assure members of the House that Mr White had not finished and went on to say: and not welcome in Queensland where he has agreed to campaign in support of Joh Bjelke-Petersen's National Party for the State election on Saturday week. I will not meet him when he comes. He can't expect any support from the Liberals in Queensland. He's not welcome. He then went on to state: It's about time Mr Gray got his priorities right. As far as we are concerned he is the bad apple from the bottom of the political barrel. I can see that the Leader of the Opposition is fascinated by this exposition. I assure the Leader of the Opposition that Mr White went a bit further-I cherish this statement; it is very good-and said: He is an unknown man from a forgotten State . . . This was said by a Liberal-a Liberal Leader! Mr Speaker, you can see the state of total chaos of the Liberal Party in relation not only to Queensland but also generally. While I have been speaking with great warmth about Mr White and Mr Gray, it is no surprise, I suppose, that their relationship is in this state because the Leader of the Opposition in this House does not even know the name of the Liberal Party Leader in Queensland. Honourable members-Oh! Mr HAWKE —He does not. I want to enlighten honourable members and to show what a state of chaos he is in. Mr Peacock —You used that line in Queensland. Mr HAWKE —It was good there and it will be good here. The Leader of the Opposition in this place went to Queensland to campaign for the Liberal Party. It shows what a bad state the Liberal Party in Queensland is in when it has him going there. Nevertheless, he went there. He was walking around the Brisbane Mall and he said to one of the five or six people in attendance there: 'I want to introduce you to the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Gerry White'. I want to get the record straightened out. It is not Gerry White. It is Terry White and gerrymander! Is it any wonder that this conservative group is in such absolute disarray? It is no wonder that on 22 October the people of Queensland will turn to the only party which can give them stable government, the Australian Labor Party. Mr TUCKEY —Can the Minister for Finance assure the House that he has not been involved in any way with bottom of the harbour tax transactions? Mr Gear —Can you? Mr TUCKEY —Yes. Mr DAWKINS —I suppose I have been involved to one extent; that is, to introduce into this House legislation which would recoup the money which was stolen from the Australian taxpayers by, amongst others, members influential in the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party. As far as my personal conduct is concerned, absolutely no. While I am on my feet, I might just indicate that the honourable member for O' Connor became a member of this place with an impeccable record, not only in terms of his commercial and personal practice but also, of course, in terms of his political practice. I should advise the House that, prior to the 1974 State election, one Wilson Tuckey approached the Australian Labor Party seeking preselection for the State seat of Gascoyne. Mr Tuckey —That's a bloody lie! You wrote your own record. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The Minister will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —When the House comes to order, if you are raising a point of order you will be called. I call the honourable member for O'Connor on a point of order. Mr Tuckey —I have a point of order that is a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —No. The honourable member for O'Connor will- Mr Tuckey —I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —You will resume your seat. You are allowed to raise a point of order . You are aware when personal explanations can be made. I call the Minister for Finance. Mr DAWKINS —One Wilson Tuckey approached the then State Secretary of the Australian Labor Party seeking endorsement for the State seat of Gascoyne which covers the town of Carnarvon. However, the Labor Party thought long and hard about this application and then treated it with the derision that it deserved. However, this Wilson Tuckey character was not satisfied with that rebuff. He then approached the putative National Alliance, which was a combination of the then Country Party of Western Australia and the Democratic Labor Party. This was going to be the restoration of the Country Party's and DLP's fortunes in Western Australia. It survived one election, just long enough for Wilson Tuckey to be endorsed and to stand for the seat-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Minister for Finance that it is still required that the honourable member be referred to by his electorate. Mr DAWKINS —I am sorry, the honourable member for O'Connor. Anyway, he ran a long third. Having pursued those two political options, he then, of course, sought preselection for the seat of O'Connor for the Liberal Party prior to the 1980 election. It is worth noting that even that action was not entirely without event, because when he made his application he indicated on his nomination form that the then Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, was prepared to supply a character reference for him. The Premier objected violently to that suggestion; so the now member for O'Connor had to resubmit his application. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I hope the Minister is rounding off his answer because it is hard to see its relevance. Mr DAWKINS —I am. Finally, he was endorsed by the Liberal Party to stand for the seat of O'Connor, the most immediate result of which was that the entire Esperance branch of the Liberal Party resigned. Mr BEDDALL —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce. What is the Government's attitude to the recent announcement by General Motors-Holden's Ltd that it intends to close its Acacia Ridge assembly plant in Queensland? Can the Minister inform the House of the effects this decision will have on employment? Mr JOHN BROWN —Of course the Government is deeply disturbed by the decision of GMH to close the Acacia Ridge plant of its assembly line. We are worried about the effects that will have on employment in Brisbane. I think it is fair to give credit to the honourable member for Fadden for the great interest he has shown in this matter and also his great distress about the unemployment which will thus be foisted upon members of his electorate. Mr Peacock —Do you mean that the Prime Minister will associate with GMH at the Bathurst 1000 but not with GMH at the Acacia Ridge 1000? Mr JOHN BROWN —Without the intervention of the honourable gentleman on the other side, I would like to answer the question. It is much more relevant to national issues. The Government, of course, is gratified in part that the decision to close Acacia Ridge is not an immediate one and that the closure will take place over a fairly long period. Over that period, the Government will strive to ensure that maximum alternative employment opportunities are available to people who are affected by that closure. The Government has had discussions with GMH about the closure and we understand that GMH is making every effort to see that people affected by the closure of the Acacia Ridge plant are given an opportunity to avail themselves of employment in Dandenong and Elizabeth, the areas where the Queensland assembly plant is about to be relocated. Of course, the Government is pleased about that. It should be emphasised that GMH over recent years has suffered very large losses on its operations. The Government understands the need for some restructuring and rationalisation of GMH's operations within Australia. I note the company's view that the planned restructure of its operations will result in increased efficiency and competitiveness. One pleasing aspect is the company's stated commitment to remain as a major manufacturer within Australia. That commitment and the planned restructure would give cause for some optimism as to the future of secure employment for people who are now involved in the motor car industry. I am very confident that that optimism will not be misplaced and that the future of the motor car industry under the administration of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, who made certain announcements along those lines last Thursday, will come to fruition as history unfolds. Mr HOWARD —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Finance, is supplementary to that asked by the honourable member for O'Connor. Is it a fact that the company called Coomel Pty Ltd, in which the honourable gentleman had a beneficial interest, was a shareholder in Metro Industries Ltd at the time of the sale by Metro of a subsidiary called Treamog Pty Ltd? Does this mean that Coomel and, consequent upon its liquidation, its shareholders, which include the Minister, are subject to the provisions of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act, commonly known as the bottom of the harbour legislation passed by this Parliament last year? Will the honourable gentleman's liability under that Act be limited only by the extent of the shareholding of Coomel in Metro Industries and the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation? Is it not also a fact that the Minister may be in a similar position under the so-called recoupment legislation now before this Parliament? Did he as a Minister declare his potential liability under that legislation to the Prime Minister or the Parliament before voting on it? Finally, do the descriptions used by the Minister and some of his colleagues regarding people affected by the 1982 legislation apply to him and his conduct? If not, why not? Mr DAWKINS —I am delighted that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised the question of Metro Industries. He will recall that the Chairman of Metro Industries was Denis Byrne Horgan, the chairman of the Liberal Party of Australia's finance committee in Western Australia. It was Denis Byrne Horgan who, whilst he was Chairman of Metro Industries, arranged for the sale of a number of Metro subsidiaries to the well known tax avoidance representatives Brian Maher and John Patrick Donnelly. One does not have to look any further than the McCabe-Lafranchi report to find the evidence for this. Last year the then Liberal Government became particularly concerned about this matter and, as I indicated earlier, appointed Mr von Doussa to report on it. Mr von Doussa, in his report, stated: In those transactions where there was a taxation advantage Horgan's intention was to avoid paying tax. The only advantage that Mr Horgan had over every other-- Mr Spender —You are very shaky; you are avoiding the question. Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member should bide his time. The only advantage that Mr Horgan had over every other shareholder in Metro Industries was that he got rid of his shares when they reached their peak market price. The McCabe- Lafranchi report revealed that six Metro subsidiaries were sold with untaxed current year profits. Treamog Ltd had untaxed profits exceeding $5m. Of course, Mr Horgan did quite well out of those. Having masterminded the sale of the Metro subsidiaries, hundreds of other Metro shareholders were left facing a $4m tax bill as a result of the legislation which was introduced into the Parliament last year by the then Treasurer and now Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The shareholders of that company-those people who hold shares in Metro Industries- are currently receiving assessments because the current controllers of Metro Industries have indicated that they are not prepared to pay the tax assessment that they have received from the Commissioner of Taxation. Hundreds and hundreds of Western Australian shareholders-I think some 1,800 on the last count-have now received tax assessments, yet they do not have the advantage that Mr Horgan had. Mr Horgan, having sold his shares at the time when they were at a peak, managed to cream off a huge profit in respect of his own holdings in that company. That opportunity did not exist for other shareholders. The remaining shareholders in Metro Industries, who now find that their shares have been more than halved in value from the peak at which they were when Mr Horgan bailed out, are now receiving tax assessments under the legislation which was passed by the former Government. As to any prior holdings which the company of which I was a shareholder may have had, I have no idea whether there was at any time-I can certainly say that there is not now-- Mr Howard —Will you let the Taxation Commissioner certify to that as you demanded of John Reid? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr DAWKINS —I wish the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would calm down. He had an opportunity last week to get involved in this matter but he declined to do so , as did his leader. As to the question of fact about whether there was ever a holding of shares by that particular company at any particular time, of course I will be happy to find out and let the honourable member know. Mr LINDSAY —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of concern expressed by cane growers with respect to the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission's draft report on the sugar industry? Mr KERIN —Cane growers in Queensland and New South Wales, but particularly in north Queensland, are concerned by the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission in its draft report on the sugar industry, as would be anyone who had some knowledge and understanding of the sugar industry and who had any sympathy with the plight of sugar growers in their present economic situation. But I am pleased to report to the House that cane growers are not concerned by the Government's attitude. The Government, from the Prime Minister down, has made its position very clear on this question. It was reinforced in Cairns at the weekend. The cane growers are most concerned by the Queensland National Party-and the National Party of Australia in general-and its distortions, misrepresentation, mistruths and gobbledegook and lack of knowledge of the industry. The tired old flabby Government that has Queensland and its economy in such a mess is spreading a lot of nonsense that indicates its great lack of knowledge of the sugar industry. This quite amazes the sugar growers. To coin a saying, if you look like a crow, fly like a crow and squawk like a crow, you will get shot like a crow. That is what will happen in northern Queensland in particular on 22 October. Over the last couple of weeks I have spoken with the Queensland Cane Growers Council, the Australian Sugar Producers Association Ltd, CSR Ltd, the Proprietary Sugar Millers Association Pty Ltd and the Co-operative Sugar Millers Association Ltd. I have spoken with sugar producers in Mackay, Cairns, Herbert River in Ingham, Bundaberg and Ayr in company with my colleagues the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) and the honourable member for Herbert. They all know exactly what the Australian Government's attitude is on this question. They are not the least bit concerned about our stand at all. What they are concerned about is not just the nonsense and mistruths being spread by the Queensland National Party but the fact that there are indications that that Party does not understand what it is all about. Statements have been attributed to members of the opposite side which quite clearly indicate that they do not understand what is involved in the International Sugar Agreement-both the existing one and the one which we are trying to negotiate. They are very worried about some of the statements made by the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries. I will not go through the speech I made the other night during the adjournment debate. But just to give honourable members some flavour, I mention a Press release I have here from the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries. It states: Mr Ahern, said . . . the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Bowen, the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Senator Walsh-- he was not really the Minister involved at all- and the Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr Hayden, all had indicated that the Government strongly supported a need to protectionism for Australia's primary industries. 'Three very senior Federal Government Ministers are advocating exactly what's contained in the IAC report,' Mr Ahern said. There is no way one can read the recommendations in that IAC draft report and say that they allude in any way at all to protectionism. Quite the contrary; the report proposes deregulation. The Queensland National Party cannot read. It just does not understand what is in the report. The Queensland Minister also referred to a speech by the Foreign Minister. He said that the Foreign Minister had referred to what he called 'the over-protected geriatric insulation' applying to the primary industry sectors. First of all, the quotation is not accurate. Secondly, when the Minister was using words roughly of that nature he was referring to secondary industries. The Queensland Minister for Primary Industry has so taken the comments by my colleague the honourable member for Leichhardt out of context that the Queensland Minister's remarks are actionable, defamatory and-I know I am not allowed to use a certain word-very mistruthful. I have sheaves of telexes here which clearly indicate that the Queensland National Party and the National Party in general do not understand the sugar industry. Cane growers are most worried about the latest bit of nonsense, that which came through this morning-a call by the Queensland Minister for the Federal Government to increase the domestic sugar price by $40. Again, he just does not seem to understand that there is a formula. The price was increased on 1 July of this year. When I told the Minister about three weeks before the increase was coming through that it was coming through, he immediately raced off and put out a Press release saying that there would be no increase. The main thing cane growers are worried about, of course, is what the honourable member for Dawson stated in an article published on page 6 of the Daily News on 2 August 1983. The article is headed 'New call for Ord sugar'. The cane growers are very worried about that. The honourable member for Dawson has sought to make an explanation. The cane growers are not quite sure what he said and are really worried about why he did not bother correcting it until we twitted him about it last week. Again, this is another indication that the National Party, even at the Federal level, does not understand the sugar industry. Mr HOWARD —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and follows his declaration of ignorance about the shareholdings of the company Coomel Pty Ltd. Is it a fact that the Minister was a director of that company for 10 years? Did that period of directorship cover the period- Mr SPEAKER —Order! At least two questions that have been asked today have been out of order because they have been addressed to a Minister about details of his personal affairs and not about matters of his administration. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reflects on it he will find he is addressing the question to the wrong person. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think you would acknowledge that the fact that the Prime Minister tabled a declaration of ministerial pecuniary interests, and a motion was passed by this House which refers the question of other members' pecuniary interests to a Standing Orders Committee for consideration, changes the character of those private members' interests. It is true that in the ordinary course, prior to that motion, there is little doubt that your ruling would prevail, but I suggest that in the light of the declaration of the pecuniary interests the matter is now not the same and that the question is quite in order. Mr SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the National Party goes to two points. He refers, first of all, to the declaration of pecuniary interests by Ministers, which is a matter for the Prime Minister to deal with. Secondly, he mentions the referral by the House of such questions about declaration by honourable members of their pecuniary interest to the Standing Orders Committee. A decision has not yet been made on that matter and will not be made in the House until such time as the Standing Orders Committee deals with it. Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, in view of your ruling, I will ask the question of the Prime Minister: Was the honourable gentleman aware of the shareholding of Coomel Pty Ltd in Metro Industries Ltd when he made his statement over the weekend that he was totally satisfied that, so far as he was concerned, the Minister was clean in taxation matters? Mr HAWKE —Obviously the answer to the honourable member's question is that I was not aware of the shareholdings of the company. The clear position here is- Mr McVeigh —You are in trouble. Mr HAWKE —I am in no trouble, nor is the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance made it quite clear that he was prepared to examine the facts. I have no doubt that once he has examined the facts he will be quite prepared to make those facts available to the House. Dr KLUGMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. I preface my question by quoting, with approval, some remarks by Mr Ian Barker, QC, appearing for Mr Combe yesterday. Mr Barker said: If I were looking for the ideal spy as perceived by the KGB in Australia, I would be looking for someone . . . in the bureaucracy, either a senior bureaucrat or someone close to a senior bureaucrat, someone . . . vulnerable to blackmail because of some pressing financial problem, some sexual involve- ment . . . or who would be prepared to co-operate with the KGB because of an ideological commitment to the communist cause. In view of the fact that highly classified information from the departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs has repeatedly appeared in the National Times, is the Minister concerned about the apparent existence of such a person, especially in view of Mr Combe's assurances to Mr Ivanov that the paper's editor and a senior staff member are completely reliable as far as the Soviet Union is concerned. What is the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation doing about this, or is the old boys network protecting senior officers in Commonwealth departments as MI5 did in the United Kingdom? Mr SCHOLES —I am obviously concerned about the leakage and publication of classified information. Whilst it may make good reading, it is not in the best interests of the nation, nor is it in the best interests of either side of the Parliament. I do not think I am in a position to give an answer to the remainder of the question except to say that I am not responsible for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or the Australian Secret Intelligence Service , and cannot indicate who was responsible for the leaks in the National Times. I am quite confident that those organisations which are under my control as Minister for Defence will be reported upon favourably by Mr Justice Hope when he completes his inquiry into that part of his terms of reference as royal commissioner. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is clear from the Prime Minister's answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that a full and open disclosure was not made to him by the Minister for Finance. Will he, therefore, obtain that full and open disclosure from the Minister now? Will he obtain from the Commissioner of Taxation a statement setting out the liability of the shareholding of Coomel Pty Ltd in Metro Industries Ltd? Mr HAWKE —Before I say anything in answer to this question, let me say that I am appalled by the unbridled hypocrisy of the people on the other side of the House . This Government has taken the first step towards the disclosure of a situation which can reveal the possibility of any conflict between the public responsibility of Ministers and their private interests. We have taken that historic step. Mr Howard —You did not say that about John Reid. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Prime Minister to resume his seat. Mr Howard —You slandered John Reid. Mr HAWKE —I have not slandered John Reid. Mr SPEAKER —When the House comes to order I will call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I am sorry, Mr Speaker. As I have said, this Government has taken the historic step of making sure that there is a public disclosure so that there can be no possibility of a conflict between the public responsibility of Ministers and their private interests. In taking that step we have met with nothing but cynicism and opposition from those on the other side of the House. The sincerity and integrity of those on the other side of the House, in pressing these questions, will be able to be judged when they show a preparedness to expose publicly their private interests. In respect of the question that has now been asked of me by the Leader of the Opposition, I have no reason to question in any way the integrity of the Minister for Finance. I repeat what I said in answer to the previous question: I believe that the Minister for Finance will address himself to the questions that have been asked. I have confidence that, having addressed himself to those questions, he will fully apprise the House of the situation. Mr KENT —Is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware that Croatian House, opened by a former Minister, Mr Macphee, in Whitehall Street, Footscray, flies the Ustashi flag and carries the name of Dr Ante Pavelic on a large inscription on the facade? Can the Minister inform the House whether Dr Ante Pavelic was the fuhrer of the wartime puppet state of Croatia, installed by the nazis? Was he the Ustashi leader who, according to Sir Fitzroy MacLean, a personal emissary of Sir Winston Churchill to Yugoslavia during the Second World War, decreed that Croatia must be purged not only of Jews and gypsies but also of Serbs, who amounted to one-third of the population? Is this the same Ante Pavelic under whose rule more than 800,000-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hotham is allowed to supply some information in his question to make it intelligible to the Minister. He is using this opportunity to give information rather than seek it. Mr KENT —I am asking: Is it correct that this is the same Ante Pavelic under whose rule more than 800,000 Serbs, Croats, Jews and gypsies were slaughtered in Croatia between 1941 and 1945? Does the Minister consider the inscription on this building to be offensive? If so, would he take up the matter with the Attorney-General to see that the sign is removed? Mr WEST —Yes, I am aware that Croatian House in Victoria displays the coat of arms of one Dr Ante Pavelic. The House will be aware that in World War II Pavelic was the leader of the State of Croatia set up under the connivance of the Axis powers. I suppose honourable members will be aware also that many people of Yugoslav descent who hold permanent residence and citizenship in Australia find this completely offensive, and I can understand that. I understand that the Ethnic Affairs Commission of Victoria has informed the Croatian Australian Association that this display causes offence to many Australians, but the Association's requests and information have not been to any effect. I do not approve of the public flaunting of former Axis collaborators' coats of arms within Australia. I believe that does cause division and that it is very negative and backward looking. I think the majority of public opinion supports my view. However, I cannot and will not take authoritarian action in this regard because the Government believes in the free expression of political views within Australia, providing that that free expression creates no risk of political violence or terrorism within Australia. I think the best way for this matter to be resolved is for those people who are displaying the emblem of the former State of Croatia to realise that they do not have public approval for it, that public opinion is against them and that they should turn away from old conflicts and negative behaviour. I ask that the supporters of Dr Pavelic take those views into consideration. Mr FISHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I refer the Minister to the Government's stated commitment to take action to inhibit the promotion of cigarettes. As sports sponsorship is in the vicinity of $50m annually, with $10m being provided from tobacco company support , does the Minister believe that individual sports should retain the right to select or reject any sponsor? Does the Minister agree that a ban on advertising a legally sold product is a form of censorship and is a more dangerous practice within the community than voluntary smoking? Mr JOHN BROWN —The Government does not have a stated position on this matter and I guess it is something we will face up to in the course of time. At this stage we certainly do not have a stated position. But, with reference to the honourable member's question, I guess I should put my position, which is this- Mr Burr —Ha, ha! Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member may laugh. If he has a position, why does he not put it publicly? I am game to put mine. He is not. My position is quite simple. Whilst I deplore the smoking of cigarettes because I happen to believe that they are a product that has a very deleterious effect on people's health-I deplore any child I see with a cigarette-it is my view that, while the Government receives something like $800m from excise on tobacco products, it would be very hypocritical for us to suggest that this product, out of which the Government gains so much revenue, is too dangerous to be advertised. Revenue from tobacco companies which goes to sporting organisations is about $15m. I have no fear that, if advertising were banned and tobacco companies took their sponsorship away from sport, that amount could be replaced in some other fashion . I think a couple of cents more excise on a packet of cigarettes would raise $ 15m fairly adequately. So, my criticism is not about the amount of revenue that goes to sporting organisations. My concern is that it would be hypocritical in the extreme for any government to decide that advertising is dangerous when it relates to a product from which it receives so much revenue. Mr SPEAKER —I present, pursuant to statute, the report of the Auditor-General for year 1982-83, together with certificates of exempt accounts in respect of prescribed departments and organisations, accompanied by the Minister for Finance's statements. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General for the year 1982-83, and (2) That the paper be printed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978, I present a report prepared by ASTEC on the operation of national research granting schemes. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on Australia's population forecasts for 1983-84 with projections for selective years to 2021 and Australia 's population forecasts for 1983 to 1986 with projections for selective years to 2021 produced by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr KLUGMAN —Yes, by deletion. Mr SPEAKER —I will hear the honourable member. Dr KLUGMAN —It is a very short explanation. On 26 September, the Sydney Morning Herald published a letter written by me dealing with the question of having more members of parliament in which I raised a number of issues. I think relevant final sentences were deleted for reasons which may or may not be significant. I do not want to appear paranoid. The sentences would have read: Parliament is (not equally) divided into the simplistics beloved by most of the media who know all the solutions and those who are aware that 'solutions' often lead to more problems. I support a potentially significant increase in the latter. Then followed my signature. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY —During Question Time, the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) stated that on an occasion I sought endorsement by the State Labor Party-I presume of Western Australia-as a candidate for the seat of Gascoyne. Firstly, I reject that statement. I think it is incumbent on the Minister, in making such a statement, to do as I have been requesting in relation to other matters and produce some facts. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member may correct the misrepresentation but may not debate it. Mr TUCKEY —Fine, but that is basically what I am doing now. The situation is that, prior to the State election to which the Minister referred, a Mr Danny Norton had held the seat of Gascoyne for Labor for many years, and he announced his retirement. At that time I was President of the Liberal Party in the town of Carnarvon. We, as a party, were very confident of winning that seat. I was proved correct. It was won by the Liberal Party with an absolute majority. I was anxious to stand-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now dealing with matters where he has not been personally misrepresented. I suggest he gets to the point of correction. Mr TUCKEY —I am doing that but in my statement I am detailing the supporting facts to illustrate how I was misrepresented. Giving the facts of the circumstances is the only way in which I can demonstrate to this House that, in fact, I have been misrepresented. I think the Labor Party was of a similar view to my Party at the time. In fact, members of that Party, in their concern, approached me, and asked me to seek endorsement for the Labor Party, which I rejected. I guess somebody might have been sufficiently anxious to have written to a State secretary, whom I do not even know, and whom I doubt I have ever met, saying 'I think we can get the best prospect in Carnarvon'. Never was I a member of the Labor Party. Had I sought this endorsement, presumably the Labor Party would have had an application form to produce in this place. The other matter on which the Minister spoke was related to my endorsement by the Liberal Party for the seat of O'Connor. The honourable member made a suggestion in relation to Sir Charles Court whom I used as a referee in my application. Mr Speaker, I was of the opinion at that time that it would insult a person to inquire whether one could cite him as a referee. My own view is that one would use his name, a confidential inquiry would be made and one would rest on what he had to say. However, in support of the situation in contrast to the Minister's statement, I can produce for your viewing at reasonably short notice when I return to this place a video film of Sir Charles Court eulogising me at the opening of Local Government House. I imagine that that would reject that matter. The Esperance branch of the Liberal Party did not resign on my being endorsed. There was dissatisfaction among a couple of the persons there. In fact , in the 1980 election, out of five candidates, I received over 50 per cent of the primary votes cast in Esperance. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr MACPHEE —The question by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) and the answer by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), taken together, could, I suggest, be read to imply that I sanctioned efforts by certain Australians of Croatian origin to have a separatist approach and to continue old grievances held between former Croatian citizens. Mr Speaker, I put it to you and to the House as a fact that when I opened Croatian House at Footscray I did so only after taking the most careful soundings in the Australian community. I was satisfied that Croatian House would be administered by people who had Australia's best interests at heart and who would not seek to perpetuate old grievances. The speech I gave at that opening was almost the same as the answer given by the Minister to the House today except that I did not refer to the coat of arms. I was not aware of the coat of arms to which the honourable member has referred. I toured the building. If the coat of arms was there at that time I was not aware of it. I endorse entirely what the Minister has said and I believe that all Australians would take the same approach. I certainly reject any suggestion that I endorsed any separatist movements. I wish to say one more thing. The honourable member himself came to me on behalf of the Yugoslav Welfare Society asking for a grant-in-aid to match that which has been given to Croatian House at Footscray. I gave that grant-in-aid precisely because I understood the strong feelings in the Australian Yugoslav community. Mr KENT(Hotham) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr KENT —In my question I stated as a fact that the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, opened the Croatian House. I am now informed that the Ustashi flag and the inscription of Dr Ante Pavelic were not on the building at the time of the opening. I did not intend to imply that the honourable member for Balaclava ever supported the fascist separatist Croatian movement. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —Mr Speaker, I do not wish to make a personal explanation but I seek your indulgence to add to an answer that I gave earlier. Mr SPEAKER —I grant that indulgence. The Minister may complete his answer. Mr WEST —With regard to what the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, just said, I would like the House to understand that I accept what he just said. There was never any intention on my part in replying to the question to imply that there was any improper motive or behaviour on his part. I simply draw attention to the content of my answer. I implicitly believe that the people down there should take note of what this House thinks. Assent to the following Bills reported: Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill 1983 Public Service Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill 1983 Mr SPEAKER —I present the following report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House: Report relating to proposed works in the parliamentary zone. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the report be printed. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(3.46) —I do not intend to delay the House but, in view of the circumstances now established in front of Parliament House, I ask the Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen) about his future intention. Does this report embrace those works, as I understand the Act requires? Mr Lionel Bowen —I have not seen the report yet. I will look at it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Warringah ( Mr MacKellar) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The developing crisis in Australia's relations with ASEAN because of the decision of ASEAN to postpone the Australian-ASEAN forum meeting in protest about Australia's policy towards Vietnam and its occupation of Cambodia. 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 MacKELLAR(Warringah)(3.47) —All honourable members will have seen Press reports of last week concerning the developing problems between the Association of South East Asian Nations and Australia over the policy to be adopted in dealing with Vietnam and its continued occupation of Kampuchea. They will also have seen reports of the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) denying any serious difficulties, and they will have read now the statements of explicit concern about Australia's policy by the Singapore Foreign Minister and the Thai Foreign Minister. We have now reached a stage when ASEAN has been forced to exhibit its public disavowal of Australia's policy. ASEAN has now sought a postponement of the next meeting of the Australian-ASEAN Forum. This is a most unwelcome and a most significant development. The misunderstandings that are prevalent are having an unfavourable effect. Media supporters of the Government are now taking sides against ASEAN without any understanding of the issues. One even accused ASEAN of conducting a disinformation campaign. This is both gratuitous and mischievous. It amounts, in the final analysis, to a developing crisis for which the Government must take the responsibility by appearing to give greater credence to Vietnam's interests than to those of ASEAN. The Minister may try to excuse his contribution to such undesirable outcomes- undesirable for ASEAN and undesirable for Australia. He may like to say that ASEAN is to blame for the public exposure of the differences, but he will have difficulty in discounting the contribution made by the clumsy contradictions of his own remarks and diplomacy. Much of the trouble stems from the efforts made by the Labor Government to attempt to implement a resolution of the 1982 Conference of the Labor Party, which called for aid to be resumed to Vietnam and , inter alia, for Australia to encourage a dialogue between ASEAN and Indo-China . Honourable members will know that ASEAN put in a vigorous protest at the proposition that nations such as Australia should resume aid to Vietnam, while leaving Vietnam in occupation of Kampuchea. The Government at this stage has backed off implementing that aspect of the resolution, but the uncertainty remains as to how long it will continue to do so. But the central part of the concern is somewhat more deep-seated, and it relates to the suggestion flowing from the Government that ASEAN pursues a rigid approach to Vietnam. The Foreign Minister has based a whole diplomacy on the presumption that Vietnam's continued occupation of Kampuchea is more the result of international hostility against Vietnam than it is the result of preferred and long standing Vietnamese policies. He argues that the policy of diplomatic pressure on Vietnam has left Vietnam only the more exposed to Soviet influence. The Opposition agrees that the Soviet Union's presence in South East Asia is menacing. It does not agree with the assumption that Vietnam can be induced to take the same view. The Opposition argues that any action by Vietnam which reconciles Vietnam to a process of settlement will minimise the problems of ASEAN but the Opposition does not agree with the mistaken proposition liberally sown abroad and in Australia that ASEAN is pursuing a course which is heedless of the need to create prospects of a dialogue. It is clear that the ALP resolution makes that assumption. It is also clear that the Minister acts on that assumption. It is the dramatisation of that assumption, its uncritical reception in the Australian media, backgrounded by the Minister, and the clumsy diplomacy it entails which has caused ASEAN deep concern, the more so as it has the potential to hurt ASEAN's international reputation. For those tempted by this mischievous nonsense, I refer to a very fine and conciliatory statement. On 21 September last the ASEAN Foreign Ministers issued a joint statement which was called 'An appeal for Kampuchean Independence'. The statement begins: The central issue in the Kampuchean problem is the survival of the Kampuchean nation and the restoration of its independence and sovereignty. The total withdrawal of foreign forces, the exercise of self-determination and national reconciliation, are essential elements for the survival of an independent and sovereign Kampuchea. The continuing foreign occupation of Kampuchea and violation of Kampuchean sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, threaten regional and international peace and security. The statement calls for an intensification of effort by the international community to work for a settlement which will respect the neutral and non- aligned status of Kampuchea, which, 'is essential to the legitimate security concerns of all countries in South East Asia'. The ASEAN Foreign Ministers expressed their concern for the plight of the people, resulting from the ravages of war, and called for the cultural and economic rehabilitation of the country as an essential part of the settlement. The concept of settlement does not involve preferences for any particular political groups. That is important for those who think a settlement inevitably means the restoration of Pol Pot. The act of self-determination will involve internationally supervised elections. I now come to the specifics of the ASEAN position, which are: In consonance with the on-going international efforts, the Foreign Ministers reiterate their willingness to consult with all parties concerned regarding possible initial steps that could be taken in pursuit of a comprehensive political settlement of the Kampuchean problem. These steps could include the following: (A) With regard to the declared intention of Vietnam to conduct partial troop withdrawals, such partial withdrawals should take place on a territorial basis, and could begin with withdrawal from the western-most territory of Kampuchea along the Thai-Kampuchean border. These withdrawals should begin as soon as possible in phases within a definite period to be worked out as part of a comprehensive political settlement. (B) In this context, a ceasefire should be observed in these areas, which should then be constituted as safe areas, for uprooted Kampuchean civilians under UNHCR auspices. In addition, peace keeping forces-observer groups should be introduced to ensure that the withdrawals have taken place and the ceasefire and safe areas are respected. International economic assistance programmes should be encouraged in these safe areas. This ASEAN position is not new and it has a long history. Indeed, I think if the Foreign Minister had been briefed more intensively and had been more circumspect , he would not have let the Australian media run away with the idea that ASEAN had opted for a policy of unfriendliness to Vietnam rather than conciliation. I think it is useful for this House to recall the history of ASEAN's efforts and to get this matter into perspective. Mr Deputy Speaker, last week Australia refused to co-sponsor a most vital United Nations resolution on Kampuchea. The resolution calls for a settlement on the terms of past resolutions on bases outlined in the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' appeal for Kampuchean independence. Behind the resolution is a history of creative and conciliatory diplomacy by ASEAN. After Vietnam invaded Kampuchea in 1979, seven non-aligned nations of the United Nations Security Council sponsored a resolution calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops. The resolution was vetoed by the Soviet Union. Failure of these efforts in the Security Council led to a decision of the General Assembly to refuse to seat the government Vietnam had installed in Phnom Penh. Subsequently countries such as Japan, Denmark, Australia and Britain withdrew economic aid. It is now well known that ASEAN countries emphasise different aspects of the issue, but their resolve in the United Nations reflects a deeply felt consensus, and this resolve has been remarked upon by many observers. ASEAN's international stature has grown remarkably as a result. It remains an important objective of Vietnam to diminish the international stature of ASEAN. It is important when we consider this issue to take that very much into account. What do we gain by diminishing ASEAN's international position? Moreover it is entirely unjustified by any impartial policy analysis. In 1979, as a response to the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea, an ASEAN resolution sponsored by 25 countries, including Australia, called for the withdrawal of foreign forces. It won the support of 91 countries. The resolution authorised the Secretary-General to explore the possibility of an international conference to resolve the problem. Honourable members well know that Vietnamese policy in Vietnam and the military action in Kampuchea created a massive exodus of refugees, causing great problems in the region. Massive humanitarian relief measures were put in place. Vietnam and Vietnam alone shaped the events which led to that situation. In 1980 ASEAN made a special appeal to Vietnam for a settlement. Vietnam rejected the idea of an international conference as a means of reaching an international political settlement and even refused to attend the conference in Geneva called by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to work out proposals for humanitarian relief to Kampuchea. Let that point be noted by all who argue that aid should be given to Vietnam. Although Vietnam had given Thailand repeated assurances that it would not violate the border with Thailand, Vietnam in June 1980 carried out cross-border attacks. ASEAN proposed through the Secretary-General that a demilitarised zone under United Nations supervision be set up along the Kampuchean border. The Vietnamese Foreign Minister told the international Press that Vietnam could live under the situation for '30 years if necessary'. A new resolution on the issue received increased international support, and today 105 nations support that resolution. It is clear that ASEAN has been very active in leaving the door ajar for Vietnam to be conciliatory. The full machinery of the United Nations has been available, and the refusal of Vietnam to use that machinery is Vietnam's decision alone. Does the Government disagree with the basic propositions that the United Nations has accepted as a basis for a settlement? Of course it does not, but it has gone into the issue with pre-conceived ideas which reflect unfavourably on the constructive and prodigious efforts of ASEAN to create the preconditions for a settlement. In August, in this House, when I drew the attention of honourable members to the murmurs of concern in ASEAN, the Minister was very reassuring, and he continues to be. Some of his remarks in that debate could have had unfortunate effects. It makes no sense he said then, to continue to isolate and punish Vietnam. We are left to speculate about the target of those remarks. He quoted the Foreign Minister of Thailand, Mr Siddhi, as supporting the visit to Hanoi. The Premier of China thought so highly of the Foreign Minister's work that he invoked, according to the Minister, a divine blessing. 'I hope the Lord will bless you', said the Premier. With all this good will attending the mission, one is entitled to ask in the light of recent events: What has gone wrong? There are those who say that the origin of the dissatisfaction goes back to the outcome of the Hanoi discussions. It appears that the Vietnamese Foreign Minister was minded not to press for economic aid, but he let it be known that the support and sympathy of the Australian people for Vietnam was even more important. This Australia-Vietnam consensus which emerged from the meeting in Hanoi could help explain certain ASEAN misgivings. Does it also reveal the real reason why the Foreign Minister decided not to co-sponsor the United Nations resolution? Certainly Mr Siddhi whose support was so quotable last August, is not so useful now. He is reported now in the Australian Press as saying that the Foreign Minister, in changing Australia's stand, has deeply hurt ASEAN. He said: We have to consider what has happened and adjust to Australia-if you don't want us as a true friend, we will have to consider that. He also complained that the Foreign Minister, who had talks with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister 'seemed to ignore ASEAN'. 'I am very disappointed in Mr Hayden' , he said. The statement by the Thai Foreign Minister, which the Prime Minister dismissed in his statements over the weekend has now been followed by the postponement of the ASEAN forum meeting. The voice of Singapore's Foreign Minister, who made a very strong statement, has added to the concern. This morning the Foreign Minister in effect said: ''So what? They gave the Fraser Government a bad time''. They will give us a bad time. I point out to the House that the Fraser Government conducted a firm debate on all issues, but no differences were allowed to disturb the fundamental support ASEAN received on basic security issues. We must not forget that the Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea basically affects the security of South East Asia. The fact is that the public loss of confidence in ASEAN about Australia's security posture is without precedent. The Prime Minister will serve the Government's and Australia' s interest well if he takes cognisance of that fact. Thus we are faced with a serious diplomatic problem. Let us look more closely at Vietnam's canditure for conciliation. It has the fourth largest army in the world; it is backed by massive Soviet aid; it has a defence treaty with the Soviet Union, which has access to a major naval facility and airfields; it is run by a small pro-Soviet clique, of which one of the great strongmen is Le Duan , the Secretary General; and it insists on dominating Cambodia and Laos. On this point it should be noted that there are 40,000 Vietnamese troops occupying Laos. If the Vietnamese have a policy of being willing to respect the sovereignty of their neighbours, Laos would be a good place to start. It becomes a poor argument for the Vietnamese to pretend that their occupation of Kampuchea is entirely governed by the presence of Pol Pot forces. Mr Deputy Speaker, we ought to examine proposals for negotiations on their own merit against a background of realism. We must now seriously ask: What are the prospects for a fruitful outcome? At present they appear non-existent. If this is so, it is foolish to give a contrary impression. The best opinion seems to be that Hanoi is not at present seeking a formula for settlement. The diplomacy which has produced uncertainty about Australia as a reliable friend and ally, which has created unprecedented tensions with ASEAN over security issues, is the brainchild of this Government. The Foreign Minister has identified himself in a very special way with this dangerous and ill-thought through project. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(4.02) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to commence my remarks by congratulating the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) for the unusual qualities of substance and relevance in his speech. Unfortunately, where there was relevance there was a lack of substance, and when he fluked some substance it was totally irrelevant. I suggest to the honourable member and to the House that the first thing we should address ourselves to is the terminology of the matter of public importance he has before the House, or at least the key points upon which the whole thrust of the debate is supposed to swing. First, there is supposed to be a developing crisis-not a tension, not a problem, not some sort of difficulty but a developing crisis-and that of course is a very serious matter. Secondly, he referred to certain actions being a ' protest about Australia's policy towards Vietnam and its occupation of Cambodia' . On those two scores it is not unreasonable, therefore, to expect that there would have been a very careful, considered analysis of the facts that substantiate his extravagant claim that there is a developing crisis in the relationship between the Association of South East Asian Nations and Australia. Thirdly, one would have reasonably expected that the honourable member would have presented a series of facts to justify the deficiencies he claims are implicit and explicit in the Government's policy towards Vietnam and its relationship with ASEAN and, more particularly, the co-sponsorship motion. He did none of these things. His speech lightly brushed over these matters. It lacked detail, analysis, relevance and reflection. That is the best the Opposition can do. I ask: How genuine is the honourable member in bringing this matter before the House? More particularly, I ask: Whose interest is he trying to serve? Is he really trying to promote the interests of this country? Does he have a genuine concern about this country and its foreign relations or is he just grabbing at the first political opportunity he can to get a little publicity? His statement was flawed by an extravagance of language and an emptiness of ideas. Let us get some facts straight about the situation in relation to the forthcoming votes concerning resolutions to be put before the United Nations General Assembly. Those resolutions, of course, will relate to the situation in Indo-China. There will be two resolutions before the General Assembly. The first will relate to the credentials of the DK-Democratic Kampuchea-Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. We will abstain from any vote on that matter. There is no contention; that is exactly the position that was adopted after some internal travail on the part of the last conservative Government. Then there will be what is loosely called a statement on the conditions in Kampuchea. We will vote for that resolution. We will not vote against it. We will not abstain. We support the general principles put forward in that resolution. The honourable member did not have the decency to explain that matter to the House, if indeed he understood it. I doubt whether he understood it. Co-sponsorship is an entirely different matter. Let me focus on this matter for a few seconds. I challenge the honourable member to explain to the House why he did not discuss the motion that he talked about, concerning Australia being a co -sponsor, and why he did not discuss the details of this resolution which will be put forward to the United Nations General Assembly this year. He did not even acknowledge that the resolution to go before the General Assembly this year is, in a number of important respects, substantially different from that of last year and of previous years. Did he know? I suggest that he did not. I suggest that all he was concerned about was reading the morning papers which, in one or two instances, had been badly informed, although I have no doubt at all that they faithfully reported what they had been informed. He grabbed those reports and thought: 'Here is a great opportunity to run'. I tell the honourable member to put Australia's interests first and to inform himself before he brings these matters before the House. There are some expressions in respect of the proposed resolutions about the situation in Kampuchea which cause us some concern and preoccupation. I will not put it any more strongly than that. The resolution is different in form from those of previous years. If the honourable member believes he has a case in respect of those matters, why did he not present it? What am I arguing against? What am I debating? He did not put a case about any developing crisis. Where is the evidence of it? He did not present it. He did not present any case to the Parliament in connection with the policy of this Government or the construction of the proposed resolution. We will support that resolution. Let me make it clear where we stand in relation to the situation in Indo-China. We made six points which we have repeatedly put forward. These basic principles are: The acceptance by Vietnam of an appropriate accommodation with its neighbours; the phased withdrawal of Vietnamese forces from Kampuchea; a form of self-determination for Kampuchea; the creation of conditions for the peaceful return to Kampuchea of displaced Cambodians; the acceptance by all parties that Cambodia is neutral, independent and non-aligned; and the restoration of normal relations on the part of Vietnam with China, ASEAN and the West. Because there is a congruency between those important principles we have consistently put forward and the basic principles put forward by ASEAN-not the embellishments that have been presented as a sort of refinement in the presentation of this proposed resolution-we have no trouble at all in voting for the resolution when it comes before the Parliament. It has never been suggested by me that ASEAN is taking a rigid approach, to use the honourable member's terminology, in relation to Vietnam. The situation is quite the contrary. I put, on the first occasion on which I met Mr Thach, the Foreign Minister of Vietnam, in Hanoi back in July, the unambiguous declaration that the ASEAN countries, in their communique at the conclusion of the ASEAN conference at about that time, displayed great flexibility. It will be a matter of interest to the honourable member that when I met Mr Thach again quite recently in New York I put this to him even more firmly. To my pleasant surprise he responded, endorsing that view. He accepts now that the ASEAN countries have displayed a developing flexibility on this matter. I have never sought in any way to dilute the strength of the problem we have ahead of us of trying to get some movement in this area. I have consistently said that it will be extraordinarily difficult. The range and the variety of different influences and the range of powers at work in the region give rise to a level of complexity which will make it very difficult to get the movement we would like to see. Our approach has been very modest: Can we facilitate or in some way encourage some sort of dialogue to get under way? I say this to the honourable member for Warringah: At least one major ASEAN country has put to Mr Thach in discussions with him-he referred these matters to me-the proposition that in future, should a position develop in which some sort of Geneva-type of conference or some sort of consultation can get underway, among the countries which would be acceptable to participate in such an enterprise should be Australia. The interesting thing is that Australia is one of the few countries which have general credibility and respectability in this respect. I know that it is going to be very difficult indeed to get such a conference, but the point is that as a result of the role we have been seeking to fulfil-- Mr MacKellar —Why aren't the ASEANs coming here? Mr HAYDEN —Look, the honourable member had adequate time to present a case. He could not do it then, and he cannot do it now. As a result of the role we have sought to fulfil, we have established that credibility and that respectability. I do not disagree at all that the postponement of the Australia-ASEAN forum is a matter for disappointment, but that is not a crisis. It reflects a problem in the relationship in one particular respect. Let us get this into focus. Let us not brush it off in the way in which the honourable member sought to do. The history of our relationship with even our friendliest countries has been punctuated with some sort of difficulty. The record of our association with the ASEAN countries has been notable on a number of important occasions for such difficulties, and conservative governments in the recent past have experienced them. Let me tell the House some of them. In 1978 the conservative Government of the then Prime Minister Fraser was faced down by the ASEAN countries on civil aviation policy. The whole thing lingered on for the best part of 12 months in a most embarrassing and humiliating way before the Government finally gave ground. That was in 1978. More recently when the conservative Fraser Government decided in 1981 that it would abstain on the vote on credentials in relation to Democratic Kampuchea, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge it was subjected to a fairly torrid time. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) knows all about it, as indeed I know about many of his experiences. His successor, the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) as Minister for Foreign Affairs in Manila, was subjected to similar intense pressures. I have been exposed to them. It is part and parcel of the game. But let us face a few facts. In our foreign relations dealings with our immediate neighbours in the ASEAN countries there is robustness of operation and a directness, indeed bluntness, of expression and practice which can be rather disconcerting. For all that, if we decide that it is in the best interests of this country to proceed with a certain line of foreign policy, or if we conclude that we will make the best contribution to stability in our area by developing a particular approach, then we are selling out the national interests; we are surrendering what we believe in if we trot off in some other direction, or if we roll over like some well-manicured poodle passively wanting to be scratched on the belly every time someone clicks his fingers at us; and change our policy. I am putting Australia first in this matter. I recognise the necessity for us to handle this with some skilfulness and at the same time not to behave in the way in which our friends opposite have behaved in the past. Co-sponsorship of this resolution is not provided by the United States of America, or by France, Austria, China, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Greece, Egypt or a whole range of countries. Yet they are all close friends of the ASEAN countries. Mr Peacock —They never have. They have never changed policy. You have changed policy. Mr HAYDEN —I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition interjected because it gives me a splendid opportunity to discuss the quality and consistency of his foreign policy formulation on these sorts of matters. We are talking about principle and about standing up. In December 1979 he said: The Australian Government believed that to de-recognise-- that is, Democratic Kampuchea- would be interpreted as endorsing Vietnam's invasion of Kampuchea. This it was not prepared to do. Less than 12 months later, on 14 October 1980, he was reported in this way: Mr Peacock said: 'While co-sponsoring this ASEAN resolution, which is intended to advance our common objectives, Australia cannot prolong its recognition of such a loathsome regime as that of Pol Pot. Has the man a mind of his own? Does he really know where he stands on foreign policy? Fancy people like this giving anyone a lecture on consistency, principle and penetration of understanding on the issue of foreign policy! The final matter I want to mention is simply this: We will get these pressures from time to time and we have to handle them in the most capable way we can. It is a two-way process. We are subjected to pressure right now where our interests are concerned in relation to Antarctica. If we take the honourable member's implicit principles, the proposition he is putting to us, we would roll over on that and give in on Antarctica right away. I will not give in that easily where Australia is concerned. I will look after our best interests and I will do so as skilfully as I can. We have been doing it very successfully. If we receive less empty rhetoric from the honourable member we will be doing a lot better. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(4.17) —Today we have heard a defence by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) which has been uncharacteristic of his performance in this House since the Government came to power, for in this House and in his forays overseas he has been adopting the diplomatic stance of a reasonable man with a proper and rational approach to all our problems. Today we saw a defence which was nothing but bluster and which ignored the facts of the actions that the Government has taken. We are dealing with the Association of South East Asian Nations, probably the most significant bloc of countries which this country has to deal with. It is of immediate concern to Australia and this region. It affects radically our security and defence arrangements. Of course, as the Foreign Minister and everybody else well know, it is one of our major trading groups. It provides the fourth largest market and the fourth largest supply source for this country. It is absolutely essential that our foreign policy meshes properly with ASEAN. The Foreign Minister well recognises this. He is reported in the Weekend Australian of 8 October 1983, when speaking to journalists in the Philippines, to have said: . . . unless Australia and New Zealand meshed in with the world's fastest growing economies in this region, they could find themselves in a global backwater. That is a clear and direct. It demonstrates that the Foreign Minister knows that ASEAN has to figure prominently in his foreign diplomacy and that, as he puts it , if we do not, we could find ourselves in a global backwater. What is the issue here? The Foreign Minister in his bluster has tried to confuse the issue. According to him, it is of no account that we were not a co- sponsor of this resolution and that, as long as we vote on the resolution finally, all will be well. Since 28 October 1982 Australia signalled very clearly to ASEAN its overall stand on the Cambodian conflict by co-sponsoring the ASEAN resolution. It has been that way since that time. The Foreign Minister well knows the nuances of diplomacy and that by not co-sponsoring he has signalled very clearly to our ASEAN friends we are now dealing with a change of policy by the Government. He said that this has had no effect. Some of the headlines that have resulted from the signalling of a change of policy include ' Malaysia walks out as Hayden speaks'; Asean likely to cancel Sydney talks'-we know what happened there; 'Kampuchea policy ''upsets'' ASEAN'; 'ASEAN, Canberra fall out over Kampuchea'; 'With $2,000m in trade at stake Hayden plays the hand he was dealt'. So the list goes on. That was exactly what the Foreign Minister was talking about when he was in Manila. That was exactly what he was signalling as being the danger, when he said that we had to mesh in with the world's fastest growing economies in the region. Now he dismisses that principle as nothing. He says that it is of no account and that it represents robust diplomacy on the part of ASEAN countries. God help us if they go beyond robustness! Mr Peacock —ASEAN relations were to be his highest priority. Mr NEWMAN —Exactly. What was the Foreign Minister's boast in this display? He says that he is putting Australia first, and that that is the reason for this change of policy and the resentment which he is causing amongst our ASEAN friends. He is really putting first the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. That is what has dictated this change of policy. Mr Hayden —Thank goodness you told me. Mr NEWMAN —The Foreign Minister laughs. I believe that many ASEAN countries would have that fear in their minds as they follow this change of policy by the Government. Let us look in more detail at what the five ASEAN countries are saying about the Government's refusal to co-sponsor. A report of 6 October of the speech that the Australian Foreign Minister made at the United Nations stated: Malaysia's Foreign Minister . . . ostentatiously walked out of the United Nations chamber before the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, ended his speech . . . marking the split between Australia and the Association of South East Asian Nations over Kampuchea. The Foreign Minister dismissed this as being of no account; it was just robust diplomacy. The article stated further that United Nations delegates said that the Foreign Minister's walkout was a remarkable breach of protocol and perhaps a sign of troubled times ahead. With regard to Singapore's attitude, a report in the Canberra Times stated: Australia's stand on Kampuchea had antagonised quite a few South-East Asian countries and had lost it friends, Singapore's Foreign Minister . . . said last night. Mr Dhanabalan said that Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, couldn't have done a better job of antagonising others and of losing friends'. The Foreign Minister dismissed that with a wave of his hand, saying: 'That is of no account. What is the problem? We have not done anything wrong; this is just part of robust ASEAN diplomacy'. The Australian on 7 October, in what is claimed to be an interview with the Thai Foreign Minister, Air Chief Marshal Siddhi, stated: He said Mr Hayden, by changing Australia's stand on Kampuchea, had deeply hurt Thailand and ASEAN. 'We have to consider what has happened and adjust to Australia-if you don't want us as a true friend, then we have to consider that,' he said. . . . Mr Siddhi summed up the tone of ASEAN's reaction when he said, very sadly: 'I am very disappointed in Mr Hayden.' He stressed: . . . that the rift in Australian-ASEAN relations was a very unfortunate thing to happen and 'a very serious matter'. I do not know who is briefing the Foreign Minister, but it was absolutely silly of him to rebut the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs by simply dismissing the whole thing as being exaggerated, of no account or not based on the facts. It was stupid, because the facts speak for themselves. They are clear to every Australian who reads any newspaper that has appeared in Australia over the last couple of weeks. The Government has caused a rift between our ASEAN neighbours and ourselves. It has caused great trouble in our region by changing this policy without consultation with our neighbours. The Age editorial of today, although in some ways sympathetic to Australia having a view, put the situation very clearly when it stated: If . . . it did not prepare ASEAN for its policy-- that is, the Government did not prepare ASEAN for its policy-- change, it was wrong. It must always argue its case. This, of course, is the position which the Government must recognise. It simply cannot go off on its own without consultation with ASEAN. It seems to be quite prepared to enter into discussions with Vietnamese officials and Ministers. In fact, it is something of a puzzlement that the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his speech talked about the consultation that he has had with Vietnamese officials. It is of grave concern to all of us that the Minister admits that he is happy to talk to the Vietnamese Government, Vietnamese Ministers and officials, but at the same time it is perfectly clear that whilst he had the opportunity at the United Nations to speak to people such as Air Vice Marshal Siddhi, he ignored the opportunity. Perhaps-I would hate to think that this is the truth-he went out of his way to avoid discussions with people such as Air Vice Marshal Siddhi and, therefore, to ignore the ASEAN view in favour of a Vietnamese view. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Foreign Minister have gone out of their way to try to play down the troubles that have been caused by their inept actions in this matter. It simply will not wash. The reports that have flooded in from Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand are too serious to be ignored. The Government and the Foreign Minister need to stop kidding themselves and they need to stop kidding Australia. They must come to terms with the reality of the troubles that they have caused. The reality is that Australia and ASEAN security relations are fundamental to the stability and welfare of each of us. The Government must act swiftly to restore ASEAN confidence in Australia as a reliable friend. Ms FATIN(Canning)(4.27) —I begin my comments today by saying that it is not novel or unusual for Australia to present an independent approach to politics in Indo-China. The Fraser Government did so in 1981 when it changed Australia's recognition of the ousted regime. Australia moved from supporting and recognising the ousted Pol Pot regime to non-recognition of either regime, and this move was made despite the protests of the Association of South East Asian Nations. The latest decision on Australia's approach to the Cambodian situation is in line with a wholly reasonable desire on Australia's part to maintain a relatively independent stance. I am pleased to join in this debate today because last week I had the privilege of being a member of a two-person observer delegation in Singapore at the ASEAN Inter-parliamentary Organisation Sixth General Assembly. That delegation was able to participate at that Assembly both formally and informally. On Thursday last, 6 October, we participated formally in a panel for dialogue between the five ASEAN nations and the Australian delegation. During that dialogue frank discussion took place, and points of view on five major topics were discussed. The topic most discussed was Australia's position on Kampuchea. There was certainly no evidence of a growing crisis-concern, yes, but crisis, no. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) referred to great trouble in our region. I suggest that the ASEAN nations are not aware of this great trouble, nor were any of the other nations attending that assembly. The five ASEAN states put forward their views, as I said, firmly and frankly. They expressed their disappointment at the fact that Australia would not co-sponsor the United Nations resolution on Kampuchea. It was equally forcefully and firmly stated that Australia would vote for the ASEAN resolution. Australia supports the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops; it supports an act of self-determination for the Kampuchean people; it supports guaranteed borders for all territories in the region; and it supports the re-establishment of a normal relationship between the countries of the region. It is true that Australia does not intend to co-sponsor this year, but co- sponsorship should not be blown out of proportion. The resolution is not the same as it was last year. Australians have not forgotten the brutal Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia under Pol Pot. The Pol Pot forces make up the largest part of the coalition supported in the ASEAN resolution. Last year, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) said, a number of countries, friendly to ASEAN, did not co-sponsor the resolution. They included the United States of America, China , France, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Greece, Burma, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In fact, the only new co-sponsor at this stage this year is the Maldives. What we have to recognise is that, when we have a policy which is carefully reasoned, is thoroughly responsible and moderate in its presentation and is appropriate in all the circumstances, if it is in our national interest we should persist with it. We regret the ASEAN decision to postpone the ASEAN- Australian forum, which is a meeting intended to benefit the ASEAN countries and Australia in a practical way. It is of particular regret as it seems to ignore the fact that Australia is supporting the ASEAN resolution in the United Nations General Assembly. We support the same underlying elements contained in the ASEAN resolution. The issue of co-sponsorship has been blown out of proportion. A relationship of mutual respect must be worked out between ASEAN and Australia. ASEAN must not have the expectation that Australia will automatically follow its lead. We have international obligations which we must meet and, in doing so, must not be expected by ASEAN to follow it always without question. If we did this, we would be moulding a relationship which would be both patronising and meaningless. It would also be totally counterproductive. We must bear in mind that Australia and her South East Asian neighbours have different ways of looking at regional and international political situations. It is important that we should not try to conceal these differences. If we do not conceal our differences, when ASEAN countries hear an Australian point of view they will know that it is being honestly given and that it reflects the consensus of Australian attitudes. Some Press items have exaggerated current differences between Australia and ASEAN over handling Cambodia at the United Nations. For instance, when I was in Singapore last week, I read about the so- called walkout of the Malaysian Foreign Minister. However, reports that he had walked out of the United Nations chamber before the Australian Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, had finished his address to the General Assembly misinterpreted what occurred. The Malaysian Foreign Minister left before the end of the speech. However, this was in order to attend a luncheon which our Foreign Minister later attended too. We understand that the ASEAN countries wish to postpone the ASEAN- Australian forum of senior officials in Sydney later this month. As I have said, this is regrettable. Nevertheless, the relationship is in quite good shape. Differences of emphasis with ASEAN are not new, as I have said. I refer to previous cases such as the Khmer Rouge regime's United Nations credentials and the civil aviation policy of previous years. The Foreign Minister is to be congratulated for his active political participation in South East Asia. Since he became Foreign Minister, he has travelled to all the ASEAN nations to hold friendly and frank dialogue with them . I experienced some of that frank dialogue last week. I have to admit that at times it was very direct but for friends it is best, I suggest, that direct dialogue take place and that differences of opinion be expressed and listened to . Our Foreign Minister has travelled around South East Asia recognising that the countries he visited have differences with us and we with them. He has listened to and discussed with them the problems that are mutual to our region. This country is part of South East Asia and proudly takes its place in the region. It is also part of the international community and, as such, must develop and maintain an active, responsible and non-restrictive role there. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented in a most grievous fashion in the course of the speech by the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation? Mr HAYDEN —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HAYDEN —The honourable member for Bass re-stated what has already appeared in some newspapers, that is, that the Malaysian Minister for Foreign Affairs-I am sorry; but the honourable member for Canning (Ms Fatin) was right the first time -walked out of the United Nations chamber in the course of my speech. I am not terribly moved when people walk out in the course of speeches that I deliver; I have had that experience many times in this Parliament. However, on this occasion I had not noted that the Malaysian Foreign Minister had departed. I discovered it at a luncheon when I sat down beside him. As always he proved to be a cordial and gregarious companion. He immediately apologised that he had had to leave-the debate went longer than was scheduled-to go to the luncheon. Up to that point he had been if not fascinated by at least interested in my speech. He obviously made some criticism about the presentation concerning Kampuchea. The only reason I mention this matter is not so much to upbraid or to confront the honourable member for Bass but to put the record straight. The newspaper report, like so many in that period, was just straight fiction-and mischievous fiction. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.38) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals No. 8 (1983). Excise tariff proposals No. 8 1983 which I have just tabled formally place before Parliament, as required by law, an excise tariff alteration made by Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notice on 23 September 1983. Proposals No. 8 1983 decrease the excise duty on spirit used in the fortification of Australian grape wine, from $2.61 per litre of alcohol to $1.50 per litre of alcohol. The proposals became operative on and from 8.00 p.m. eastern standard time on 23 September 1983. This excise change will be backdated to Budget night, 23 August 1983, in a subsequent Bill. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Consideration resumed from 6 October. Schedule 2. Department of Administrative Services Proposed expenditure, $363,091,000. Department of Housing and Construction Proposed expenditure, $313,106,000. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(4.44) —In the absence of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife), who is ill, it is my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Opposition to the estimates for the Department of Housing and Construction. The publication that was supplied by the Department shows that it employs 8,751 personnel, which must rate it as one of the large government operations. In terms of its expenditure it is certainly a very significant factor in the Australian building industry. I would like to address a few remarks concerning what has happened in that area since the Government came to power. As honourable members will recall, a statement was made by the Government in May. There was a good deal of publicity and promotion about its new initiatives in the housing area. What really occurred was a reordering of priorities. Not much difference was made in terms of overall expenditure, but some difference was made to priorities. Because of that, we had a great hiatus between May and 1 October when the new program came into force. The Government left the usual amount of doubt as to the best thing that could be done for the participant in the market at that time while it sorted out its new approach. I commend the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) for his generosity in making the $7,000 grant available. As I said in a previous debate, I still contend that the abolition of the saving component is regrettable, because people who have bought their first house without a history of saving will, I think, find some difficulty in adjusting to the sheer discipline of having to put aside the weekly or monthly payment that they are required to make. Because of that, I would have thought that the requirement of a saving history would have been an adequate provision for the Government to have made in this area. I do not wish to quibble too much about what went on, except to point out the fact that one more of the Government 's election promises in this area has been broken, insofar as it pointed out that it would maintain the tax rebate system. There was no action. That promise was broken. As I pointed out the other night in relation to some other Government promises, a team of people travelled around Australia and promised to every community interest group what it wanted. After the election, very few of those promises have been kept-the most notable feature so far of the Labor Government. Under the new system which is now in place, first home buyers no longer face a saving requirement. Depending on their circumstances, they are eligible for grants of up to $7,000. Some State governments have added to that amount. On top of that, there has been quite a shift in emphasis from private to public sector housing. This, of course, is understandable given the ideological background of a socialist party. But it will not do a tremendous amount to ensure what the Liberal National Parties have always tried to ensure-the right of the individual to own his own home, a most important right. Because of that I think we should put greater emphasis on private home operations rather than on public housing. Since these changes have occurred the market place has been slack. Undoubtedly the difference between the situation in May and that of 1 October, the starting point of the new scheme has made some contribution to this. Quite a stock of housing in the market has been difficult to shift. Prices of stock which has been shifted tended to be somewhat lower than those for comparable new houses. Until such time as some balance comes into the market in that area, people would be better advised to purchase existing housing rather than start new house construction. This might, of course, be reflected in some of the approvals for grants that have already been made. The fact that there is a lag between approvals for grants and start-ups may well reflect the difference between market prices for existing housing and those for new commencements. I am informed that price brackets for the stock of existing housing vary considerably from city to city. I am informed that in Queensland the general price bracket of $50,000 to $80,000 has moved very slowly indeed, whereas lower and higher priced housing has moved significantly. Of course, there is a far greater number of houses in that middle bracket than there are in other brackets. Because of that, this weakness has been noted. I do not need to tell you, Mr Deputy Chairman, that the most important aspect of any commercial operation is interest rates. In the last two years interest rates were at levels which affected housing. They certainly affected new home buyers, not only in terms of the houses that they bought, but also in terms of their ability to fit out those houses with adequate furniture-the adequate inputs into the housing unit that are required. In my electorate a number of people bought quite expensive houses, but when I went inside them I noticed that they had been unable to furnish those houses with the appropriateness required. I have no doubt that this was due to the high interest rates which obtained at that point. It was not due to a shortage of money. It was a question of the price of that money. I am very pleased at the moment to see that while commercial interest rates have come down, there is an indication that the home loan sector will meet market demands, as the demand for money falls away from the corporate sector, leaving only the government deficits to be funded and the semi-government loan raising requirements to be met. Given that indication I think we can all look forward to a situation where first home buyers may well be able to buy their units at lower prices than would otherwise have been the case. It is worth noting that in the area of home loans, financial institutions have been reluctant over the years to move interest rates around to any great degree. Bearing in mind that they have to deal with lengthy loan periods-perhaps of 25 or 30 years-interest rates are bound to move up and down. Recipients of those loans are used to, and indeed budget for, a fairly consistent home loan repayment. I have noticed that institutions have tended to try to keep interest rates down as much as possible in high interest rate periods and not necessarily take them down as far as they might go in terms of the commercial areas to compensate for some of the slumps and booms that occur with the price of money. I have noticed a tendency by commentators from time to time to say that this should occur. But certainly the difficulties that I have seen during the last two years have reflected this. Because of the 15 per cent plus interest rates being charged, institutions have been either lengthening the term of the loan, or finding some way to stretch the loan to other assets so that the monthly repayments are not altered or only marginally raised. I hope that when rates go down-I expect that they will stay down-for some time the institutions will adjust the period of loan for those who took out loans in the high interest rate period. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(4.53) —I understand that in the context of this sort of debate it is pertinent for honourable members opposite to make comments to try to reflect upon the initiatives in the Budget. I take those comments in good measure. I want to take some issue with one of the comments of the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). He said that it appeared that we were only preoccupied with the public housing sector. Obviously, we have had to do a lot of work in the public sector because there has been a substantial increase in the homeless population in Australia, not just because of government policy but because of a number of other circumstances such as the economic recession and so on. Honourable members opposite have to acknowledge that some of the initiatives we have taken in the public sector have been necessary and quite important for the State governments in meeting their goals. It is wrong to say that that has been our only target. We certainly have also had a target in developing the private sector. I say to the honourable member that the initiative that is embodied in the first home owners scheme, which goes back to the previous Goverment's home deposit assistance scheme, directs itself to the private sector. We are providing substantial catalyst money for the private sector to build houses. As the honourable member indicated in his remarks, that amounts to something like $7,000. We are acting on the evidence of the industry. At the launch of the first home owners scheme-I was fortunate to be at that launch in Perth last Friday week-the Director of the Housing Industry Association in Western Australia said that this was the best housing package he had ever seen. That is not some socialist conspiracy; that is a piece of reality that the Housing Industry Association acknowledges. This comes about because the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) has consulted with his State counterparts and with the industry. The industry now recognises that the goods are being delivered. All the credit is not due to the Government. We recognise that in this sort of work we have a co-operative role to play. But it is true to say that we have really come up with a policy to which the Housing Industry Association has contributed. There have been extensive consultations with the industry. I compliment the Western Australia industry for its willingness to work with us on this matter. I have spoken in this place previously about the sorts of people we work through. I can talk about people such as Harvey McLeod of the Master Builders Association in Perth, Jack Richards of the building societies and Bill Brewer of Westpac. I have already mentioned David Stephens. I mention also Gavin Forster of the Master Builders Association and David Fisher of the Rural and Industries Bank. We can go on and talk about the co-operation that was engendered. This is not imaginary co-operation; this is substantial support for a policy. I mention also John Hawkins of the Perth Building Society, Ron Smith of Collier Homes, Bruce Brotherson and Derek Park of REIWA. Bruce Brotherson is the Registrar of the Building Societies. The evidence since we amended the previous Government's scheme-that is since we removed the savings component in August-shows a substantial increase in activity , so much so that the Real Estate Institute of Western Australia in the month of August had sales in excess of 400. That was the first time in its history that it had had such a sales performance. I think that is a fair indication performance. It is easy to get up in this place and say it is all due to our winning the America's Cup. Obviously some performance in the future will be due to that, but at the moment the foundations have been laid for a substantial increase in housing performance. That comes about because we have a Minister who is prepared to consult and to do things that the previous Government, in its time, was not prepared to do. Honourable members opposite have taken issue with the removal of the savings component. We are not trying to get people into housing who are spendthrifts. Look at economic experience. There was a decline in overtime worked in industry. When there is a decline in overtime worked, there is a decline in people's savings. Consequent upon that decline in savings locked out of the housing market were many people we would very much want to get into housing. The experience since that time and the level of inquiries at the storefront offices of the Department of Housing and Construction show that there has been a substantial increase in activity. That activity is coming from exactly the income groups whom we have targeted. We need to understand in the context of this debate that if people at that level buy houses, we get a demand for the materials that are provided in housing and we have a substantial multiplier effect. That multiplier effect is being felt in the Australian community at the moment. It is coming through the housing arena. I believe that is a very important initiative. The Minister deserves congratulations because it certainly has been an area where he has put in a substantial amount of work. We are not saying everything we are now doing is wonderful and everything the previous Government did is appalling. That is not so. We have consulted in good faith. We have worked with the industry, the private sector, and we are getting the results. It is true that some things have worked in our favour. The interest rate reduction of half of one per cent recently has been a substantial boon to us. One can only hope that there will be further interest rate reductions. With the overall acceptance of the Australian Budget by the financial community, it is not beyond possibility that a further half of one per cent reduction will occur before the end of this year. With all that we have a substantial foundation laid in housing. I say to honourable members opposite that the policy has been designed to meet some targets-a social target because we believe it is important to get people into housing and an economic target because we believe it is important in both the public and private sectors to generate activity in housing. We have looked at the figures. The figures when we came into government were not altogether promising. The projections on private sector investment were very gloomy. As a consequence of that we recognise that we, in the public sector, had to generate some spending, and that spending would flow through to the private sector and do something to overcome those projected downturns in private sector investment. That leads me to make a couple of remarks about spending by the Department of Administrative Services. One of the crucial points, and one of the things I have to commend the Government on, is that the expenditure is designed to do very similar things to the expenditures I have spoken about in housing. We are trying to provide a substantial base of expenditure to overcome the declines that one can foresee in private sector investment. The initiatives taken with respect to the purchase of buildings and certainly with respect to the purchase and lease back arrangements that will occur in the future on Commonwealth buildings are important initiatives. It pleases me that the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John Brown) is looking at running the Department as a commercial enterprise. In the remarks about the Budget it is important to see that attention is being paid to the operation of the motor vehicle fleet so that it works much more in terms of commercial practice. The Minister deserves considerable support for that initiative and also deserves support for our program of office construction and maintenance. Honourable members opposite unfortunately let Commonwealth buildings run down in terms of both maintenance and numbers. That has not been good. We are trying to overcome the disadvantages that we have inherited. A review has been announced of office accommodation standards, which is important. I might refer just for a moment to this. One of the problems we currently face is that we have substantial difficulties with people in office accommodation in Western Australia. The Government is to be commended for taking a new look at this matter and for saying that some important initiatives are to be generated in this area. One of the difficulties we face is restrictive guidelines. The local social security manager in Albany in Western Australia currently is experiencing great difficulty in trying to purchase a house through the Department of Administrative Services because the guidelines are too restrictive. We have to begin to look at running the Department of Administrative Services much more as a commercial operation. We should not look at it in the way in which the former Government looked at it and try to wind it down and cast it into the backwater. We should try to look at the stock of buildings, the maintenance of those buildings, the stock of motor vehicles and the maintenance and turnover of those motor vehicles as a proper commercial enterprise. When we do that Australian taxpayers will not be paying out in terms of costs all the time but in fact they will be investing dollars in a very large and effective enterprise which, in turn, will generate jobs. It is very important to see these initiatives in the area of housing and in the first home owners scheme. We are trying to operate this Department as a commercial enterprise, another very important initiative. We do not hold the view that was held at the time of the razor gang that we should cut these things away and that we should do without them. We do hold that they are there. They provide an important social infrastructure. They are the sorts of things that we will try to run and manage as an effective operation. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.03) —I raise a very important matter of principle in relation to the estimates of the Department of Administrative Services. These estimates are being considered cognately with those of the Department of Housing and Construction. The matter that I wish to raise concerns the disposal of Commonwealth lands, the basis upon which they are disposed of and the question of whether or not the Commonwealth is properly compensated for its land, having regard to the terms and conditions upon which properties are disposed of by the Commonwealth. I raise this matter in the context of these Estimates because obviously there are important income consequences for the Government if the Government disposes of land other than for its full value. Of course, it would be my earnest hope that the Commonwealth, having regard to the procedures that it uses for disposing of property, would make information publicly available about the way in which property is being disposed of, the terms and conditions upon which property is being disposed of and the manner in which any such disposal may affect the Commonwealth's entitlement to funds for the property sold. This matter is raised in the context of a specific piece of land where I am perhaps more closely involved than others; I suppose that I ought to declare that as an interest. There has been a considerable history in relation to this land. Mr Chairman, I would like to detail some of that for you so that you and other honourable members may understand the particular circumstances in which this matter is being raised. The land is at the corner of Bettington Road and Kissing Point Road, Dundas. The land was used for a migrant hostel through the 1950s and the 1960s. All the hostel functions were later transferred from the land and the buildings were demolished. The land has been vacant for some time. It was deemed to be surplus to the Commonwealth's requirements and, in accordance with established practices, was offered to the State Government of New South Wales. The State Government indicated that it had no purpose to which it could put the land. Therefore, it indicated that it had no intention of purchasing or acquiring the property from the Commonwealth. It was later offered to the Parramatta City Council but, because of the situation concerning funds, it found that it was not in a position to acquire that land. For that reason it also rejected the offer. As I understand it the land was then prepared for auction. The Commonwealth was prepared to enter into the normal procedures for the sale of that land in Dundas . Then a remarkable thing happened. A Press article in one of the Sunday newspapers linked me with a group of other members of parliament who allegedly had seen the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, to discuss the stopping of the sale of Government land to State governments, presumably for the purpose of using it for welfare housing purposes. In fact, there was no land in the electorate of Dundas to which that allegation could apply. But my parliamentary colleague, the honourable member for Parramatta, now Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John Brown), assumed that there was some more sinister purpose behind this and he sought to find some land in the electorate of Dundas to which I might be linked to substantiate this charge. He and his State colleague the honourable member for Parramatta, Mr Wilde, hit upon the idea that it must be this piece of land at Bettington Road, Dundas, in which Ruddock was interested. Of course, the public record would disclose, as would all the information available to the Minister, that the State had indicated very clearly that it had no interest in acquiring this land for welfare purposes. One could understand why. It is not flat land; it is not extensively hilly but it is quite hilly. It has a lot of rocks on it and so on, but I do not suppose that that is an insurmountable problem. It is not close to shopping centres although it is on bus routes. But it is not the sort of land that one would ideally want to develop for multi-residential purposes for what one would regard as people in need of welfare housing. But of course the matter developed into a cause celebre locally. I have mentioned that the area is relatively close to my own home, probably half a kilometre away. It is also quite close to the home of the honourable member for Parramatta, the Minister for Administrative Services. I would guess that it would probably be about a kilometre away. The Minister also happens to be a constituent of mine. I do not know whether he will interject in that regard. Mr John Brown —I am about two woods and a five iron away. Mr RUDDOCK —But neither of us is too far away in that sense. For the purposes of recalling the Minister's interest in golf I acknowledge his interjection. But the fact of the matter is that the land is in my electorate relatively close to my home and relatively close to the home of the Minister. The point that I was making was that the land was offered for sale to the State Government of New South Wales, which expressed no interest in it. As a consequence of the article that I have mentioned, the State Government's interest was re-awoken. I can only assume that the State member of parliament went along and said: 'I have heard that there is some land in Dundas that you may not have been able to get for welfare housing and I think you ought to acquire it'. So the State Government renewed its interest. Then the Commonwealth suspended its proposed auction arrangements and entered into discussions with the State Government. I understand that the price was settled upon on the basis that the land would be sold to the State Government under its existing zoning, residential A, which would be single residential allotments. The next time I heard about this property was when the Housing Commission approached the Parramatta City Council with a view to developing the land for a higher residential use. For that purpose the Commission indicated that it wanted council support for medium density housing development. I suppose that there would be nothing wrong with that except that the Commonwealth was being paid for the land on the basis that it would be used for single residential lots; the State was going to use it for multi-residential purposes. The difference in the value of the land was very considerable; I had some valuations prepared by local people who were interested in the question of real estate prices. A matter of hundreds of thousands of dollars was involved. The then Minister for Administrative Services, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman), I think aware of the fact that he might be severely criticised for selling land on that basis to the State when an element of deception was involved on the part of the State Government, terminated the negotiations for sale. The matter again became a cause celebre. The local people were very concerned that the land ought not be used for multi-residential purposes. In the context of that rather significant debate and controversy locally, new discussions were initiated at the request of the State Government. Of course, the local State member continued to express an interest in what ought to happen in relation to the land. He proposed what he said was an element of compromise- another proposal-that was, that the land be purchased by the State Government for single residential purposes to be developed by the Land Commission of New South Wales. As I understand it, the then Minister for Administrative Services indicated that that compromise was acceptable to him. He then settled with the State Government conditions upon which the land might be developed, the basis upon which it would be sold and the basis upon which valuations could be done, and a proper price fixed for the land. Since the election the Minister who now has an interest in this matter has in no way reported to the Parliament on this matter, although he raised it on a number of occasions previously, as did I. He wrote to me telling me that he had withdrawn the conditions upon which this property would be sold to the State Government. Obviously, unless fresh valuations are done on the basis of any other use to which the State Government intends to put the property, other than for residential A purposes, significant Commonwealth moneys could be lost. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith)(5.13) —I join in the debate which is now taking place on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and the further consideration in Committee of the proposed expenditures for the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Housing and Construction. It gives me very much pleasure to see the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) and the Minister for Administrative Services and Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) present. They are two very important Ministers in the Hawke Australian Labor Party Government in relation to Labor's reconstruction scheme. It is very important that they be present to listen to the debate today. That goes to show the interest these two Ministers pay to their portfolios. Mr Deputy Chairman, you know what a tremendous job they have to do in trying to bring this country back on to the road to prosperity and the disastrous economic situation which prevailed when they took over their portfolios. They are doing a marvellous job, and I pay tribute to them. Today I want to speak mainly about the Department of Administrative Services. Most honourable members would be well aware that the portfolio of Administrative Services is a major business undertaking which provides the central focus for the provision of support services to departments and instrumentalities. The Department administers property, transport and storage, purchasing and disposals , printing, publishing, advertising and surveying services. Until recently when the Hawke Labor Government took over the treasury bench the Department of Administrative Services also administered the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Electoral Office and honourable members' entitlements which are now with the Special Minister of State. Honourable members can see that it is a huge department which requires special attention and special mention in this Committee today. We have a special Minister in control of that Department. The honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) has done a marvellous job in the few months in which he has been the Minister for Administrative Services. Later I will put a few questions to him with regard to certain areas of the portfolio he controls. I think they are very important questions. Hopefully, he will be able to give me an answer on certain issues. Mr Hodgman —Are you asking about koalas? Mr HUMPHREYS —No, I will not be asking him about that. He has more important things on his mind. The support services are a major cost in the delivery of government programs and require increased attention in relation to cost effectiveness and efficiency. The 1983-84 Budget reflects a number of key initiatives in this area, including increased capital expenditure on office constructions and vehicle replacements. These are designed to reduce the overall operating costs. I say to the Minister that some areas in his portfolio require more effective and more efficient administration. I am sure he will be paying attention to those areas. I make a quick point that the purchasing and disposals area needs tidying up. I think certain aspects of that area could be tidied up and modernised. I can remember the times when I was in business and I had to go to the auction sales conducted by the Department of Administrative Services some 20 years ago. If one goes to those auction sales today one sees that the only thing which has changed in those 20 years is that people are given a number instead of having to have their names called out. At these special auctions employees run around everywhere taking down people's names. I believe the disposals area could be tidied up. At those sales many people run around with pieces of paper to be signed. A person has to sign one piece of paper before he goes in the door and then he has to sign another piece of paper. He has to queue for hours to try to obtain and pay for what he bid for in the auctions. I feel that a lot of areas could be tidied up, especially in relation to the sale of motor vehicles. It is interesting to see that special money is being allocated by the Department to build new storage areas for the Department of Administrative Services at Cannon Hill in my electorate. When one goes to those auction sales one sees the motor vehicles sitting outside in the weather. They are open to all the abuses that any motor vehicle which is exposed to the weather would be liable to suffer. At times when a person purchases a vehicle he finds that hub caps, gear levers, bulbs and all sorts of things are missing because the local thieves have been stealing from the motor vehicles. Sometimes local thieves work within the Department. I am not accusing anybody, but I know that most of the people who go to those auction sales are very concerned when they purchase a motor vehicle. I know that they can read all the fine print which the auctioneer reads out, but I think the Minister could tidy up lots of areas. Some of the cars could be cleaned, detailed and sold by auctioneers and I think the Government would recoup more money than it does today. For many years the New South Wales Government handed over all the motor vehicles it sold to, I think, Sydney Motor Auction which was a subsidiary of Suttons Motors Pty Ltd in those days. They were cleaned, detailed and housed in warehouses. They were guarded and protected. One could usually be sure when one bought a vehicle there that it was all in one piece and it was not ratted, as the saying goes in the motor vehicle area. I ask the Minister to pay special attention to that matter. I would like to draw honourable members' attention to page 135 of the explanatory notes which refers to areas where the Department of Administrative Services also operates with the Department of Housing and Construction. I see that there is expenditure of $31,000,978 in this area. These items provide for the erection of new Commonwealth offices and storehouses, new works in Commonwealth-owned buildings and premises to accommodate Commonwealth departments. If we go to page 137 of the explanatory memorandum we see that the first item explained relates to an expenditure of $11,500,000 for the erection of a new Commonwealth office block in Townsville. I do not have a great deal of time available. I was a member of the Joint Committee on Public Works when it approved the construction of that building many years ago under the previous Government. It was a disgrace that in those days the razor gang decided that the Government would not go ahead with that building. On Friday, 3 June 1983 the Minister said that he had approved the construction of the $12m Commonwealth office block. I think the cost will probably be more than $12m by the time the block is built. I want to refer honourable members to a question I placed on notice to the Minister for Housing and Construction on 24 February 1982. I asked : (1) When will the Commonwealth Building in Townsville be completed. (2) What was the original budget expectation for the building. (3) Was the work halted on construction because of a Government directive; if so, (a) for how long was work halted . . . I will not read all the answer. I want to explain how the maladministration of the previous Government cost this nation and the taxpayers of this nation many millions of dollars. The answer in part was: Following examination by the Parliamentary Works Committee an expediency motion was passed in the House of Repesentatives on 24 September 1980 to allow the project to proceed to the stage of tender readiness at an approved limit of cost of $8.7m (August 1980 prices). Today it will cost $12m plus. I just mention that to give the Committee an example of the maladministration of the previous Government. The taxpayers in Australia have to pay an extra $4m as the result of total incompetence. As I have said, the Minister for Housing and Construction and the Minister for Administrative Services will be responsible for erecting the new office block. The approved amount is only for the construction cost. Can honourable members imagine how much it cost the taxpayer in rents? The estimates of this Department show how much that we will pay in rents. It is $140m or some such amount. I must give full marks to all the Ministers concerned, especially the Minister for Administrative Services, for taking the matter on board and encouraging private enterprise to build Commonwealth office blocks on a lease-back basis. There is another matter which I would like the Minister for Administrative Services to explain to the Committee. In a Press release dated 21 September, the Minister called on companies and developers to express an interest in constructing office buildings in north Queensland and Tasmania. I would like to know how many developers have shown an interest in this special program that the Minister and the Government have undertaken. When we note from the Departments estimates how much rent we are paying for office blocks, we see that this is a great idea which will enable us to own our buildings. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(5.23) —I wish to address myself principally to the estimates for the Department of Housing and Construction. I wish to pay a compliment to Mr Keith Rodda and senior officers of the Department particularly for the splendid work that I know they are capable of doing and for their unblemished record as professional officers. I do not think any section of the Commonwealth Public Service has a better record than that of the Department of Housing and Construction. It is a very important body, a very important Department and a very important construction authority in this country. I am pleased to see that the Hawke Labor Government is continuing so many of the projects that were put in place by the former Fraser Liberal-National Party Government, particularly last year when there was a 26 per cent increase in the capital works program. It takes a while-generally up to eight or nine months-for so many of these projects to start to come on stream following their approval and following appropriation of funds to enable them to commence. As I look through the papers before me, I identify so many of the projects that were the subject of discussion in Cabinet last year and the subject of consideration by the Joint Committee on Public Works. Of course, new projects that were under consideration at that time have been approved for the purpose of these appropriations. I am sure that so many of these projects will bring the much- needed jobs that are necessary in so many of the regional areas of Australia. I certainly welcome the 16 per cent increase in funds this year for the civil and defence departments. I wish to make some brief reference to airport construction. I note that a number of airport construction projects are included in the Estimates: Darwin Airport is a very important airport to which I gave a considerable amount of attention. Perth Airport was long overdue for upgrading, which has been done in a staged way in accordance with the availability of finance. I know that it has been a source of great concern to Western Australians. I know that you, Mr Deputy Chairman, as the honourable member for Forrest have made representations on numerous occasions, as have so many of your colleagues, about the need for a much better airport facility to serve the city of Perth and Western Australia. The one airport that really worries me is Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. I cannot understand for the life of me why this Government does not have the intestinal fortitude to face up to making a decision as soon as possible in regard to the Kingsford-Smith Airport and the airport needs of Sydney. I know that it has been a pretty hot political potato. The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) is well aware of the political considerations that need to be taken into account but it has been the subject of a consistent and persistent debate for so many years that it is becoming almost a laughing matter to everybody but those people who have to use Sydney Airport. About 65 per cent of people who fly in this country use the Sydney Airport. I do not know whether it is a misprint, but the document from the Minister for Housing and construction states: 'Sydney Airport-New Parallel Runway, $11.5m'. I do not think that means what it says. Another document, 'Explanation for Estimates of Expenditure' states on page 13: 'Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport (New South Wales)-Construction of additional taxiways, $11,500,000'. A lot of work has been done at Sydney Airport and much work was planned and commenced in my time as Minister for Transport and as Minister for Transport and Construction. The work was designed to bring about an immediate increase in capacity for domestic, commuter and international flights to and from Sydney Airport. The expenditure of $11.5m will enable additional aircraft operation, but undoubtedly the least noisy option available to the Government and to the people of Sydney is a short, close-spaced parallel runway into Botany Bay. The air traffic control ordinances should be drafted in such a way as to ensure that at least 80 per cent of take-offs and landings are conducted over Botany Bay. If the Government really wants a noisy city, if it really wants to make the western part of Sydney a noisy place, the best thing I know that it can do is to put an airport in western Sydney. By doing so it will spread the aircraft noise over the most populous part of Sydney. The people who advocate that sort of proposition clearly either have no intention of living in western Sydney or intend to leave it. I think it is an absolutely crazy proposition. It is a hot political potato brought about by some of these boffins in local government in Botany-Mascot who have been ruling the roost with a rod of iron for so long. Mr John Brown —You are on the wrong estimates; this is not civil aviation. Mr HUNT —This matter comes into the Minister's construction estimates. I know that he does not like the proposition because he is a western Sydney bloke. I know that he believes in every word that I say. I wish him well in advocating his point of view both in Cabinet and in the Caucus room because this proposition is a nonsense. A handful of characters around Botany-Mascot have been ruling the roost with a rod of iron. They have Nifty Wran frightened; they have this Government frightened; and I will lay London to a brick on that, come the end of this Government's term, not one thing other than what is provided for in the Department's estimates-$11.5m for an additional taxiway-will be done. Is that not incredible? A taxiway is all the Government can come up with. It is talking about setting up committees and about getting into discussions with Mr Wran and his mob; but those discussions have not taken off. Some people now advocate a second airport at Wollongong to serve the city of Sydney. That is absolutely ridiculous. They might as well have it at Dubbo. Mr John Brown —You wanted Dubbo. Mr HUNT —I am not advocating an airport at Dubbo. Mr John Brown —You did; I remember it. Mr HUNT —I did so at one stage, years ago; it is true. Years ago I thought Dubbo would be a good site. As I became a bit more informed I thought it was a stupid idea to take all those great Boeing 747s out to Dubbo, offload the people on to smaller aircraft and take them back to Sydney. If one wants to make a joke of aviation in this country, one should take passengers out to places like that or take them to Wollongong. The simplest and the easiest thing the Government has to do, and the least noisy option facing the people of Sydney and the Government , is to build a short close-spaced parallel runway into Botany Bay. I say to the Government: Please pluck up courage and make a decision on this matter. It is doing the city of Sydney-I think it is the best city in the world-the city with the greatest tourist attraction in Australia, the worst possible damage. I hope that when we are debating these estimates next year we do not see a miserable allocation of $11.5m for the Sydney Airport with no suggestion as to what will happen in regard to a second airport for Sydney. There is no way politically that the Government will be able to make a decision as to where the second airport will be. Let us be frank about it. Mr McVeigh —They have got the wind up. Mr HUNT —That is right. Mr McVeigh —They are frightened. Mr HUNT —They are frightened. They have got the jitters. They have got the brits up, as they say. I can understand it. We are all human. Mr John Brown —You had to make a decision. Mr HUNT —We made a decision or two. Mr John Brown —The decision you made was not to make a decision and you did it very well. Mr HUNT —The honourable member should not be silly. We made a decision. My predecessor, Mr Nixon, set up the Major Airport Needs of Sydney Committee. When it was getting towards the stage of making a decision, what did the Premier of New South Wales do? He pulled his officers off the Committee. Those hillbillies around Mascot, who have been ruling the roost, have really ruled the roost over this Government, and poor old Sydney gets $11.5m for a taxiway. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith)(5.33) —I will not be too long. I wish to ask the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John Brown) a question relating to page 124 of the explanatory notes for the Department of Administrative Services and the purchase of vehicles and equipment for the Department. The explanatory notes state: This item provides for replacement of vehicles and ancillary equipment . . . I would like the Minister to give the Committee the assurance that when those vehicles are purchased to replace our vehicles priority will be given to vehicles that are manufactured in Australia. If they are not wholly manufactured in Australia they should at least be assembled in Australia. I hope that the Minister will not purchase too many fully imported vehicles. I think that the Minister is well aware-he answered a question in Parliament today on this matter-of the problems associated with General Motors-Holden's Ltd at Acacia Ridge. I think that at all times the Minister should ensure that whatever purchases are made by the Department of Administrative Services in the motor vehicle area, the vehicles will not be fully imported and that they will be manufactured or at least assembled in Australia. I ask the Minister to pay attention to that matter. Maybe he will be able to explain that point to the House. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(5.34) —I wish to join the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) in paying tribute to officers of the Department of Housing and Construction. I was thrilled to think that he was so very generous in his message of congratulations to them. It also applies to officers in the housing branch of the Department of Housing and Construction. I am most grateful to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) for giving me one and a half minutes in which to speak, because I wish to talk about Brisbane Airport. Brisbane Airport is a tremendously important airport. When I was Minister for Housing and Construction the Government was going ahead to ensure that the airport would be completed by 1985-86. I noticed that as soon as the Hawke Government came to power-this is indicative of the fact that, for some reason, it hates Queenslanders-it chopped $20m off the allocation. That was a terrible thing to do. I am surprised at the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), who when I was a Minister showed a great deal of interest in Brisbane Airport. She used to come and see me and indicate how important and how necessary it was that it be completed as a matter of urgency. She has been silent, struck dumb. But in our time she was always talking about the importance of Brisbane Airport. Mr Chairman, I excuse you because you are an honourable gentleman, but the moment the Hawke Government got into power, for some unknown reason the Brisbane Airport was of no importance to the honourable member for Lilley. I wish to say, on behalf of all other Queenslanders besides the honourable member for Lilley, that Brisbane Airport is of absolute importance. It is great to see the work going ahead there. Of course, all those contracts were awarded very competitively in the time when either the honourable member for Gwydir or I was the responsible Minister. We were able to make enormous savings for the Australian taxpayer by virtue of the fact that we programmed the work and ensured that we got top quality men and great workers. We gave them the incentive to get on with the job, secure in the knowledge that there would be no shortcomings, the work would continue and it would be completed in 1985-86. I make that very brief comment to show that in our day the honourable member for Lilley thought that Brisbane Airport was important. Now it is not important. I am disappointed with that attitude. Mr Cadman —Mr Chairman-- The CHAIRMAN —Is the honourable member proceeding to seek the call? Mr Cadman —No. I have been informed that we have an agreement. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.36) —I wish to thank the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) who wanted to make a contribution, no doubt about Sydney Airport. Like the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) he would have been totally out of order. There is no excuse for the honourable member for Gwydir. He has been a Minister for Transport and Construction and he knows that decisions relating to airports are made by the client departments. The client department in this case is the Department of Aviation. I have not looked up the records, but if we have not yet had a debate on the estimates for the Department of Aviation I recommend to the honourable member for Mitchell that he get on to his Whip and put his name down so that he can say what he wants to say about airports on that occasion. I thank all those members who took part in this debate. It was pleasing to me that a number of the wide issues that are covered by both the Department of Administrative Services and my own Department of Housing and Construction were mentioned. I refer to housing, property, which is covered by Administrative Services, and the great construction divisions of the Department of Housing and Construction. Working backwards in the order of speakers I mention to the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) that it is good for him to have his bit of fun at the expense of the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) but if he is giving the impression that the great Brisbane Airport construction project is not under full stream, he is misleading the Committee and the people who may be listening. It is under full stream. I have visited the site. The honourable member for Lilley took the trouble to come with me when I visited that site. What is more, if the honourable member for Darling Downs wishes to give the Committee and therefore the people of this country the impression that the same timetable is not being adhered to, he is misleading this Committee as well. We have the same timetable in store and we welcome that great project going ahead in the way it is. It is sad that the honourable member for Gwydir has not remained in the Chamber for me to thank him, first of all, for his kind remarks about officers in my Department. He mentioned Mr Keith Rodda, the Deputy Secretary, who mainly takes an interest in the great construction divisions. He is quite right that officers in the Department are a very professional group of people often unsung. There are not many opportunities to talk about the matters covered by that great Department, which consists of nine to ten thousand people in the construction divisions, ranges over 130 different locations and is very well represented in the regions of this country. They cover a wide range of construction. They erect buildings, defence establishments and airports. I say only this about the Sydney Airport: Indeed, it has been a tragedy for this country that the Australian Labor Party has governed for only 3 1/2 years out of the last 34. The honourable member for Gwydir said how incredible it is that for so many years nothing has been done. He is, of course, doing nothing more or less than criticising his own Party's stewardship of this country. It is indeed a tragedy that we have had so much indecision in so many areas to date. Certainly, that applies to the Sydney Airport. I give due credit to the Minister for Aviation, the honourable member for Swan (Mr Beazley), for the way in which he is tackling that issue. It now looks as though we are on our way to a proper resolution of the matter. I am sure that many members of this Chamber who have electorates around Sydney Airport will be very happy to take copies of the speech made by the honourable member for Gwydir and put them in letterboxes around Sydney Airport because it properly outlines the sort of attitude that members of the Liberal Party and the National Party have to the discomfort caused to thousands and thousands of Sydney residents living around the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. In fact, Mr Chairman, you know that issue well. Mr Chairman, I thank the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) for his enormous interest in housing and for the very sensible contributions that he makes on housing in this chamber. After what he said there is probably little need for me to respond to the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) who led the debate for the Opposition. So much of what the honourable member for Ryan said was so wrong that I am almost bereft of words, but I have been helped by the contribution made by the honourable member for Stirling. Let me go through some of the points. The first thing to recognise is that what the Hawke Labor Government has done for housing is not just a reordering of priorities. I have only to look at the results of what we have done in order to make my point. The honourable member for Ryan talked about some hiatus in housing in June and July. If there has been a hiatus in housing in June and July that points up just how poor the results were in earlier months. The fact is that housing activity is on the move again in this country, and we are proud of it. It is on the move again because of the great confidence that has been brought to so many people in that industry through the election of the Hawke Labor Government, through the National Economic Summit Conference, through the housing mini-summit, and through the consultative mechanisms that have been established between the Government and so many great institutions that make up the housing industry of this country. I refer to the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Federation of Australia Inc., the banks, the building societies, and the credit unions. I could go on. These are the institutions that make up the housing industry. Through the co-operative effort of this Government and those institutions, housing is on the move. We have approval figures today that show that that is so. We also have lending figures issued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to show that that is so. All of this activity is happening prior to the great impetus of our new first home owners scheme. Liberal and National Party members around Australia were invited to the breakfast launches of those schemes. I am glad that some of those members came to these launches; they would know just what a great scheme it is and how not only the representatives of the Housing Industry Association in Perth have lent their support and their words to this new first home owners scheme, as the honourable member for Stirling indicated. In addition, national leaders have also lent their support to the scheme. I am grateful to Mr Bill Kirkby-Jones, the National Executive Director of the Housing Industry Association, and to Mr Ron Cameron, the Director of the Australian Bankers Association. I am grateful to so many others who spoke at so many of those breakfast launches around Australia and for the great support they have given to the first home owners scheme. Since the announcement on 21 July of the deletion of savings from the home deposit assistance scheme-we announced that we would not require savings in order to qualify for home deposit assistance in August and September-we have received 150,000 inquiries about the HDAS scheme as well as the first home owners scheme. In other words, on the first four working days-3 October to 6 October-we had 35,000 inquiries around Australia in regard to the first home owners scheme. In addition, there was the news that loan approvals in Victoria were up 50 per cent last month. These are just some of the signs that the housing industry is on the move. I do not want the move to be such that it overheats the industry. We want it to be steady. From what the leaders of such companies as CSR Ltd, which has a big building materials division, and Boral, which also specialises in building material, tell me, there are great signs around, not only from the Australian Bureau of Statistics records but also from their own sales records, which indicate that the housing industry is on the move. It does not put things into perspective-indeed, it misleads the Parliament and the people-for the honourable member for Ryan to talk about a hiatus period. He then went on to say that there was something wrong with abolishing the savings requirement from the old home deposit assistance scheme. He regretted it . He mouthed the sort of troglodyte attitudes that were also expressed in the Senate when the First Home Owners Act went through the Parliament. How can young people, who are obliged to pay large market rents, get together the necessary savings requirement as they were obliged to do in the past? Of course they cannot. They are paying out too much for other things. Every bit of research tells us that the abolition of that savings requirement will bring home ownership within the range of a whole new group of people. Anyway, it will be the lenders who will be taking any risk associated with such savings requirements. It is just not true to suggest, as the honourable member for Ryan did, that the market place is slack at present-I think I have already answered that point-and that all the emphasis has been on public housing vis a vis home ownership. The first home owners scheme is all about the private ownership of housing. It will help those who are reliant on the public housing market because it will remove people from waiting lists for public housing and help them towards home ownership. It will also remove people from the rental accommodation area in the private sphere as well and thus reduce the pressure on rents. Let me again thank all those who took part in this debate. It is most encouraging that the housing industry is on the move again. I pay tribute to the officers of my Department, not only those in the construction divisions I have talked about, but also those in the housing divisions as well, for the sterling work they have done because, with their help, the Hawke Labor Government has already achieved great results in the housing sphere as well as in the construction sphere. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Administrative Services)(5.50) —I would like to make a few comments on some of the contributions-some constructive, some otherwise-to this debate on the estimates for the Department of Administrative Services. I start by making a few comments on the remarks made by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards). He spoke about the need to make Administrative Services a department that operates on a quasi-commercial basis. I agree with him totally. I am pleased to say that since I assumed the stewardship of this particularly important Department I have been able to see in that short period of six months an increase not only in the productivity of the Department but also in morale. The actions of the previous Government and of the Ministers who occupied this post were all dedicated to the destruction of this important services Department, prompted no doubt by some decisions that were taken under the Review of Commonwealth Functions, the old razor gang. The very excellent public servants who populate this Department, including those officers who are now sitting at the back of the chamber, found themselves in the position of not knowing whether their jobs were going to be there next week, given the number of decisions taken in this Department to wind down the various functions it operated. We are now putting this Department on a semi-commercial basis and we have done several things to promote that. The honourable member for Stirling mentioned a couple of them-the building of government buildings and the policies we have taken with regard to the purchase of government motor vehicles. I will spend a moment or two talking about both those matters. The previous Government did not build a major Commonwealth building when it was in office. The result of that is that the Federal Government has the highest rate of occupancy of leased buildings amongst federal governments in the world. The sad situation is that 64 per cent of all the hundreds of thousands of public servants in Australia are in rented premises-in fact in Sydney it reaches a ridiculous 83 per cent-with the Government paying out something like $150m this year in rents for leased premises around Australia, when the obvious, reasonable and businesslike approach would to to own the buildings. I am delighted that the Cabinet has agreed to a proposition I put up for the building of something like $120m-worth of Commonwealth buildings around Australia in the present financial year. I will give one good example of how rational a decision this is. Let me talk about one in which I, and I am sure the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) in another way, have a particular interest-the building of a Commonwealth building in Parramatta in my electorate. There are so many Commonwealth departments residing in the central business district of Sydney where there is no need for them to be that the situation is quite ludicrous. Any reasonable commercial enterprise would not have allowed the situation to deteriorate to the stage it had reached under the previous Government. Government departments are sitting in prestige office space in the centre of the Sydney business district paying rents of up to $300 or $400 per square metre per year to provide services which could adequately be provided in the suburbs where the public servants live and near to where the people who want to do business with them also live. Mr McVeigh —Put some beef in it. They are all leaving. Mr JOHN BROWN —Do I have to contend with this bumbling fool from the National Party? I thought I was doing a solo act. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member has no right to engage in incessant interjection. I ask him to desist. Mr JOHN BROWN —In Parramatta we will be able to build a major Commonwealth building to house approximately 4,000 public servants. Mr McVeigh —Is this Parramatta Park? Does Tom Uren agree with that? The CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask the honourable member for Darling Downs to cease interjecting. Mr JOHN BROWN —The point I was making was that for the cost of housing these 4, 000 public servants in the central business district of Sydney and paying incredibly high commercial rents we can build a Commonwealth building in Parramatta, and at the end of 10 years, own it. I am yet to hear anybody who would question the veracity or sound commercial sense of doing that. I think it is to the credit of this Government that we can see the sound commercial sense of owning Commonwealth buildings and housing public servants in proper conditions instead of putting up with the sub-standard conditions in which they are now housed in privately-owned buildings for which the Commonwealth is paying exorbitant rents. I suggest that at the end of this period of government, before we are elected next time, something like 16 major Commonwealth buildings will be constructed around Australia, six of them in Queensland, I might add, in Mackay, Townsville, Cairns and Thursday Island, with a great deal of refurbishing in Brisbane. Mr McVeigh —Toowoomba? Mr JOHN BROWN —None in Toowoomba that I know of. The population of Australia will congratulate this Government for its great commercial sense in saving taxpayers' money. Public servants will then be working in areas where they live instead of having to travel massive distances to commercial centres in the centre of cities. They will also applaud the fact that they are working in reasonable conditions. I think it is an indictment of the previous Administration, for instance, that in Townsville public servants have been working in conditions that could be described only as dickensian in buildings that were built before the turn of this century. In one building that I attended there were candles in bottles. I said: 'What are they for-blackouts? They said: 'No, that's probably the best lighting we have. The electric lighting in winter is so inefficient that we light candles to help'. The previous Government was prepared to leave people working in those sorts of conditions. A major building for Townsville has been designed, and approved by the Public Works Committee. It has been sitting on the stocks since 1977 waiting for the previous Government to give it the go-ahead. This Government, in its first couple of months of office, took the decision to build that building in Townsville, which will mean that all the 16 government departments represented in Townsville which service all of the north of Queensland across to the Northern Territory border will now be better able to deliver services to the people who are entitled to get services from them. The public servants who will work in that modern, air-conditioned and splendid construction, built under the supervision of the Department of Housing and Construction, will also be happy that their working conditions will be more pleasant, and obviously their services will be more efficient. The previous Government could not see the sense of doing that and was quite happy to pay excessive commercial rents for inferior buildings when the possibility was there to construct buildings which the public owned. Mr Hodgman —When are you going to get on with Hodgman House in Hobart? Mr JOHN BROWN —I do not propose to name any house after Hodgman. It is more likely to be an institution of ill fame named after the honourable gentleman. I think Townsville and Parramatta might be fairly good examples of what we propose to do over the rest of Australia to provide a sound and business-like basis for the Department of Administrative Services. The same might be applied to motor vehicles. Any survey done by any reputable firm of accountants across Australia would indicate that the best time to sell a commercial vehicle is after two years of service, and that had been the policy under the Whitlam Government. It is sad to relate that, under the Fraser Administration, Commonwealth-owned cars were 3.8 years old before they were disposed of. The economics of that are simply ridiculous. This Government has voted money to the Department to replace our vehicles almost by the two year stage; it is now about two years and three months. By the next Budget it will be back to two years. The sound economic basis for that is clearly defined in a dozen surveys, including the most recent one which was done for the previous Government but of which, of course, it took no notice. The result of that will be savings in the order of $2.5m a year in the cost of maintenance and replacement of vehicles. This Government has adopted a very business-like approach to the administration of this very important Department and, more importantly, has given those people who work in it a totally new sense of dedication and morale. I think that is a very important decision we have taken. I turn to some comments that were made by the honourable member for Dundas concerning a block of land at the corner of Bettington Road and Kissing Point Road which is quite near where both he and I live, that had formerly been the site of a Commonwealth hostel. I will not go over the arguments that he made about the history of the disposal of the land, except to say that that land has traditionally been welfare housing land since its purchase by the Commonwealth. That was the reason for its purchase and that was the reason for which it was used. When the hostel became surplus and was disposed of and the land remained fallow under the previous Government. The honourable member has mentioned that the New South Wales Government had not been interested in that piece of land. I do not know whether that is true. I will accept his word, because I find him to be an honourable gentleman. I will tell honourable members what this Government proposes to do about it. It is a piece of land that is admirably suited to the provision of welfare housing which was, as I said, the traditional use of that land. This Government is involved in discussions with the New South Wales Government and the Housing Commission of New South Wales under Mr Walker, to see that that land is used for the building of welfare housing. The arguments that were put forward by the honourable member to my mind hold no substance. He claimed that the land is not flat, it is not near shops and is not ideally suited for welfare housing. I will explode a few of those arguments. It is on public transport routes going in two directions; it is quite near a block of shops and the major shopping centres of Parramatta and Carlingford; and it is surrounded by schools. The terrain is absolutely perfect for the building of townhouses, which the New South Wales Housing Commission proposes to build up on it. The honourable member made reference to the fact that if the Commonwealth sells that land to the New South Wales Government we might not be obtaining full value for the land. That is a matter for some debate. I argue strongly that the Commonwealth will be obtaining full valuation for that land as, of course, we should in any proper dealing. As Minister I am charged with seeing that the Commonwealth gets full value for any land or building that I dispose of. But in evaluating what the Commonwealth receives for land or property, one should also look at the social, as well as the base financial, criteria. It is fair to say that in the evolution of Sydney, young people seeking Housing Commission homes are constantly pushed to the peripheral areas-to Campbelltown, St Marys and Emu Plains-where there are many social problems, not the least of which being that no jobs are available because there are no industries there. When we find a piece of land such as the one in Dundas, which is about five hectares and which is perfect for the development of welfare housing, it seems to me to be incumbent from a social point of view for the Commonwealth and State governments to see that welfare housing is put on traditional welfare housing land, and that is what will happen. I add that 1.18 hectares of that land will be provided for open space under some agreement with the Parramatta City Council to improve amenities for the people. Mr McVeigh —You are not going to get many houses, are you? Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member, as a former Minister for Housing and Construction, should have some idea of how many welfare housing townhouses could be put on 3.53 hectares of sloping land. Mr McVeigh —I am asking you. Mr JOHN BROWN —I am not about to tell the honourable member because the New South Wales Government must decide about that. But it will be developed totally in accord with the zonings that are supplied by the Parramatta City Council which controls that block of land. The Government's action in providing that land to the New South Wales Government for welfare housing is absolutely defensible. The more welfare housing that we build on built-up land which has an underutilisation of expensive services such as roads, sewerage, water and electricity circulation the better we will be. I am sure that you, Mr Chairman, as a former distinguished Minister for Housing in the Whitlam Government, would totally agree with me, because that was a philosophy that you pursued. The things that you did as a Minister stand as testimony to your judgment. What we are doing in Dundas will accord exactly with your philosophy-that there should be a social mix in areas; that welfare housing should be built where people do not find themselves in an isolated position; and that people at the base of the socio-economic scale should not be deprived of the enrichment that is available to them in built-up areas. That is exactly what we are doing with regard to the land in Dundas. I will not step back from my proposition that that land should be supplied to the New South Wales Government under proper terms and conditions for welfare housing. When I hear the honourable member for Dundas talking about a waste of public money, I am almost tempted to laugh. In my short period of tenure in this office I have discovered-and corrected the waste of many hundreds of thousands of dollars under decisions that were taken by the previous Government. I am proud that we have made commercial decisions about housing, accommodation and motor cars that will all be to the advantage of the Australian taxpayer. I am happy to say to you, Mr Chairman, that I, apart from being the Minister for Administrative Services, am also a taxpayer, as are all members of this Parliament. I find it incumbent upon us to take actions which are responsible to the taxpayers of Australia and within our political philosophy: Those decisions were not taken by the previous Government. Its lack of efficiency stands greatly to its detriment. I turn to some of the comments that were made by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys), the Government Whip, regarding car disposal. Mr McVeigh —Tell him to wind it up, then. Mr Hodgman —He's the one who is trying to shut you up. Mr McVeigh —The Government Whip is interested now. Mr JOHN BROWN —He made some remarks about some pieces missing from motor cars that were disposed of at our auctions. He spoke about hub caps, lights and various other things. The CHAIRMAN —I ask the honourable members on my left to cease making frivolous interjections. An occasional intelligent interjection is not resented by the Minister or anybody else. But I do not think honourable members have a right to persist with frivolous interjections. I ask the House to come to order. Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member for Griffith spoke about the disposal of Commonwealth vehicles through an auction system. There is a lot of substance in the criticisms he made. I am happy to tell him in this forum that we are at present undertaking a review of the disposal of Commonwealth vehicles. Many of the suggestions that the honourable member has made-they were made out of a sense of his own skills because of his trade before he entered this Parliament- were made with a view to getting better value for taxpayers' money, and they will be incorporated in that review of the disposal of Commonwealth vehicles. But I must answer a charge he made, with regard to missing hub caps and other accessories of vehicles, that there might be some evidence of dishonesty by departmental officials. It is fair to tell him that an exacting audit is made of Commonwealth vehicles and the accessories that go with them. Any examples of dishonesty amongst the staff would be found out by that audit and appropriate disciplinary action taken. I can assure the honourable member with regard to his charge that that is not the case and often vehicles are sold minus hub caps that have been lost during the vehicles' former service, particularly on rough country roads. He asked me also, with regard to the buildings that we are about to build in Queensland and the advertisements that have been placed seeking submissions of interest from developers, how many developers have applied. I cannot tell him the exact number, but every decent developer in Australia is keen to enter this program which the Government has propounded. Mr McVeigh —That is in Queensland? Mr JOHN BROWN —All over Australia, but in Queensland a number of people have applied to build those buildings, particularly in Townsville where the tender has been let. I understand it has been let to Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd. It would astound honourable members to know that every major developer in Queensland is very keen to apply for jobs-in Mackay, Cairns, Rockhampton and Thursday Island. Mr McVeigh —That is because of Joh. Mr JOHN BROWN —No, it is despite Joh. The major building will be built in Parramatta. I think we will find that when the tenders for Parramatta are opened every major developer in Australia will have applied for that project. It is an enterprise which will probably be in the $50m to $60m bracket. It will be a major building. Not only the taxpayers of Australia but also the building industry are thankful that this Government has taken the initiatives to add that stimulus to the building industry by building some Commonwealth buildings. The other matter that was referred to by the honourable member for Griffith related to the purchase of Government vehicles. He asked me whether priority would be given to Australian made vehicles. I think it goes without saying that, given this Government's priorities with regard to Australian industry and our commitment to an Australian preference scheme for Government purchasing, that, of course, will be the case. The vehicles that will be purchased under the Government's new purchasing program will, of course, be vehicles with a very high Australian content, if not 100 per cent Australian content; and he can rest assured of that. Summing up, I am very proud to be the Minister for Administrative Services. My short association with the public servants in this area has been one of great joy. They are doing a splendid job. They have been given new life from this Government in terms of their tenure of employment and in terms of the satisfaction they get out of doing a good job. By the end of three years of this Government the Department of Administrative Services will have climbed out of its inferior position, where it was pushed by the previous Government in its attempt to wind it down to nothing, into a position of pre-eminence amongst the departments that serve this Government. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Primary Industry Proposed expenditure, $146,912,000. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(6.11) —Overall the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry provide for total expenditure of $696.5m in 1983-84 compared with $686.6m in 1982-83. The increase is due to a large extent to additional expenditure under Division 495, the Export Inspection Service. In 1983-84 the total cost of the Export Inspection Service is estimated at just over $80m, compared with $67.6m the previous year. The main reason for this jump is the Commonwealth taking over control of the New South Wales Meat Inspection Service. Total employment in the Commonwealth Service at 30 June 1984 will be 2,400 compared with 2,017 as at 30 June this year. The estimated total cost of salaries and payments in the nature of salary, as per subdivision 1 of division 495, is estimated at $54.4m for 1983-84 compared with $44.3m in 1982-83. Therefore, the Service will cost an additional $10m and it is largely caused by the transfer of the New South Wales Service to the Commonwealth. The Export Inspection Service is no small commodity. Indeed it is the single most costly item in the entire primary industry estimates. It is also an especially significant area because industry, recovering from the drought and facing the difficulties of decreased export prices following the appreciation of the Australian dollar, now has to pay for 50 per cent of the cost of the Commonwealth export inspection service. It is on the record that the Opposition supports the philosophy of achieving 50 per cent cost recovery from industry. We have very strongly objected to the Government's timing in forcing such massively increased charges onto rural industry at this time. In our view, and in the view of the industry, it displays an absolute ignorance on the part of the Hawke Australian Labor Party Government to the needs of rural industries. The most savagely hit by these increases, which became effective from the first of this month, will be the meat industry. Its inspection charges have been hiked up by a massive 200 per cent. Needless to say, the industry is particularly interested to see just what it is getting for its money. The point is that if it is costing an extra $10m to take over the New South Wales Service, what will happen if and when the Commonwealth also manages to take over the Victorian, Queensland and Western Australian services? Presumably the inspection service bill will rise even further, which means the cost burden on the industry will also rise. Industry's concern does not rest there. The Government still has not stated whether its policy is that industry should be called on to pay only 50 per cent of inspection costs or whether that percentage will, at some future time, be increased. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), in his second reading speech on the Livestock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill, stated: . . . in setting a recovery rate of 50 per cent from industry for the provision of export inspection for all primary produce commodities, the Government has been mindful of the fact that further efficiencies in the delivery of these services are possible of being achieved and therefore considers that industry should not be expected to pay the full cost of operating the current service. In anybody's language that means that when further efficiencies are achieved industry will be expected to pay the full cost of the service. The Government does have a responsibility to tell industry precisely, accurately and honestly what its policy is in this area. There is a need to have some definite clarification. What industry is currently being faced with, it would seem, is an export inspection service which is costing more and more and which will cost industry more and more. Obviously the meat industry will face an increasingly tough time. Coupled with these massively increased inspection charges the Australian dollar has been revalued against the United States dollar to the extent to which the effect of the March devaluation has been seriously whittled away. That is going to affect adversely our meat export trade, our wheat export trade and our sugar export trade-in effect, the competitiveness of all of our rural exports on international markets. There are other areas of these estimates which are disappointing. In particular I refer to the allocation of only $20m in 1983-84 for wool promotion and only $ 1m for the national soil conservation program. In my view these are two classic examples of the Government's trickery. So too is its decision to slap on wine an excise tax which I shall come to shortly. Mr Chairman, I know that you must be extremely disappointed, after your long years of service in the Parliament, to be part of a party which, in an election campaign, runs around the country telling deliberate fibs. During the election campaign the Government emphatically promised to provide $28m for wool promotion. It has not delivered on that promise, and the Minister stands condemned. Mr O'Keefe —The shortfall is $8m. Mr McVEIGH —As the honourable member for Paterson says, it is a shortfall of $8m . The Government is not interested in the wool industry; it does not understand what promotion is all about. All that it understands is promising one thing, laughing at one behind one's back and not delivering. Of course we know that the Minister's stock-in-trade reply when people confront him out in the open is: 'Do not worry; I agree with you, but I will not be able to get it through Caucus'. We do not know whether or not he agrees with a request, but we know that he cannot get it through Caucus or the Cabinet. Mr O'Keefe —The Labor Party is not interested in primary industry. Mr McVEIGH —As the honourable member for Paterson says, the Government is not interested in primary industry. All the Minister can say is: 'I lost that one too'. The Government also promised to spend $4m in its first year on a national soil conservation program, but instead it has provided only $1m. In the election campaign the Minister came to the Darling Downs. People there just laugh at him now. He said that the Government placed the highest priority on soil conservation. Clearly, from the allocation that it has received his colleagues do not share his concern about this issue. The Minister runs around and says: ' The total cost of soil conservation measures in Australia at present has been estimated at $1.4 billion. It does not really matter that I promised $4m but have delivered only $1m because that is infinitesimal'. That is what the Minister thinks about soil conservation. The wine tax decision was nothing short of a fiasco. I noticed in the Australian newspaper last week that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who would not even go to a Labor Party rural seminar in Victoria-he will not even turn up as he is not interested and he would rather play tennis-was reported as saying that the revised decision may again be revised. The Government is always revising something. It is about time it understood and acted in a proper way. The Government has provided the sugar industry with $11m for carry-on finance for sugar cane growers. The bulk of this money-$10m-merely matches a similar loan provided by the Queensland Government. The growers had to put the Chinese burn on the Federal Government to get that similar matching amount. The Government has provided nothing more for the sugar industry, despite a host of promises it made during the election campaign. It has quite rightly rejected the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission for the industry. It seems to me that, if the Government is genuine in its concern for the sugar industry, it would now immediately implement an underwriting scheme. Again, it promised this during the election campaign. This promise has melted like snow in the midday sun. Having ditched the IAC's draft report, the Government can no longer delay implementing its election promises. It talks about its interest in the sugar industry. The research sector of the sugar industry was not impressed when the Minister cut the allocation to the Sugar Research Institute from $550, 000 last year to $485,000 this year. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(6.21) —In addressing my remarks to the Committee's consideration of the estimates of the Department of Primary Industry, I wish to concentrate on the relative importance of the agricultural sector to the Australian economy. We need to look at where the agricultural sector sits in the Australian economy and at some of the changes which have taken place in it. We need to assess the medium outlook for Australia's major agricultural products. These are important issues which the Department of Primary Industry has to consider in the expenditure of the funds allocated to it. In considering the place of the agricultural sector in the Australian economy, it is common to start from the proposition that the sector is declining. However , this is a misconception. The agricultural sector is growing in absolute terms. Since the early 1960s, the volume of agricultural production has been growing at 2.8 per cent per annum. However, total output in the economy has been growing at a faster rate. As a result, the farm sector's contribution to gross domestic production has dropped from around 13 per cent in the early 1960s to 7 per cent in recent years. It should also be stressed that, while it is no longer the dominant source of export earnings, as it was in the early 1950s, the agricultural sector earned $7.8 billion in export receipts in 1981-82 and accounted for an average of 45 per cent of Australian export income over the last five years. We must consider that this contribution was made by less than 180,000 farm enterprises and 7 per cent of the total work force-a very important sector of the economy. For members of the Opposition to consider today that the Government does not take the agricultural sector seriously is absolutely ridiculous. More people now sitting on the Government benches come from rural seats than there are on the Opposition side. The agricultural sector can be expected to remain the most important single source of export earnings for at least the rest of this decade and possibly longer. The relative decline in the economic importance of the agricultural sector is a common feature of growth in industrialised countries. Other sectors of the economy, particularly the tertiary sector, tend to grow more rapidly than agriculture. We must look at the directions of change in the agricultural sector to understand fully the importance of the Department of Primary Industry in the economy. Broadly, the contribution to the gross value of agricultural output of wheat and other crops- mainly coarse grains and oilseeds-of sugar and beef, veal and intensive livestock have risen. The contribution of the wool industry, dairy products, eggs and the fruit growing industry has fallen. There have been significant variations on these broad trends, particularly in the case of the beef and sugar industries, as a result of large, year-to-year price variations. The sugar industry, in particular, is suffering because of that at present. Several developments over the past decade need highlighting. Prices paid rose rapidly while prices received rose at a slower rate. Upturns in world commodity prices twice brought about a substantial lift in the ratio of prices received to prices paid in the 1970s. But subsequent downturns caused the index to resume its overall downward trend. Generally, farmers have been able to adjust to the downward trend in the ratio of prices received to prices paid through sustained improvements in productivity. Farm productivity is something we need to look at seriously. It is an area on which the Department of Primary Industry has a big bearing by its services to the community. From the mid 1950s to 1968-69, the volume of rural output rose at a rate of 3.3 per cent per annum, while the volume of purchased inputs increased at the slower rate of 2.6 per cent per annum. Subsequently, the volume of output continued to rise, although the rate of increase dropped to 1.7 per cent per annum. The volume of inputs, however, has fallen since 1968-69. It has been estimated that, between 1952-53 and 1976- 77, the total volume of output in the sheep industry rose at an annual rate of 4 .4 per cent, while total volume of inputs rose at an annual rate of 1.5 per cent . Hence, productivity is estimated to have risen by 2.9 per cent a year. Productivity gains have been achieved in a variety of ways. Capital has been substituted for labour. Larger machinery has enabled farmers to take advantage of size economies. Minimal tillage practices have been adopted in areas where they are suitable. The area sown to legume pastures has been extended. New higher yielding and disease resistant wheat varieties have been adopted. Farmers have improved their own management skills. These are only some of the sources of productivity change. Departments of agriculture right throughout Australia, of course, have had a big bearing on these productivity increases. It is vary important that we see the departments in their proper light. In the economic environment of the 1980s farmers will continue to be faced with strong pressure to improve productivity. Further gains can be expected despite a number of constraints such as soil degradation and salinity-two problems in which the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has taken a very active interest-weeds, pests and various plant and animal diseases. These gains will be strongly influenced by the level of innovation in Australian agriculture in the coming decade. It has become clear that, over the last five to 10 years, there have been some highly significant technological breakthroughs which, although in come cases are still in the experimental stage, have the potential to enable farmers to achieve higher rates of productivity growth. Some examples are: The use of biological methods of insect and pest control, which could reduce dependence on chemical pesticides-a very, very important area for the rural sector and the community at large-further developments in such areas as high analysis fertilisers, systemic weedicides and chemical shearing; the greater use of small computers on farms and access to centralised information systems which offer powerful new aids to decision making. We have seen the development of new synthetic vaccines and the use of time release capsules for growth stimulants and parasite control. As a general observation, in the longer term, genetic engineering has the potential to effect significant changes in agricultural practices. I am sure that the Minister for Primary Industry, who is at the table, is fully aware of all the things that are facing the rural sector in the future and is quite aware of what his Department will need to do in the long term to see that many of these developments take place. I would like to spend the last couple of minutes of my time talking about a few of the structural changes that have taken place in agriculture. Over the past decade there has been a marked structural change in the whole area. There are fewer and larger farms. Between 1969-70 and 1979-80, the total number of rural establishments fell at an average annual rate of 4 per cent from 195,100 to 179, 100. The fastest rate of decline was in the dairy industry, an industry which is established very strongly in my electorate. The traumas that occurred there in the 1970s were quite dramatic. At the same time, average farm size has been increasing by an average annual rate of around 4 per cent. Between 1970-71 and 1978-79, average farm size rose from 1,996 hectares to 2,670 hectares. There have been adjustments in resources use on farms in response to changes in relative input prices. The major change has been a substitution of capital for labour. However, in the last couple of years there has been a slight upturn in that area. Employment rates in the rural sector are now stabilising and in some areas, even increasing. In summing up, I would just like to make a few comments on the shadow Minister's approach to the debate tonight. He set out on his usual approach of attacking the Minister over promises, an approach which was very negative. Mr Kerin —He has scuttled and run. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Yes. He has left the House and is now not even here for the rest of the debate. I am honoured to be part of the Government which has the responsibility of administering agriculture in Australia. I believe that only good can come out of it in the future. I am sure that the Minister for Primary Industry at the table is fully aware and knows quite well how to handle the administration of this very important department. Sitting suspended from 6.31 to 8 p.m. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(8.00) —No objective observer of this Budget could fail to conclude that the rural sector has come off badly. In a Budget where total outlays are up some 15.8 per cent on last year, the sum allocated to the agricultural and pastoral industries of $337m, which is down by more than $35m from last year, is a reduction of nearly 10 per cent. Mr Cunningham —What about the drought? Mr DRUMMOND —I will come to the drought. Strategists in the Hawke Government have obviously concluded that cutbacks can be made and promises broken in the rural area without threatening the electoral survival of the Australian Labor Party. The ALP holds very few rural seats as distinct from provincial and mining electorates. In the short term the Government's strategy may work, but it should realise that its neglect of primary industry will damage the whole economy and cost jobs in the cities as well. How quickly some people are forgetting the lessons of the 1982 drought. The largest single reduction in aid for agriculture is the cut of some $62m in drought assistance. On the surface this might appear reasonable, until we realise that the Government has taken actions contrary to the procedures of the previous Government and contrary to its own election promises. The fodder subsidy was axed as of 30 June without reference to the fact that, in some areas , including many parts of Western Australia and in the southern area where I live-I declare my pecuniary interest-the drought had not yet broken. The interest subsidy scheme will cease on 31 December, rather than a full 12 months from the lifting of the drought. Such measures show a lack of appreciation of the problems of farmers in becoming viable after the devastation of drought. There are other areas of rural assistance where amounts allocated are in direct contradiction of election promises made only a few months previously. Twenty million dollars has gone towards wool promotion and not the $28m promised. One million dollars has gone to the soil conservation program for which $4m had been promised. I do not believe it is good enough for political parties of any complexion to make such specific promises and then break them. It would seem that this Government has sought to assist soil conservation on the cheap and gain revenue by axing tax deductibility for land clearance. This is a clumsy and unjust method of gaining a desirable end. Experience in the south west of Western Australia, particularly in the rural, eastern side of the seat of Forrest, has shown that the only fair means of preventing land degradation by overclearing is for the State Government to have sufficient courage to institute clearing bans. This happened some four years ago in the catchment areas of the Blackwood River. Although the then State Government and the Liberal members of parliament for the area incurred short term flak, the sense of the decision came to be appreciated. In fact, the Liberal vote has held up in that area far better than in many other places. Yet, if there is no danger of erosion or salinity through clearance there is no case for blanket removal of this deduction. Other areas of the Budget affect the rural community. Meat inspection fees for cattle have risen by 300 per cent, and rural export charges in general are doubled; $18m in receipts, rising to $36m. The increase in the petrol excise of nearly 2c a litre will have an adverse impact over the entire rural community. The removal of the sales tax exemption from oils and lubricants and their taxing at 20 per cent will be a further cost to primary industry. This Budget, of course, does nothing to redress the damage done to the rural community in the May mini-Budget. The petroleum products freight subsidy scheme, a largely unseen but useful support to the rural community, has been watered down by widening the gap of the freight differential from one cent to 1.1c-a widened gap that moreover is itself indexed. The tax incentive was removed from income equalisation deposits, again in contravention of an election promise. Far worse for the electors of Forrest was the decision to abandon the supplementary program of the bicentennial water resources program. The Budget has confirmed the destruction of the two most valuable projects in the south west confirmed by the previous Government. These were: The Harris Dam at Collie, and the extension of the Harvey Dam. The building of these dams would have created, both directly and indirectly, far more jobs in the south west than the community employment program can ever hope to create. Apart from the stimulation of the local economy, these water resource projects have intrinsic value to the rural community. The Harris Dam would have provided fresh water to mix with the water from the existing Wellington Dam whose salinity restricts its current use. The Harvey Dam enlargement could increase the potential of an established rural area where vegetable growing has joined irrigation dairy farming as a major industry. It is also worth remembering that in 1964 part of Harvey town had to be evacuated in the severe floods of that year because of a feared weakness in the existing dam. The enlargement of the dam would have removed any such future danger. Another aspect of this Budget that shows lack of interest in the rural community is the projected form of the assets test for age pensioners. The farming community will suffer-for example, the retired farmer who leaves his property to be run by his children, derives little or no income from it, but keeps the title to the farm. This is not some artificial scheme. It is very natural that a person who has done so much to build up a property should want to retain formal possession in his lifetime, or at least until sons and daughters are fully settled into a farming career. Such a person will be denied a pension, despite lack of possible income. The position of a farmer living on the farm also is not yet fully clarified. We are unsure whether only 10 per cent of the farm's value will be assessed, or whether 10 per cent will be exempted. The confusion and concern that many less wealthy primary producers are now experiencing is a measure of the disregard that this Government has for the rural community. It could well be argued that some of these broken promises and policy failures are directly related to that symbolic downgrading of the rural sector by leaving the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) outside the Hawke Cabinet. It is true that much nonsense is often talked by people who think they are solving some abstract social problem by making somebody a Minister or putting him in an expensive office. Yet it is quite illogical for a major department of State, overseeing a vital section of the national economy, to be excluded from the inner sanctum of policy making, when a comparatively minor department, such as the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, is thought worthy of a Cabinet seat. The interests of thousands of rural dwellers have been subordinated to petty intraparty political considerations. If the current Minister, whatever his good intentions, lacks the necessary clout for a Cabinet seat, then the portfolio had better be given to someone who has it. Finally, the winegrowers in the Margaret River region and the southern areas of my electorate of Forrest are glad that they have escaped a general excise on table wines. This relief, however, must be tempered with concern at the Government's action in respect of fortified wine, once more breaking an election promise. They are left with a feeling that what has prevented a wine excise is the inability to devise a workable system of application rather than considerations of broad principle or real concern for the future of a developing rural industry. I must emphasise that wine growing in the south west is a developing industry where many small vineyards are often still seeking long term viability. Any new tax imposition at a time of general recession could deal them a severe blow. The most damaging type of excise is the one levied on fortified wines, assessed on alcohol content rather than sale value. As with many other features of this Budget it deals with the rural sector. It is not so much the actions of the Hawke Government that offend country people as the cynical breaking of so many undertakings given before the March election. Rural dwellers are being told that they are expendable. The rural industries of Australia do not seek a free ride. Rather, they want a fair deal. Secondary industries are protected through many mechanisms such as tariffs, quotas and the like. Many service and tertiary industries are insulated by national wage determinations, different tribunals and the like. The rural industries stand alone against all the fluctuations of world trade, including the lack of access to markets and the dumping of surplus production by some countries. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(8.10) —In addressing the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry I wish to concentrate my remarks on the estimates provided for the Australian Bureau of Animal Health and particularly the responsibilities and work of that department in relation to food standards and pesticides. Page 46 of the 1981-82 annual report of the Department of Primary Industry states: The Bureau continued to function as a central authority for stimulation and co- ordination of Australian activities associated with agricultural chemicals. It provided secretariats for Commonwealth/State committees established in the agricultural chemicals area by the Australian Agricultural Council. Through this pathway it not only served an on-going role in the co-ordination of regulatory control of agricultural chemicals and veterinary drugs but also developed and helped to implement Australian policy concerning the availability and use of these chemical tools. That report goes on to describe further work of that department. Honourable members would be aware of last week's Melbourne Age article headed 'Urgent Review of Chemical' and the subsequent statement by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) concerning the agricultural chemical ethylene dibromide recently banned in the United States of America and New South Wales. The chemical is used for, among other purposes, ripening bananas in Queensland and treating insect pests in cereals, pineapples, sugar cane and tobacco. Ethylene dibromide has been listed by the World Health Organisation as being associated with, or strongly suspected of being associated with, causing cancer in humans. The issue raised in the Age of last week certainly touches on the delicate balance between, on the one hand, the use of pesticides which are aimed at maximising producer returns and product quality and, on the other hand, the legitimate right of consumers to agricultural food-stuffs free of chemical residue. In a technical sense pesticide residue should occur only when the pesticide has been overused or the withholding period, being the time between the application of the pesticide and the harvesting of the crop, has not been observed. The National Health and Medical Research Council, with which the Bureau of Animal Health liaises and co-operates, has undertaken regular surveys of a market basket of typical Australian foods since 1970. The surveys include fruit and vegetables as well as processed foods and all are tested for residues such as dieldrin, DDT, lindane, and heavy metals such as lead and cadmium. The 50 or so foods tested by the National Health and Medical Research Council are those which are most frequently consumed by Australians and also those which experience has shown are likely to be contaminated. The latest market basket survey published by that Council is for samples tested in 1980. No results are yet available for 1981 or 1982 and I believe that is a matter of considerable concern to all honourable members. The 1980 survey showed organochlorine residues above the limits of detection set by the Council in a variety of foods including onions, beans and strawberries. Organochlorines are, of course, toxic and many of them break down into even more toxic compounds such as polychlorinated biphenyls. The best known example of an organochlorine is DDT. Because of the delay in publishing the results of the 1981 and 1982 Medical Research Council surveys the Australian Consumers Association this year tested some 13 different fruits and vegetables for organochlorine and organophosphate residues. The results of that testing were published in the August 1983 edition of Choice. Significantly, the Australian Consumers Association testing detected three batches of vegetables which exceeded the Medical Research Council limits. Two of the batches contained potatoes and the other celery. In the potatoes, excess levels of the heavy metal mercury were detected-0.1 milligrams per kilogram in one sample and 0.07 milligrams per kilogram in the other. Of course, mercury is an accumulative poison that affects the kidneys and the nervous system. In the celery an amount of 0.1 milligrams per kilogram of the organophosphate fenamithos was detected, which is double the limit set by the NHMRC. A number of different explanations are possible in terms of the excessive mercury residue in the potatoes. The mercury may be due to naturally occurring mercury in the soil; it may be due to farmers' current use of a pesticide containing inorganic mercury which was banned some time ago, or it may be due to the legally permitted dipping of potatoes by farmers in compounds containing organic mercury. Whatever the reason, and certainly the overuse of pesticides seems the more plausible, the situation is clearly unsatisfactory and ought to be addressed by government as a matter of urgency and concern. Fenamithos, the pesticide detected at twice the allowable level in the celery, is manufactured by Bayer Australia Ltd and sold under the trade name 'Nemacur'. It is applied to the soil before planting. The Choice results plainly indicate that certain producers have not been observing sound agricultural practice and have been topping up the pesticide during the life of the crop. While the level of residue detected in the celery is unlikely-I stress unlikely-to cause ill effects to consumers, there is no question that the level is an unhealthy one as it is derived from a family of chemicals which is easily absorbed through the skin and is toxic if inhaled, absorbed or swallowed. The use of ethylene dibromide, the lack of comprehensive and up-to-date testing by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the 1980 survey results of that Council and the recent Choice survey highlight the need for both the Federal and State governments to monitor much more closely the use of pesticides on our agricultural products. It is pertinent in this debate to refer also to the findings of the second report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on its inquiry into hazardous chemicals. That report was tabled in December 1982. Amongst other matters, the Committee examined the assessment and subsequent control machinery for chemicals in Australia. It noted that there are a number of deficiencies in these arrangements and reported: . . . that the overall control of hazardous chemicals in Australia is poor, particularly when compared with other developed countries . . . The Committee does not believe that the fragmentation between States and Commonwealth jurisdictions and the resultant lack of uniformity are acceptable. In the Committee's specific reference to agricultural chemicals it noted at page 29: Assurances were given on the safety of agricultural chemicals by the Department of Primary Industry that: 'if the product is used with reasonable commonsense and in compliance with the directions on the label the hazard will be absolutely minimal'. The report continued: These assurances may be relevant to recently registered chemicals but in the absence of defined programs to ensure the assessment of chemicals not previously assessed, these assurances are quite misleading. It should also be emphasised that the existing legislative requirements through which potentially hazardous chemicals are managed in Australia are numerous and fragmented. Commonwealth law is implemented through at least seven different Acts and States and Territories legislation through at least 16 different Acts. I put to honourable members that the existing agricultural and veterinary chemical situation provides a strong case for developing national legislation and administrative mechanisms as a matter of some urgency. Consumers of agricultural produce in particular deserve far more than the limited surveys presently undertaken at Federal level. They deserve regular testing of food produce and far stricter controls on the registration and use of hazardous chemicals. In particular consumers deserve uniform Federal legislation with a chemical clearance system that should be statutory and include consumer and environmental representation. I know that the Australian Consumers Association has recommended that perhaps the responsibility for this legislation be taken from the Department of Primary Industry and handed over to the Department of Home Affairs and Environment or the Department of Health which it may be said have less of a vested interest in the control and use of those chemicals. Finally, I welcome the Budget decision of the Government to allocate $0.3m from the Department of Health estimates for the establishment of a chemical hazards assessment unit. That certainly is a very long overdue and welcome initiative. It shows that our Government is committed to make progress in this area. But I hope that my remarks tonight on this important matter indicate that there is still even more progress to be made. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher)(8.20) —It is, of course, natural that, as a Queenslander, I want to make some comments on the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry. As well as being resource rich, Queensland contributes massively to the Australian economy not only in minerals and energy product but also in the pastoral industries, grain production, certainly sugar, and virtually every area of agriculture, horticulture, fruit production and fisheries. Our major agricultural industries-beef, sugar, grain and wool-are very heavily dependent on world markets. Queensland beef and sugar producers are more exposed to the vagaries of the world market than producers in any other Australian State or any other agricultural nation. Queensland is the leading beef producing State. In Queensland two million hectares are sown to crops and 200,000 hectares are irrigated. Great potential exists to improve both. I will say more about that in a moment. These remarkable achievements have been obtained not only by the expertise and energy of Queensland's primary producers but also, and very importantly, by the wise and constructive policies of the Queensland Government and such competent administrators as Vic Sullivan and Mike Ahern, the very competent Minister for Primary Industries. When we look at the situation in Queensland we find that, due to the drought, revenue from agricultural production dropped from $2,600m to $2,191m-a decline of 16 per cent-and we are concerned. Drought cost the State $ 156m; the floods which followed cost $440m; damage to highways, $13m; sheep losses numbered about 500,000; cattle losses, over 70,000; and grain losses, over $160m. As we look at the estimates and the mini-Budget and the policies which prompted them it is extremely disappointing to see the toing and froing and the unseemly haste with which the Federal Government sought to remove drought relief provisions put in place by the Fraser Government. My colleague the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) has covered that matter very adequately. The Government did this when the first rain-bearing cloud appeared on the horizon after one of the most disastrous droughts in Australia's recorded history. This exhibits not only a complete lack of sympathy with Australia's primary industries but also a complete lack of understanding of reality. When rain falls pastures do not appear overnight and fodder stocks do not appear like mushrooms. Building up of herds is not instantaneous, nor has a season of lost crops, when all of the costs of preparation, seed and husbandry have been spent for no return and when a year's income has been completely lost, been overcome simply because rain has fallen. Nor did the summary removal in the May mini-Budget of certain write-offs for clearing and drainage show any spark of understanding or appreciation of the needs of primary producers or of primary production practice or husbandry. I commend to honourable members and to the Government a speech which was made under another estimates head but which was certainly crucially important and relvant to primary industry, these estimates and the policies they represent, by my colleague the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), on the urgent need for a comprehensive water resources program. As we talk of primary production and the impact of drought, I am amazed at the absolute refusal of the Federal Government even to consider, let alone entertain, the very sensible proposals for investigation and analysis by the Premier of Queensland. It is all very well to snigger at the proposals, but during the wet season primary producers in Queensland continue to see huge volumes of water pour into the ocean when its harvesting would be a godsend in some of our harsh, dry periods. The Government' s answer, of course, was to abandon the bicentennial water resources program. The very remarkable expertise and achievement of the world-recognised Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation have much vindicated the importance of the investigation and study along the lines proposed by Queensland. This Government is far more concerned to denigrate the Premier, to dismiss the proposals as a fantasy, than constructively to co-operate in urgently addressing itself to the preservation of the most precious natural resource in this, the driest continent in the world-water. Queensland primary producers know from bitter experience, and my colleagues the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) and the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) also know, how the parsimony of Federal governments, particularly this Federal Government, has made the battle to conserve water an uphill battle all the way. The Government seems more concerned to obstruct and starve than to help or to understand. I want to turn for a moment to Queensland's great industry, the sugar industry. There is very great concern amongst Queensland's sugar producers about the industry's future. The Queensland Government has done its job. Since June 1982 the Queensland Government has provided assistance totalling $24.125m for sugar producers who have been hard hit by drought and low world prices. We expect the Federal Government to start living up to some of the promises that it wantonly made during the election and has since forgotten. The sugar industry also wants an assurance from this Government about its attitude to the production commercially of sugar on the Ord. My colleague the honourable member for Dawson has on many occasions referred to world overproduction, subsidisation of the beet industry by the European Economic Community, and dumping practices. This Queensland and Australian industry has survived and progressed because of its disciplines and its attention to efficiency of production. It is a most significant contributor to the Australian economy, and it will continue to be so . Instead of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and others misquoting my colleague, the Minister and the Government would serve the industry far better if they gave a clear and unequivocal indication that the industry will not be sabotaged. I doubt that many industries can claim the efficiency and the contribution of which the sugar industry can boast. But stockpiles cannot continue to grow. There is not much sense in pouring more sugar on to the world market without sensible regulation. To erode the domestic market certainly is not in the best interests of the industry in Australia. So it is that we look longingly for some clear cut, unequivocal indication from the Minister that he has some comprehension of and regard for these truths. So far that has not been very evident. I recommend that if the Minister does not want to listen to us, to the wise honourable members for Dawson and Wide Bay, he should spend a few minutes with Rex Patterson, who will give him very clearly the same message that the sugar industry in Queensland and New South Wales is signalling to him. I want to make some comment about the fishing industry. I know that what I have to say does impinge not only on this Minister's portfolio but also on the portfolios of other Ministers. Increasingly, off the coast of Queensland, not only in the north but also within sight of Fraser Island and further south, with alarming frequency Taiwanese and other vessels have been operating their long- line fishing activities quite illegally. As recently as a few weeks ago two such vessels were seen operating off Fraser Island. Indeed, fishermen who get too close find that the intruders are quite threatening. Our fishery resources are being depleted and pirated to the detriment of our Queensland fishermen. I hope that the Minister for Primary Industry appreciates the extent and the seriousness of this problem. It is no good working on the licensing of Australia's professional fishermen to protect our industry unless much more is done to apprehend illegal overseas vessels which sweep clean our banks and ocean beds. A constituent of mine recently reported an incident-he even identified the vessels-but got no positive response or much interest for his trouble. Thus, as we look at the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry as they deal with fisheries, the fishing industry in Queensland, the fishermen of Queensland and the Government of Queensland surely can expect more positive and responsible action from the Federal Government to preserve the very industry itself. The Department of Primary Industry and primary industries per se are so wide and so varied that we can say very little when discussing these estimates. I should like to say a lot more. One of the disappointments we have is that the performance of this Government harks back very much to the performance of the Whitlam Government, with the Coombs report and other penalties on primary producers. It will remain so while we have a Minister who is banished to the outer Cabinet, and whose defence is: 'Nobody but me understands; I lost that one'. We expect from this Government an appreciation of the part that primary industry has to play in our nation and in our economy. So far we have seen no such appreciation and no such understanding. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(8.30) —The Budget always gets the attention of all Australians. At that time, they wonder how much they will be asked to pay and what bonuses they will get. For Australians this Budget contains few bonuses. But for rural Australians not only were there few bonuses but also has the Labor Government given them two Budgets, each apparently designed to bring them to their knees. No one is denying that Australia is in a recession at present. We have massive unemployment. We have just experienced the worst drought in our history. Our mining industries have lost major overseas buyers at a time when we need them the most. The decision to bring down a Budget such as the one that we heard delivered on 23 August was, I consider, most inappropriate and foolhardy. This is a Budget which tackles none of our major problems. For instance, it will not make Australian goods more competitive on overseas markets; it will make them less competitive. It has not reduced the size of the deficit; it has increased it and the deficit will continue to increase. It does not create jobs for the unemployed; unemployment will continue to rise. It does not help the family man, whether he be in the country or the city. His cost of living is up. Certain taxation charges are now indexed to increase twice a year. Medical care and educational costs will be higher. Rural producers and people involved in primary industry have been hit in the most savage way possible. Not only will they suffer as a result of that massive mismanagement of the Federal purse in the same way as city taxpayers do, but also will they be afflicted in other ways as well. During the lead-up to the election in March, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) singled out the rural sector for special attention. It was one he desperately wanted to romance and one he desperately wanted to win. When people in rural Australia were not fooled by those empty promises-and how empty they have proved to be-the Labor Government obviously set out to decimate the rural sector. I will give a few examples. In the May mini-Budget, there was a reduction in depreciation allowances, which removed the incentive to improve farm techniques and developments. There was a removal of tax incentives from the income equalisation deposits scheme. This change effectively emasculated the drought or income reserve purpose of the scheme. The increase in aviation fuel of 2c a litre put pressure on country air services. The in-and-out provisions of tax averaging were abolished. The bicentennial water resources program was abolished . I particularly mention here the removal of funds for the Wimmera-Mallee scheme . The allocation to petrol freight equalisation scheme was reduced by $10m. Another decision to have a major effect on rural people was the tax measures imposed on Telecom Australia and Australia Post which will lead to higher postal and telephone charges. Mr McVeigh —They hate the farmers. Mr FISHER —The interjection from the honourable member for Darling Downs is correct. This attack was also continued in the August Budget. Export inspection charges went up by 50 per cent at a time when returns in the livestock industry were particularly low and people were struggling to restock after the drought. From the $628m promised for the wool promotion budget, $8m was lopped. Only 25 per cent of what was promised for soil conservation was delivered. Tax concessions were removed for land clearing and swamp drainage. Petrol, diesel and oil charges went up by 1.5c a litre. The cost of aviation fuel went up again . Of course, the big decision that affected my electorate was the tax imposed on fortified wine. This decision broke an election promise. It will result in severe problems for the wine industry. Wine grape growers should not accept any compromise on this outrageous excise tax. This tax not only breaks an election promise but also was imposed without any regard for the effects that it would have on the grape industry. The viability of the whole industry, from the grape grower through to the wine maker, is threatened; and it is clear that the Government could not care less. This tax, if not removed, will aggravate the already tenuous predicament of the dried vine industry as well as of the wine industry and will create very real social problems in the horticultural regions. I thank the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) for receiving a deputation from my electorate last week. It was pointed out to those two Ministers that today the businesses of some 900 out of 4,500 growers in the grape growing regions are not viable. Reduced export returns and low flow payments for fruit mean that the growers' reserves have all run down. This has occurred especially in the case of some of our ethnic groups, the Turkish community in particular. Some major social problems will result unless the Government is able to bring forward some short term assistance measures prior to the implementation of any recommendations that the Industries Assistance Commission report makes. The Hawke Government must not be allowed to get away with this repudiation of this election promise and its actions that will destroy the viability of grape growers and wine makers. The Government has reduced the fortified wine tax by about half but this reduction only means that a tonne of grapes used in fortified wine, which today costs wine makers about $175 a tonne to buy off the grower, will see a tax of almost the same amount-$160 a tonne. This is ridiculous when we consider that wine makers today are already reducing their grape receivals and will continue to do so. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has simply announced a smaller dose of the same poison. He has done nothing to change the method of excise collection. The combined effect of this tax and the 10c in the dollar tax levied on all wine by the Victorian State Government shows that Labor has deserted country people in a massive grasp for money to meet its spending extravagances. But if there is one thing in this rural budget that is more savage, more insidious and more potentially crippling than any other item, I would have to list the introduction of excise taxes as the worst. Excise taxes will affect every man, woman and child in this country irrespective of age, education or place of residence. Not only are more items to be taxed, but also many essential items are to be indexed. This will have a massive impact on the inflation rate and will force it continually upwards, irrespective of what other measures the Government may take. Fuel and heating oil charges will hit everybody, but especially those in the rural industries who use these items in their work and in their homes. The massive increase of 31.7 per cent in excise taxes by the Hawke Government will have a massive impact on industry and employment, especially in rural areas. More products are now being taxed, and I have mentioned some of them. Rates on petroleum products are being increased and for the first time off-road users of diesel will also now have to pay excise. This is being achieved by a system of half-yearly indexation, the first adjustment having taken place on Budget night and the next due on February 1 1984. Rural consumers will now bear the full brunt of fuel and heating oil charges, with an added burden being placed on horticulturists and, as I have already mentioned, most of our wine makers. I have already outlined what a disastrous effect the grape spirit tax will have . It is an unbelievably stupid, naive move on the part of this Government and it astounds me that the Government was so unaware of its impact. It again shows how ignorant the Government is of rural matters. Other members of the Opposition have also expressed their opinions about this phoney Budget and its effects on the great rural industries, but only time will tell just how inappropriate and how totally mistimed it is. I believe the two Government rural members who have spoken tonight have indicated their fear of this by not referring to the estimates at all. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) both made very academic-like speeches about chemicals, rural productivity, et cetra but failed to mention the savage impact that there has been-- Mr Brumby —Mr Deputy Chairman, I take a point of order. I directed the whole of my remarks-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Brumby —to the estimates for the Bureau of Animal Health. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr FISHER —Neither of these members mentioned the savage impact that the removal of so many of the incentives and funding programs will have on primary industry. I could go on for another 10 minutes listing further cutbacks to the rural sector. But they all mean the same thing: This Federal Government neither understands-as the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) said, it was the same in the Whitlam years-nor cares about the rural sector. If the Government's action in its two Budgets does not show this clearly enough, one has only to listen to its senior Ministers-one recently claiming that we do not need the sugar industry and another claiming that farmers are greedy, whingeing millionaires. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(8.40) —I shall sum up this part of the Estimates debate. I praise the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) for his erudition in regard to the problem of pesticides-I will address some comments to that matter in a moment-and also the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), whose perspicacity is exceeded only by his perspicuity. He rasied some very profound points in regard to productivity. The Opposition has accused my colleagues of being academic. I must say that the comments by honourable members from the other side seem to be very political. That is very regrettable in a place such as this. I do not suppose we can accuse the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Darling Downs, (Mr McVeigh) of being academic at all. I can understand why people put forward these criticisms. I was worried he might raise his question on notice No. 555 about the root feeding cockchafer, but he did not. The Estimates and the Budget present a chance to focus on the way in which primary industry is progressing. We cannot separate primary industry from the rest of the budgetary considerations. What is most important and what the Opposition fails to see is that this Government is trying to do something about the rate of inflation. The prices and incomes accord is in place, and we will not have the tearaway explosion of wages that we had with the previous Government. We are trying to have a more sensible exchange rate regime and we are trying to bring down interest rates. What counts more than anything else to farmers is whether a Federal government can get on top of the daunting economic problems we face. I have made no secret of the fact that there are elements of the Budget in which I was disappointed. I do that in all honesty. The only matter I could not win on-I used that phrase-was with respect to the recoupment inspection fees. I could not win on that point. People understand that. I make no apology for it. It was the policy of the previous Government since 1979. The Opposition does not disagree with that matter because, after all, when it was in government it brought in the 50 per cent recoupment on 1 January this year for a range of products, and it had every intention of bringing it in on 1 July for another range of products, particularly the export of livestock. We proceeded with that intention. That is why I could not win; it was the policy of the past Government. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. It cannot say on the one hand that it was all right for it to have a policy but say that it would not implement it, and on the other hand say that we have a policy and are to be criticised because we do not implement it. The honourable member for Darling Downs said that I should not say these things and that I should not be honest with the farmers. I do not care; I am honest with the farmers. I will be frank. After all, the honourable member for Darling Downs was a Minister. He could not win on the Franklin issue and he could not win in respect of the record downturn in housing and contruction over which he presided. He understands that the economic constraints we face in government are exactly the same as he faced as a Minister in the past Government. The points that honourable gentlemen raised have been raised on other occasions and I could retort in like vein just as politically. But rather than have a slanging match about how many dollars are attached to wool promotion we should try to find ways and means whereby wool promotion can be funded on a more sensible, rational basis. Again, members of the Opposition should be reminded and should remember that their Government chopped down wool promotion from $20m to $14m on one occasion and that their Government brought down this absurd three-year freeze principle. What we should be talking about is the principle of wool promotion and a rational, sensible system of funding. I have also admitted that I was disappointed with the amount of $1m for soil conservation. Far from the words the honourable member for Darling Downs used, I have not said that the level of funding means that $1m is enough. I said that when we look at a problem for which something like $1.6 billion is calculated as needed to solve some of the problems in land degradation and soil erosion-that is, to apply enough funds to fix the land needing attention at present rates of erosion-it becomes rather academic whether we get $1m of $4m in the first year of a program. The important point is that the Commonwealth is back into soil conservation. The most important matter for the States is that we give the assurance that the Commonwealth will remain in soil conservation, whereas the previous Government pulled the Commonwealth out of soil conservation. The wine excise question has been done to death. I thank the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) for his comments with respect to his producers of dried fruits, because the excise will have an impact in that area also. The honourable member for Darling Downs said that the Queensland Government somehow embarrassed the Commonwealth Government into putting in, or forced the Commonwealth Government to put in, $10m for rural adjustment assistance for the sugar industry. This is complete nonsense. I have explained on numerous occasions in this chamber and elsewhere that a submission did go to Cabinet to try to help the industry with either a loan or a grant. Regarding the amount that was specified by the industry-if one works it out in terms of the way in which the industry wanted the grant or loan to be applied-it really meant that we would have been giving slightly over $2,000 to those producers, particularly in northern Queensland, who needed the most help. Giving $2,000 to farms which have a turnover of $60,000 to $80,000, even the very small farms, simply would not keep them viable. We proposed-Cabinet's submission was approved-that the best way to assist the sugar industry was to put forward rural adjustment scheme money under part B of the rural adjustment scheme involving a State matching grant so that we could keep 600 to 700 producers in the sugar industry. Those are the people we feel form the backbone of the industry. We cannot simply categorise the industry in terms of small producers and big producers, in terms of the small producers being badly off and the big producers being okay. It is not as simple as that. The rural adjustment scheme gives the States a chance to evaluate the particular economic condition of each sugar producer. The constant nonsense is run-I will not use the word 'lie'-that we promised underwriting. What we did was promise that we would examine underwriting. We have been waiting for the final report of the Industries Assistance Commission. The draft report of the IAC did not really address itself properly to the question of underwriting. Once we receive the final report we will be able to commence negotiations and discussions with industry on the range of matters that face it. There is no sense in kidding the sugar industry that we will get an international sugar agreement when we honestly do not think that we will. We are negotiating as hard as we can to get one. For the Queensland Minister to tell the producers that we would get one in May, then in September, which has just passed, and now in February is really a bit irresponsible. There is a long row to hoe on that question. We are very earnest in our endeavours. The Commonwealth Government negotiates international trade agreements. We are negotiating as hard as we can. I am not going to indulge in that supposition because in government we have to be more responsible than to make a few silly political points. Sugar research does not come within my area. It comes within the area of the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). Some of the provisions that were of real advantage to the rural sector in the Budget included an overall increase of 21 per cent in funds. If one takes out some of the one-off items, the amount of assistance to industry-that is, primary and secondary industry-was down by 0.5 per cent. That largely represented the estimate based on the fact that there was not going to be as much drought assistance in the coming year as there was in the first. The Government doubled the rural adjustment scheme money. We increased to $5.7m the allocation for the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign. We have allocated funds for the appointment of four specialist agricultural marketing attaches. We have transferred the screw worm fly facility across to the Department of Primary Industry. There are many other means whereby we are assisting people in country areas. An amount of $300m has been provided for rural roads. I will not go through the list of the subsidies for rural airlines-the extra money for communications, the $46m for the national water resources program, which remains, plus the additional amount of $30m under the community employment program for town water supplies. There is a lot more money for country areas in the Budget than honourable members opposite will give any credit for. Rather than indulging in a political slanging match on some of the matters raised by honourable members opposite, I address myself to the comments of two of the speakers, the honourable member for Bendigo and the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann). The honourable member for Bendigo raised the question of pesticides. He pointed to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on this question and referred to the Australian Consumers Association. Maybe I should outline to him and the Committee the involvement of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry in pesticide control. It was after 1967, on the recommendation of a meeting of Commonwealth and State authorities concerned with pesticides, that the Department established a special section to co-ordinate an approach which had been fragmented within governments and between governments. This section acts as a central authority to co-ordinate Australian activities associated with pesticide usage in agricultural production. The section's main function relates to the regulatory control of agricultural chemicals, veterinary drugs and feed additives. This is achieved through Commonwealth-State co-operation by technical committees under the auspices of the Australian Agricultural Council. In recent years the co-ordination of residue surveillance in Australian agricultural commodities has become an extremely important function. The pesticides section acts as a focal point for liaison with State authorities responsible for trace-back and remedial action at the farm level. The pesticides section acts as the Australian voice in international meetings where standards are set and risk profiles reviewed. The Department's role in pesticides has been well accepted by the State authorities and by the chemical industry. For the future, the report referred to by the honourable member made several suggestions for the improvement of regulatory procedures. The report is being considered by an inter-departmental committee which, of course, reports to Cabinet. I would like to agree with the honourable member for Bendigo when he says that there needs to be more uniformity between the Commonwealth and States on some of these questions, but I am now of a mind, having examined quite a bit of evidence, that there is a need to set agricultural chemicals and pesticides to one side from the additional scrutiny applied to chemicals and drugs used in the treatment of disease in humans. As I said, this is before the Cabinet. I would like to conclude with a reference to the honourable member for Fisher. He made some comments about sugar which I will not go into because they reflect the same tired, old stuff we are getting from the tired, old and flabby Queensland Government which, after all, could not run a peanut board. He made reference to the fishing industry. One of his constituents reported on 6 September to us, or to someone, that he had sighted Taiwanese vessels on 31 August and 1 September off Thursday Island, but unfortunately the reports were received too late for any meaningful investigation to be carried out. The gentleman was interviewed and briefed on reporting procedures. He advised his local member, the honourable member for Fisher, and the incident attracted some interest in local Queensland newspapers. There have been only two confirmed sightings of illegal vessels off the Queensland coast during 1983. Both were clam boats operating on the Great Barrier Reef north of Cairns. Both were apprehended and the masters were successfully prosecuted. Since the implementation of the Australian fishing zone, nine unlicensed fishing vessels have been apprehended off the Queensland coast. However, three of these were operating 250 to 300 miles off the mainland. That represents a dramatic decrease in illegal fishing activities off the Queensland coast because , prior to the implementation of the Australian fishing zone, 10 vessels were apprehended in the first six months of 1979. Surveillance of the AFZ, including waters off the coast of Queensland, is carried out on a regular year-round basis . The primary vehicles for surveillance are Royal Australian Navy patrol boats, Royal Australian Air Force P3 Orion aircraft and civil aircraft under contract to the Australian Government. In the Queensland area P3 Orion aircraft are programmed to carry out a comprehensive aerial surveillance in the AFZ, whilst a Nomad aircraft is dedicated to surveillance on the Great Barrier Reef. In addition to primary surveillance by dedicated vehicles, secondary surveillance is carred out by merchant ships, civil aircraft, Department of Transport navigation aid vessels and vessels and aircraft chartered by the Government to undertake other tasks, for example, quarantine and immigration patrols. Reports are also received by the Australian coastal surveillance organisation from fishermen and members of the public, and an intensive program has been initiated in the north and west of Australia to increase public awareness as to how they can assist the overall surveillance effort by reporting matters of interest in a timely manner. The Department of Transport, which is the co-ordinating authority for coastal surveillance, has outposted officers to Cairns, Darwin and Broome to oversight surveillance in those areas. My Department also has a unit based in Cairns, the Northern Fisheries Unit, which has responsibility to assist, when required, in surveillance and enforcement action in respect of foreign fishing vessels. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on Primary Industry estimates. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Progress reported. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to add to an answer which I gave to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) earlier today. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Finance has that indulgence. Mr DAWKINS —I said earlier today that I would be happy to find out whether Coomel Pty Ltd, in liquidation, had held shares in Metro Industries Ltd. I have inquired of the liquidator and I will table a statement that I have received from the liquidator, but I will first read it to the House. It states: You have asked me to advise you of the details of the transactions of Coomel Pty Ltd in shares in Metro Industries Ltd. The company purchased 500 shares in November 1972 at a cost of $815 and received a bonus issue of 100 shares during 1973, bringing the shareholding to 600 shares. The 600 shares were sold in January 1977 for $672 resulting in a loss to the company of $143. At the present date the company has not received an assessment nor advice that it is responsible to pay any amount under the T.U.C.T. Act. I expect that an assessment or advice will be received in the near future for a small amount that is less than $200. As Liquidator I have funds in hand to pay the assessment. In my opinion the company did not receive a benefit from the sale of Treamog Pty Ltd by Metro Industries Ltd as the sale of the shares by Coomel Pty Ltd took place one month after Metro Industries Ltd disposed of Treamog Pty Ltd. Any supposed benefit to the Metro shareholders did not accrue to Coomel Pty Ltd. I add a couple of things to that statement. Whilst the liquidator expects that an assessment may be issued, whether or not any liability exists, which was one of the questions raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, will depend, I am advised, on the Commissioner of Taxation's assessment of any benefit to the company which may have arisen. The shares in the first place were purchased from my mother. They were sold to my mother on 1 January 1977. The Commissioner is apparently issuing assessments in respect of those shareholders who held shares in the company at 31 December 1976, that is, we were, if honourable members like , bewitched by midnight. There are a couple of other things I would like to say about my mother's shareholdings. I am advised, although I have not spoken to her directly, that she sold her shares in Metro Industries within the last few months. I accept my responsibilities as a director at the time-that is, I accept the responsibilities of selling shares in a once reputable and great Western Australian public company. I also accept responsibility for me and my family having the genius always to pick the low point of the market to sell the shares. When the shares were sold by the company they were sold at about their lowest point during that period. Indeed, when my mother subsequently sold them, as I am advised, the shares were back to being at about the lowest point at which they had ever been. I will table this document which indicates the movement in the shares. The important thing, of course, is that the shares, although they were worth $1.12 when they were sold by the company, were worth something like $4 when sold by Mr Horgan. So we, like hundreds-- Mr Howard —Horgan is not on trial. Mr DAWKINS —In fact, he may be. We, like hundreds of other Western Australians, are victims of the cheating of Denis Horgan. Denis Horgan got away with the money and a lot of Western Australians will pay under the provisions of the legislation moved by the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition last year. I make one other point: In relation to any charge which has been made subsequent to Question Time that I am in some way exercising double standards, I simply point out that I have been one of the most vociferous and active crusaders against tax dodging. I know the Liberal Party does not like that; but I have. I, unlike several members on the other side, did vote for the former Government's recoupment legislation. Indeed, I also introduced in this House legislation to extend the provisions of that recoupment legislation. If members of the Opposition are anxious to make something of this matter, I suggest that they move a substantive motion now, in which case the Government would accommodate them. Mr Howard —I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(9.02) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition speaking forthwith. Mr Dawkins —There is no need for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to move a motion to suspend Standing Orders. Opposition members-You have just refused leave. Mr Dawkins —I have said that if the Oppositions wants to move a substantive motion the Government will accommodate it. Motion of Condemnation Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(9.04) —I seek leave, in accordance with what the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) has said, to move that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith a motion in the following terms: That the Minister for Finance be condemned for the double standards he has just displayed. Mr SPEAKER —Order! This has become rather confusing. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition sought leave to move the suspension of Standing Orders. He is now proceeding to move a substantive motion. The Minister for Finance has indicated that he gives leave for the substantive motion to be moved. So, there being no objection, leave is granted. Mr HOWARD —I am confused now. Which motion? Mr SPEAKER —Leave has been given for you to move your substantive motion. Mr HOWARD —At long last the McCarthyism of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) has come home to haunt him. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Now that leave has been granted for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to move his motion, I suggest he do so and then address himself to it . This is a procedural matter. I am sorry to confuse him. Mr HOWARD —That is all right, Mr Speaker. I move: That the Minister for Finance be condemned for the double standards which he has just displayed. I move this motion not because I wish to allege that on the evidence available to this House the Minister for Finance, or indeed any member of his family, has been guilty of an illegality, nor do I believe on the evidence that is so far available to this House that the Minister for Finance or any member of his family has been guilty of tax evasion. But in moving this motion I remind the House that, of all the people in the Australian Labor Party, the Minister for Finance, the honourable member for Fremantle, was the arch advocate of the tactic of McCarthyism last year when debates on tax avoidance raged in this Parliament. If ever a person deserved the situation pertaining to today and tonight of his own McCarthyism coming home to haunt him, it is the Minister for Finance. After all, it was the Minister for Finance more than anybody else in the Labor Party who argued a number of very simple propositions during the tax avoidance debate last year. His first proposition was that anybody who was in any way and however nominally connected with the bottom of the harbour tax avoidance arrangement was by virtue of that connection automatically a thief, a robber or a cheat. Everybody on this side of the House will remember the fury, the viciousness and the unforgiving nature of the attack made by the Minister for Finance on decent, respectable people such as Mr John Reid, who now to his very great credit continues to serve the Hawke Government as Chairman of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. We all remember very well that above everybody else it was the Minister for Finance, the honourable member for Fremantle, who came into this Parliament and said that there is no such thing as innocence so far as these particular taxation transactions are concerned. All of us will remember the occasion on which the Minister for Finance and the then Leader of the Opposition came into this Parliament and traduced the reputation of Mr Reid, who had been appointed by the former Prime Minister to head an inquiry into the Australian Public Service. All of us remember very well the fact that the then Government went to the Commissioner of Taxation and sought from him a certificate as to whether Mr Reid had any liability under the bottom of the harbour legislation. He was quickly given an unreserved clean bill of health so far as that legislation is concerned, but was that enough for the then Leader of the Opposition? Was that sufficient to stop the honourable member for Fremantle from continuing to traduce the reputation of Mr Reid? Of course it was not. All of us remember very, very well the concluding remarks of the Minister for Finance, during the debate on the suitability of Mr Reid to head that inquiry. In case the Minister has forgotten perhaps I could remind the honourable gentleman of what he said in this chamber on 12 October 1982. I have not forgotten it. There are many people on this side of the Parliament who have not forgotten it and there are many decent Australians who are continuing to serve the elected government of the day who have not forgotten it. This is what he said: We are not suggesting that Reid is the worst tax dodger in the country. How supremely charitable of this honourable gentleman who now craves understanding from this Parliament, having been the prime advocate of what he referred to as the McCarthyist tactic that was employed last year by the Australian Parliament. He went on to say: What we are saying is that, quite clearly, the companies with which Mr Reid- I underline these words- was associated were involved in avoiding tax to the tune of $43,000 for their shareholders at the time. Mr Charles —No. Mr TUCKEY —Well, if I am not, I ask the honourable member to keep quiet. The situation is that this is taxation by stealth and, of course, it is discriminatory. When we look at the Budget Papers we see that last year taxation on telecommunications amount to $560m and this year will amount to $741m in round figures. From those figures I presume it is reasonable to take $24.255m as being what the Government proposes to collect from the sale of Aussat Pty Ltd equity capital, if it has not changed its mind on that. We are looking at an increase of $156m in the taxes that are levied in this area. Of course, the bulk of that is the $100m that was picked up from Telecom in the mini-Budget. At that time the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said: 'Do not worry about it; it is one of these minor matters. Anyhow, it is a tax on Telecom. Telecom is hugely profitable; it does not charge people much'. He is at least honest enough to tell us as an illustration that in a full year the additional intered charge could be met by a 1c increase in the cost of a local call-the Isaccs call-a commensurate increase in short and medium distance STD charges and a $10 increase in the annual telephone rental fee; in other words, about 10 per cent all round. So that dollar a minute STD call that many people in the electorate of O'Connor are obliged to make but which people in the electorate of Isaacs are not nearly so frequently obliged to make will go up to $1.10. That is the sort of discriminatory burden that is being imposed by this legislation. If one lives in Isaacs, if one gets one's votes in Osaacs, what is 1c a call or 10c a minute? That is the difference, and that is what we are talking about. The facts of the situation are completely different from the low key, smooth and slinky approach of those Bills. They are the types of Bills that could crawl under the carpet in this chamber without a bump. I have indicated to some extent the people who will pay in these circumstances. They will be the consumers, particularly in relation to the charge on television stations. I was a bit interested in some of the words of the honourable member for Isaacs. Two words seem to be climing out of the Government benches time and time again. Honourable members opposite like to use the phrase 'in a clear and co-ordinated fashion'. You cannot convince us; you must be trying to convince yourselves. It is unbelievable. You say it and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) says it. If you keep telling yourselves you will believe it as you believe in many of your other fibs but you will not be clear and co-ordinated because- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! If you wish to have a private discussion you can have it afterwards outside; otherwise direct you comments through the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will do that. For your information, another comment of the honourable member for Isaacs was that the Government made a firm decision about Aussat. That would have to be the greatest joke I have heard in a long time. The firm decisions were made about Aussat. It was only the Government's procrastincation and its supporters coming froward with all their issues and pork barrels, wanting to get a piece of the action, that threw the whole thing back into the pork barrel. The previous Government had a firm and clear position from Aussat. We knew where we were going with it. It took another firm decision of this Government to get it back on the track that it was on before. We are still to know whether it is to be put under the control of Telecom so that we have all of Australia's major inter-city communications under one union so that that union can turn Australia on and turn Australia off. He concluded his speech by saying: He is not on that evidence a fit person to lead this inquiry. That was an outrageous attack upon the behaviour, the honour and sense of decency of a very, very fine member of the Australian business community and one who I know continues to enjoy the confidence of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I say to the Prime Minister's credit that he was not one of those who, when in Opposition, were willing to traduce the reputation of Mr Reid. Of course, subsequently he was quite happy to embrace the support of those who did join in traducing Mr Reid's reputation. On that occasion the Minister for Finance was saying: 'However tenuous the link and even if there was not any tax dodging motive involved, the fact is that that man was involved in a tenuous way with a company that had been sent to the bottom of the harbour'. Let me remind honourable members that Mr Reid derived no beneficial interest from what happened to the disposal of the assets of that company. He acted as a trustee. The veracity of what he did was testified to publicly by Mr David Moore, a former Chairman of the Public Service Board in New South Wales and a very close associate of the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Neville Wran. On every count and according to every proper test there had been no wrong doing , but that was not enough for the Minister for Finance in his vendetta to smear, under parliamentary privilege, the reputations of honest and decent people. He said: 'I am not interested in motive. I am not interested in whether there was any tax dodging. He was associated with a company that was involved in tax dodging therefore he is unfit to head a Public Service inquiry'. If one applies that kind of criterion, if one applies that standard and if one applies that measure to what the Minister for Finance has done he is not fit to be a Minister in the present Government. That is why I moved this motion that the Minister for Finance ought to be condemned by this Parliament. I am not applying a standard that says he is unfit to be a Minister. I am applying his standard, and that is why I say with all conviction that what has happened on this occasion is that the McCarthyism of this man has come home to haunt him. He decided to go down the path. He was the person who decided that what mattered was to adopt the tactic of guilt by association. He was not prepared to accept that there may be circumstances in which people did not know what was going to happen. He was not prepared to accept that innocence may be a defence. He was not prepared to accept that ignorance could possibly be innocence. He adopted the absolute standard that if there was any kind of link between a person and a company involved in a bottom of the harbour transaction that person was guilty and unfit. We have a very long recollection. What the Minister for Finance ought to stand condemned for tonight is not an allegation of tax dodging. I hold my peace on that subject for the time being. I do not say categorically that he may not be a tax dodger. At this stage I am not raising that allegation. Let me make it perfectly clear that I make no allegations-neither has anybody on this side of the House, to my knowledge-about the honesty and the decency of members of his family. I happen to know that a number of them are very widely respected in the Perth community. In terms of what I understand to be ordinary practices of decency and honesty, I do not even make any charges against him. The charge which I do make against him and which I think this House ought to sustain is the charge that he has been guilty of a monstrous double standard. This afternoon the Minister for Finance was given the opportunity by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) who invited him, in view of the assurances that he had given to the Parliament and in view of the acceptance of those assurances by the Prime Minister, to withdraw and apologise to those people whose reputations he had traduced last year. Do honourable members think that that was within the capacity of this person? No. He was given the opportunity, he was invited to withdraw and apologise and if he had had the courage and the decency to make that apology I believe that the attitude of many on this side of the House would have been different. He passed up that opportunity. To apologise was too much, too low a bringing down of his dignity for this bully boy from Fremantle. Thus, the Minister for Finance stubbornly refused to apologise. He tried to imply in a totally ingenuous way which nobody on this side of the House would have accepted that, because he had had a number of conversations with Mr John Reid, in some way their differences had been patched up and that after all it was a matter between Mr Reid and him. This Minister had every opportunity to make an apology. He had every opportunity to acknowledge that he had adopted a double standard. He had every opportunity to say to this Parliament that it was wrong on his part to say that just because there was a nominal connection between a person or a company and a company that ended up at the bottom of the harbour, that person was automatically guilty of some kind of tax evasion offence. No, that was not good enough for the Minister for Finance. That would have been going too far. That would have been despoiling his reputation as the arch character assassin of the Labor Party in this Parliament, which he was not prepared to do. The Minister ought to be condemned by this Parliament for having a double standard. He ought to be exposed as a person whose McCarthyist smearing tactics have come home to haunt him. By his past conduct and his continuing stubborn refusal to acknowledge to this Parliament that he has done the wrong thing he has put at peril a very valuable privilege that all of us have, that is, to speak without fear or favour under parliamentary privilege. I think many members of parliaments around the world which practise the Westminster system are sick and tired on both sides of politics-I am sure if Government members were honest they would rank amongst the number-of the way in which parliamentary privilege is abused and besmirched. I do not think that anybody went to greater lengths to abuse parliamentary privilege last year than did the present Minister for Finance, the honourable member for Fremantle. One can go back over the Hansards and examine the things that he said about members of the then Government, about members of the Liberal Party in Western Australia, about people who were honest, decent, reputable citizens, people whose tax practices and tax attitudes may have been different from his and different from mine, but who were not of themselves guilty of any illegality and who, according to their own practices, were not guilty of the sort of dishonesty and cheating of which they were charged. I remind the honourable gentleman that the person whom he vilified most of all, Mr Horgan, was after all subjected to a very searching inquiry at the instance of the former Government by a very reputable Queen's Counsel. I wonder how many members of this Parliament would be willing to have themselves subjected to that kind of inquiry and exposed to that kind of public interrogation and ridicule. This was not really enough for the honourable member for Fremantle. He really wanted to put the boot in and put it in as hard as possible. Therefore, last year, because of the smear and innuendo, a climate was created that no doubt discouraged many people who had entered into legitimate family planning taxation arrangements over the years in accordance with normally accepted astute practice to make proper provision for their families. Undoubtedly, the honourable gentleman's own family made such proper provision. I do not criticise his family or the honourable gentleman or any member of his family for having done that; I make my criticisms because of the McCarthyist approach adopted by the Minister for Finance, and because he called upon the people who avoided the payments to return to the people of Australia that money, as they still had it. Why does he not apply that principle to himself? He says that he will get an assessment. The Minister for Finance has admitted-I repeat this for the benefit of the House-that there could be a liability on his part under the bottom of the harbour legislation. He has just come into this Parliament and admitted it. Can honourable members imagine how the then Labor Opposition would have erupted if I had come into this Parliament when I was Treasurer and said: 'Look, I am sorry, old chaps, but I have a liability under this legislation. It is only a very minor liability, so I want you to overlook it.' Do honourable members think that the honourable member for Fremantle would have overlooked that statement? Do they think that even the Leader of the Opposition, as he then was, would have overlooked it? Of course he would not have. The honourable member for Fremantle would have stumped around the countryside saying that I was a crook, a thief, a cheat, a robber, that really I was a disgrace and that I ought to resign immediately. We all remember the attacks that were made upon the reputation of the former Attorney-General. Many of us will never forget the attack that was made on Senator Durack by the former Leader of the Opposition, who even had the indecency to suggest that Senator Durack's heart attack may have been due to some feeling of guilt about his administration of the portfolio of Attorney- General. I note to my very great regret that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is not here tonight. His distinguished contribution to the debate last year was to wait till I had gone to the International Monetary Fund in Toronto before he had the courage to come into the Parliament to call me a liar and to attack my reputation. Not only did the Minister for Finance associate himself in those months with those sorts of standards but he was the person who established them. He was the arch advocate of the policy of the smear. He was the person above everybody else who led a McCarthyist tactic of smearing by guilt by association. I can only say to him-and I am sure many people on this side of the House will say to the honourable gentleman-that it is only poetic justice that those tactics have now come home to haunt him. He stands condemned-and ought to be condemned by this House not necessarily of tax avoidance and not necessarily of being dishonest, but as a person who is unwilling to apply to his own conduct the standards that he so unreasonably demanded of other people only a very, very short time ago. He does not have the decency to apologise to this House. He has not availed himself of the opportunity to redeem himself. He ought to do so. Until he does so, he stands and ought to stand absolutely condemned by this Parliament for his demonstrable and gross double standards. Mr SPEAKER —The Standing Orders require the honourable member to supply the motion in writing. Mr HOWARD —I would be delighted to do so, Sir. I hope you can read the handwriting. Mr SPEAKER —I am a doctor; I am used to pretty bad handwriting. Is the motion seconded? Mr Peacock —I second the motion, and I reserve my right to speak. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(9.23) —At last the Opposition has had the guts to move a substantive motion. Let me just remind the House and the people of Australia of the way in which this whole matter arose. The Government took a decision to make available to the people of Australia declarations of pecuniary interests. As a result, one of the members of the Opposition was able, because of my declaration, to make certain inquiries about a company with which I was associated. There was no suggestion- Mr Newman —You are the one who is on trial. Mr DAWKINS —One of the reasons why we think it is a good idea for everybody to declare their interests is so we can know a little bit about the pecuniary interests of the Opposition as the alternative government. Why can we not have a look at the pecuniary interests of honourable members opposite and whether there might be some forthcoming conflict of interest? In any event, those anonymous accusations were made. They were not accusations of the kind which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is now making- accusations of double standards-which seems to be the sole and only claim and charge he is prepared to level at me tonight. Those were not the charges which were made initially. The charge was made that a Minister had been involved in tax evasion on a massive scale. I volunteered the fact that the circumstances to which the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) was referring bore some vague resemblance to a company with which I had been associated. When the Opposition was invited to move a substantive motion in relation to that matter, it squibbed it. But notwithstanding that, the honourable member for O'Connor was given unlimited time, more than an hour, to address himself to the charges that he wanted to make against me. At no stage during that process was any suggestion made of these matters which have now arisen. What has now arisen- and again it has been a matter of being able to extract it from the Opposition piece by piece-is some charge that I am guilty of the exercise of some double standard. Let us just examine that for a moment. The evidence which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition uses is that-in his words, I think-I traduced the reputation of Mr Reid in a speech last year. I remind the House and the people of Australia that in October last year, when that speech was made and when that debate was conducted in this House, the whole question of tax avoidance had become a total political scandal because of the condonation of tax evasion and avoidance by the then Government. That Government was finally brought into this place and forced to move legislation. One of the reasons why it was forced to do that was that people such as myself, and others, and particularly the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations ( Mr Willis) had conducted an unrelenting campaign against tax dodgers. As a result of that and as a result of disclosures from the McCabe-Lafranchi report and various others, the Government was forced to act. If honourable members wish to be reminded of some of the hyperbole that was being used at that time, I shall quote this: But are we governed only by law? Is there no question of ethics? Is there not a question of honour in the way in which people do their business? If every wrongful act had to be proscribed by law, then we are really going to be circumscribed by law and you will need a couple of solicitors behind you at every step, and I do not particularly want to live in a society like that. It goes on: Those in the community who cheat on their obligations to others to attempt dishonestly to evade the law, whether by evading taxation, not only bring dishonour to themselves but also impose real strains on the Public Service. In a real sense the recipients of those funds have in their hands stolen funds, whether you want to say stolen from the Commonwealth or stolen from other taxpayers. They were not my words. That bit of prose came straight out of the mouth of the then Prime Minister when he was cornered and hooked on an issue on which he could not escape. But in any event, during that debate I indicated certain things about companies with which Mr Reid was associated. I did not, however, make the charges that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition now says that I did make against Mr Reid. But in any event, I regret that Mr Reid has been brought into this matter again in the way in which he has. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DAWKINS —Wait a minute. I say that for this very good reason. I said in answer to the question of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) today: 'As to any matters that might exist between me and Mr Reid, they are matters for Mr Reid and me to deal with, and indeed they have been addressed'. I thought that they were matters for Mr Reid and myself, and I was not going to bring him into this matter. I can indicate that when I met Mr Reid some time ago in Sydney, when I congratulated him on the report that he had presented to the House, I said that I thought that he had been very unfairly treated during the debate last year. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DAWKINS —Honourable members opposite cannot have it both ways. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was heard in relative silence, with, of course, some support. I suggest that the Minister for Finance should be given an equal opportunity. Mr DAWKINS —Members of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that I should apologise to Mr Reid and then when I indicate that I have expressed my regrets to Mr Reid say that I am some sort of hypocrite. I have indicated that to Mr Reid. I am perfectly happy to repeat it tonight, as I have done already. As to my charge that he was not, on that evidence, a fit person to lead this inquiry into the administration, I have already indicated that I think that was certainly-on the basis of the report that he has provided-an excellent report. I certainly withdraw the suggestion that I made at that time. Mr Peacock —Why didn't you do it this afternoon? Mr DAWKINS —I indicated this afternoon that I had already addressed that matter to Mr Reid himself. Let us just go back to this question of double standards, and get into context what it was I was saying last year. What I was saying last year-I have repeated it this year-is that if there were directors involved in companies that were sold to promoters and went to the bottom of the harbour, I did not believe there was a notion of innocence in relation to the activities of those directors. I still believe that to be the case. If a director was involved in selling shares in a company in a way which overvalued those shares and in a way which represented the unpaid tax, I think those directors knew exactly what they were doing. Presumably the now Opposition, the then Government, thought so too because it enacted to effect the collection of the tax. As to other shareholders who may not have known about the transaction, I said it was not a question of innocence or guilt. What I said was that it was a question of benefit. What I said was that whether or not a shareholder knew of the transaction or was involved in the transaction, so long as that shareholder derived a benefit in respect of the tax unpaid, then I believed that that shareholder should be liable to pay the unpaid tax. So there is nothing inconsistent about what I have said or about what I revealed today. The point is that there are no double standards because I, unlike about half those honourable members on the other side of the House, did vote for the tax recoupment legislation and I, unlike any of the members of the Opposition, did vote this year to extend the application of that particular provision. Let us not hear this humbug about where I stand on tax avoidance. What the Opposition is really concerned about is that the Australian Labor Party-I am proud to have been a part of this-did destroy the Liberal Party in Western Australia. The Liberal Party has still not purged its soul of the villainy with which it was associated last year. People right at the heart of the Liberal Party in Western Australia are up to their necks in tax dodging. I dare say the Liberal Party was a beneficiary of the funds that should have found their way into the Federal exchequer. So that is what the Opposition is worried about. Members of the Opposition would like to get me and they will try to smear me. They have tried before and they will try again, because they know and the people of Western Australia know that the Liberal Party in Western Australia is still rotten to the core on this issue. They have refused to face up to it, they will not face up to it and, as a consequence, they will continue to receive the rebuff from the electorate which they have received on the last three occasions on which electors have had an opportunity to exercise their vote. So what this charge comes down to really is that members of the Liberal Party want to pursue a vendetta against me. They have devoted an awful lot of time to it in the past few days. I do not know what is worth anything if they are prepared to waste all this time on this idle pursuit. In any event, they are keen to get me and they would have loved to find a circumstance in which I was involved in a bottom of the harbour scheme. What have they been able to uncover? What I have been able to reveal is that on 10 December 1976 Treamog Pty Ltd was sold to Brian Maher and nearly $2m was paid to Metro Industries Ltd at some subsequent time. Something like two weeks after that transaction, on 1 January, shares which were held by the company of which I was a director were sold. The beautiful simplicity of all this is that the shares were sold on 1 January 1977, yet what the Commissioner of Taxation has decided to do is assess all those shareholders who held shares on the day before. So, as I said, we were bewitched by midnight as far as that particular matter was concerned. There is no suggestion that the company or I benefited in any way from the fraudulent activities of Denis Byrne Horgan. They are activities which have been revealed by the von Doussa report. As I have indicated, I would be perfectly happy to approach the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to have that report released if more information on this matter is required. I simply say that as a result of the legislation which the then Treasurer introduced, there was a provision which allowed the Commissioner of Taxation to make a determination about whether shareholders on a particular date benefited in any way from the non-payment of tax. So if it comes to a question of liability-and liability was the central point in the question this morning of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-that question remains unanswered. My confident expectation is that there will be no liability, but even if there is there are funds there to pay and the company will be perfectly happy to do so. Question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Adermann, A. E. Lusher, S. A.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. MacKellar, M. J. R.Anthony, J. D. McVeigh, D. T.Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Newman, K. E.Cameron, Ian (Teller) O'Keefe, F. L.Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McCHall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Howard, J. W. Tuckey, C. W.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Lloyd, B. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Johnson, LesBeddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Blewett, N. Fife, W. C.Morrison, W. L. Coleman, W. P.Child, J. Rocher, A. C.McLeay, Leo Groom, R. J.Jacobi, R. Goodluck, B. J.Keogh, L. J. Hicks, N. J.Gorman, R. N. J. Katter, R. C.Cohen, B. Hodgman, W. M.Bowen, Lionel Connolly, D. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Department of Industry and Commerce Proposed expenditure, $178,943,000. Department of Science and Technology Proposed expenditure, $521,304,000. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(9.49) —I will direct my remarks to the budget for the Department of Science and Technology. In doing so, I acknowledge at the outset the contribution the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has made to lifting public awareness of the challenges and opportunities of new technology and the importance of getting Australia more into high technology industrial development. That is an objective of very great importance for Australia today. But, having said that, the 1983-84 science and technology budget is a disappointment. While there has been a lift in funding in some areas bearing on the objective to which I have just referred, this has been done at the cost of cutbacks in other areas, most seriously the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia's premier scientific research organisation. The fact is that the overall increase in the science and technology budget is a mere 4 per cent in money terms, which is considerably smaller than the annual increase under previous Liberal-National Party governments in recent years, for which they took a fair battering from this Minister. In respect of CSIRO, which accounts for $316.9m of the Department's expenditure, the actual fall in the figure as against last year is mainly in the area of capital funding. But even so the provision for current funding will, in the face of inflation, involve the general programs of the organisation having to suffer a reduction in both staff and operating funds of 2 1/2 per cent. There can be no doubt that this will have a long term deleterious effect on the organisation. On the positive side of that , however, there is an increase of $4m to supplement CSIRO's existing programs of research in particular areas of new technology. A further $1.2m is provided for the proposed new contract research company, Sirotech, to assist in the commercialisation of CSIRO research results. I now turn to other sectors of the science and technology budget. Funding for the Antarctic is generally well below that projected by the previous Government and indeed even further below the election promises of this Labor Government which promised a 300 per cent increase in funds for Antarctica. Again no money has been allocated for the $10m upgrade of the Landsat station which was approved by the previous Government. Thus, a valuable technique for monitoring our natural resources is being lost to Australia. What of the Government's commitment to new technology here? I suppose Australia's resource industries, which contribute massively to wealth generation in Australia, are not in the ' sunrise' set. On the positive side, there is a major boost to the Australian industrial research and development incentives scheme-a 36 per cent increase to $71.7m. I urge that an increasing proportion of those funds be devoted to development as distinct from research and, further, that that support should primarily be directed to smaller firms. The other area of substantial increase-that is, percentage wise; the actual sums involved are comparatively small-is in respect of a range of technology and innovation programs. Thus, for the Technology Transfer Council, the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia and the Industrial Design Council of Australia, taken together, the allocation is more than doubled. But in respect of fostering technology based industry, and the research and development which nourishes it, all this is rather heavy on bureaucracy and on the Government doing the job. The real action in high technology industrial development and new jobs has to come from the private sector and therefore the Government is on surer ground in its decision announced after the Budget to implement the recommendations of the report of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences, the Espie Committee, which report I stress was commissioned by the previous Government, to provide tax incentives for venture capital. That measure commands general support. But the Government needs to get on with the job of passing the necessary enabling legislation as a matter of some urgency. The scheme, or its acceptance by the Government, was announced in early September and since then something of a hiatus in venture financing appears to have occurred. Thus, to avoid what money there is available drying up , I suggest that the Government needs to act with some expedition. In summing up on those remarks, while some headway in re-ordering priorities has been made, the initiatives are nowhere near as extensive as the Minister promised in the runup to the election and in his rhetoric since, nor is the approach under this Minister and this Government as novel as the Minister would have the public believe-or even the public affairs commentators such as Richard Carleton, whom the Minister seems to have bluffed. Witness the last-named measure to which I referred, which is essentially a private sector arrangement strictly in accordance with the report commissioned by the previous Government and prepared by a committee which the Minister himself described at the recent technology conference as 'a committee of dedicated capitalists'. I wish to underline a few points in this matter of getting Australia more with high technology, points which I think the Minister often loses sight of. The first is that high technology is important not only in respect of the emergence of new industries producing high technology products as such-computers and computer software-but also in the upgrading, revitalising and renewing of existing industries. After all, for many years yet established industries will be providing the bulk of employment in industry. While new process technology in established industry, making for increased productivity, may spell some considerable reduction in employment, that is better than the catastrophic fall that could result in the absence of unconscionable levels of protection, if the technology is not adopted. The second point I make is that in referring a moment ago to the importance of new technology for new products and new industries, I was not suggesting that Australia could compete broadly, for instance, in micro-electronics mass producing computer hardware and the like; but we are well placed to custom design and produce silicon chips or computer software or to apply computers to material processing and so on. In the biotechnology area, it would be difficult to compete in human pharmaceuticals-though not, perhaps, monoclonal antibodies- but plant genetics and veterinarian applications could suit us well. I stress in saying that that I am only being indicative. The market will determine the matter and that is the central point. That is where the Minister for Science and Technology, who is at the table, typically oversteps the mark. Persuaded that he knows better than any market, he confidently nominates 16 so-called sunrise industries as if these were the only worthwhile fields of endeavour-which, I suggest, is not only misplaced but also somewhat offensive. The last point I make is this: High technology industrial development is not a matter for science and technology alone or even primarily, but of creating a favourable overall climate for development, investment, innovation and risk taking. The Minister's stance tends to encourage a sort of science or high tech myopia, that science and technology, while indeed creating challenges and problems of various sorts, is the panacea for all our ills. In fact, it is important to create this climate, which means first and foremost getting the macroeconomic settings of the economy right-real cost levels contained, profitability up and inflation and interest rates down. The Budget as a whole, with which the Committee has been dealing, with its vast increase in government spending and massive deficit, taken together with the Government's commitment to full indexation of wages, does not augur well in that respect. In addition, it is important to address other fundamental features of the Australian business climate, including taxation policies and depreciation schedules, the profusion of government regulations restricting competition and stifling enterprise and other aspects. The Minister ought to get together with his colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) in the other place and, first, agree to abandon threats of a capital gains tax, which would be an awful dampener to venture capital risk taking. Secondly, while the previous Government achieved a good deal in making depreciation schedules more realistic, the Government, if it is serious about technology-based industrial development, should take that process further. Depreciation schedules which foster the process of scrapping equipment and starting again are a powerful encouragement to firms to keep with the state-of-the-art technology and obtain a competitive edge. As I said, getting the macro-economic settings of the economy right and addressing such fundamental features of the Australian business climate is very important. The pursuit of science and technology in isolation will not get us very far. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(9.59) —I wish to speak briefly tonight to the estimates for the Department of Science and Technology. In 1972 the Australian Institute of Marine Science was established by an Act of this Parliament. The Institute is located near Townsville. Two important functions of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, inter alia, are: To carry out research in marine science and to co-operate with other institutions and persons in carrying out research in marine science. The sum of $6.3m is provided in the Budget to enable the Institute to carry out these functions. The allocation of funds to the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Townsville for the 1983-84 financial year represents an operational increase of 7.7 per cent over that allocated in 1982-83. In the area of capital funding there has been an increase of 13.2 per cent over that allocated in 1982-83. Since the establishment of the Institute it has made commendable progress in developing as a centre of excellence in tropical marine studies. Further progress of the Institute can only be accelerated with the provision of additional staff. The present staff ceiling is 104, and the knowledgeable view is that the appropriate staff ceiling for the Institute by the next three years should be at least 130. Since 1979 recommendations have been made to the Federal Government seeking appointment of additional research staff and support staff. Instead of providing additional staff to carry out the required research work, the previous Federal Government dithered and shelved consideration of the matter for two years. The Australian Institute of Marine Science Council, in its report for the year 1980-81, stated: In keeping with its charter and with the stated expectations of Government, the primary goal for the Institute is to undertake research towards an integrated and effective understanding of the marine environment and its living communities . Its primary concern is with the Great Barrier Reef, adjacent tropical coastlines, and surrounding waters . . . The Institute's research has developed an emphasis towards understanding the ecology of coral reefs and mangroves. Corals and mangroves proliferate throughout the Great Barrier Reef region, with mangroves growing mainly in the silty areas and coral reefs mainly in areas that are silt free. Both coral reefs and mangroves share the common features of complexity, high productivity and extreme diversity of plant and animal life. The Australian Institute of Marine Science is not concerned in coastal engineering, fisheries research, ocean geoscience or physical oceanography to any significant degree. By virture of the specialisation of the Institute in coral reef and mangrove ecology it is able to establish a scientific reputation for excellence both nationally and internationally. Institute scientists are now among the leaders in the international marine science community. The Institute has achieved a first class international reputation in mangrove and reef research and is at the same level, for example, as the University of Miami. The pioneering work on mangrove and reef research, if maintained, will establish Australia in a dominant world-wide position in this area. The Australian Institute of Marine Science has hosted a number of international workshops, and, indeed, overseas symposia have benefited by the contributions of Institute scientists. Clearly the quality and national significance of the work of the Australian Institute of Marine Science at Townsville is a matter for congratulation. Indeed, that quality is recognised by the Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government. Clearly leading in this field is our own Federal Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). In the United States of America, the Institute is known as a desirable place to visit. There are very few fully equipped research laboratories in the tropics. As a fully equipped marine laboratory with easy access to a variety of tropical ecosystems, it can fill a world-wide need in this field. The sum of $300,000 is allocated for the acquisition of scientific equipment this financial year. Scientists must have state of the art equipment. I request the Minister to secure in future Budgets additional funding in this area to enable the acquisition of state of the art equipment so that scientists at the Institute can maintain their high profile and excellence in this area. There is a constant flow of visiting scientists, particularly from overseas, to the Institute. All of these visitors require working space and general laboratory support. The sum of $50,000 is allocated for assistance for visiting scientists. Of the 21 research scientists at the Institute, only 10 are permanent and 11 have fixed term appointments. It is clear that the number of visiting scientists appear to be limited by the number of staff available to act as scientific hosts. Furthermore, it is essential that the present policy of support for visiting scientists should be matched by a generous policy towards staff participation in overseas research and meetings. This is essential for the maintenance of the reputation of the Institute. For the Australian Institute of Marine Science to continue to fulfil the objectives set by the Federal Government, to fulfil its statutory obligations and to maintain and further develop this reputation for excellence as a major scientific research institution, the Government must ensure that staff levels are increased as soon as possible to a minimum of 130 positions, including at least six additional research scientists. It is of paramount importance for the Institute's intellectual health that a continuing influx of visiting scientists be encouraged and that the staff of the Australian Institute of Marine Science be given generous support for travel, both within Australia and abroad. The Institute has been the victim of a shortfall in capital funding since its inception. This is a significant disadvantage in competing with researchers throughout the world in pursuing science of excellence and of world standard. Cost increases of overseas equipment have occurred because of changes in the exchange rate of the Australian dollar. I ask the Minister to provide substantial additional funding next financial year. Mr Chairman, nearly $60m is provided by the Budget to enable the Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology to carry out its work. This evening I would like to mention five north Queensland projects which are part of a 10-year re-equipment program now commencing. Funding for the initial phases has been approved in the 1983-84 Budget. Purchasing action has commenced with respect to off-shore weather stations and installation of these stations is planned for 1985-86 onwards. Furthermore, 34 outstation units of automatic data collection systems have been purchased. Twenty-seven of these units have already been installed. New radars are planned for installation at Gove by October 1985. A new radar is planned for installation at Cairns in 1986. With respect to the township of Weipa, it is planned also to install a new radar at that site at a future date. Furthermore, a moored buoy in the Gulf of Carpentaria is planned for installation in the second half of the 10-year program. Telemetry and communications for flood warning, design and planning in respect of that project are proceeding and the implementation will progress through 1984 to 1986. The projects will make a major contribution to the safety, economy and welfare of communities in north Queensland. They will significantly improve meteorological observing networks in north Queensland, resulting in better forecasting and warning services, particularly with respect to tropical cylone warnings, flood warnings and services for aviation, defence, shipping and small craft. Replacement off-shore weather stations will maintain the early warning network for tropical cyclones. The radar at Gove and Weipa will fill major gaps in the present network. The replacement radar at Cairns will maintain a vital facility. The moored buoy in the Gulf of Carpentaria will provide observations from a data-sparse area. Automatic data collection and telemetry will speed data to bureau centres, resulting in more timely warnings. The Hawke Government is to be congratulated with respect to this initiative. More than half of the total budget of the Department of Science and Technology this year is allocated to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Seventy-nine staff members are located at the CSIRO establishment at Townsville. Twenty-four of them are research scientists. A number of projects are proceeding this financial year. I refer to research into improved pastures, the growing of legumes such as stylosanthes, the introduction of legumes and other plants to achieve pasture improvements, and the growing of leucaena, a legume. This legume is an excellent stock feed if the toxicity in the legume is removed. Cattle in the Philippines, Indonesia and South America consume leucaena and suffer no ill effects, but in Australia consumption of this legume by cattle results in a loss of hair, weight and eventually death. However, CSIRO at Townsville has cultured a bacteria which degrades the toxicity in the leucaena to enable it to be fed to livestock. Work is still in progress in respect of this project. CSIRO at Townsville has obtained commendable results in cattle tick control. Stylosanthes viscora, a secretion from hairs on the stem of the stylosanthes plant, attracts ticks and kills them. Scientists have isolated this substance. Work on this project is proceeding, and it is a major innovation with respect to the CSIRO research work in Townsville. Studies are in progress also into the response of cattle to low levels of superphosphate. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.9) —I wish to direct my remarks to the estimates of the Department of Science and Technology. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has recently come under a good deal of questioning by the House. That questioning and its aftermath have cast a serious cloud over the Minister's reputation and his suitability to be respected by the scientific community such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and people closely allied with that body. It is a cloud that has been reported little by the media. However, I believe it is an issue of immense importance. In any case, I think that the actions of the Minister need to be closely looked at tonight. The subject in question is the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong. This laboratory which has so far cost $157m is the most advanced of its kind in the world. It is so advanced that a very similar model is to be built by the Canadian Government. ANAHL is ready to open subject to sufficient funds being made available for the commissioning of this great project. But this building, hailed around the world, is the centre of a strong and even bitter debate within some sections of the scientific community in this country. A number of scientists, principally people here in Canberra working at the Australian National University, or those who have studied or worked there, have expressed strong opposition to the project. I have serious doubts about the basis of that opposition. I believe there is good reason to suggest that it is founded on the fear that research funds currently going to those projects might be diverted to ANAHL, thereby restricting their scientific opportunities. This is not the time to examine the issues of that debate. What concerns me, and I believe must concern this Committee, is the fact that the Minister for Science and Technology has abandoned any pretence of ministerial and scientific objectivity and taken a blatant, partisan role in this debate. What concerns me- and I believe this must concern this Committee and anyone concerned with scientific research in Australia-is that the Minister has abused his power and his position to misrepresent the advice of some of the most senior advisers and also has misled this chamber in order to advance his own argument. That is a very serious charge, particularly as it goes to the heart of one of our most important scientific projects, a project of most important significance to our great livestock industry. This whole incident in fact has shown that this self- appointed guru of high scientific knowledge, or so-called knowledge-this mastermind of knowledge-has feet of very soggy clay. He has shown that he is prepared to bend the truth to breaking point and even beyond to achieve his own wishes. I believe that this has cast serious doubts on the Government's whole approach to the advancement of science in Australia and the development of high technological industries simply because both of these fields lie firmly in the hands of the present Minister. The story is a fairly simple one. The Minister for Science and Technology made certain statements to this House. He attributed the views to the Chairman of the CSIRO, Dr Paul Wild, and two of the most senior of his colleagues, Professor David Craig and Dr Keith Boardman. The Minister said-and I quote from the Hansard of 20 September-that these men had 'freely conceded' to him that: . . . if we had known then what we know now about the diagnostic changes brought about by the technological revolution of the last decade, the whole configuration of ANAHL would have been utterly different and it would have been established at infinitely less cost. The Minister's words were clear, and so were their warning and meaning. The Minister said that these men, the leaders of the CSIRO, had made such a statement. He asked us to take their comment seriously. He even went as far as saying that they were Fellows of the Royal Society. I would have taken their word seriously if I had been sure it was given, but I was not sure. I was aware, as many members of this Parliament were aware, of a statement made on 15 September by Dr Wild which seemed to me to run quite counter to the words attributed to him by the Minister. So I rang Dr Wild. He told me he simply stuck to his original statement-the statement which, of course, ran counter to what the Minister said happened in the meeting with him and as he reported it to this Parliament. Of course Dr Wild was in a very difficult position. His own Minister , on whom he relied for leadership and protection, had failed in his duty. Even more seriously, it appeared to me that the Minister may even have misrepresented the views of one of his most senior statutory authorities and misled this House. Despite this cavalier treatment, Dr Wild, a public servant, still had clear responsibilities to his Minister and the Government and, quite properly, had to stick to them. I believe the behaviour of the Minister in this episode deserves emphatic condemnation. On 21 September, being so concerned, I asked a question in this House. I asked the Prime Minister whether he would look into the question of a conflict of view between the Minister and the CSIRO. Within a short time the Minister for Science and Technology was carpeted. He had been caught out and he was forced to back down. The very next day the Minister stood up in this chamber and did just that. He said that at the meeting with Dr Wild and his colleagues on 19 September he had put a series of propositions to these men and expected them to correct him if he were wrong. He said-and I quote from Hansard: The difference of opinion between the Chairman and me is that I took his silence as acceptance. He took it as indicating that they agreed. I welcome the fact that the Minister corrected the record and removed the slur on the integrity of senior public servants and the head of his largest scientific body. But the way in which the Minister acted can only deserve the condemnation of this House. His excuse for misleading the House can be described only as utterly pathetic. On 20 September the Minister said that Dr Wild and his colleagues had 'freely conceded' a whole series of detailed points about ANAHL. But on 22 September the Minister admitted that all they had in fact done was keep their mouths closed. I should think that any public servant, listening to the Minister laying down the law on ANAHL and knowing the Minister's public views on the issue, might properly doubt that he was expected to contradict them. Apart from that, anyone who has heard the Minister speak would not be at all surprised if nobody at that meeting could get a word in either way. The fact is that the Minister's so-called excuse hardly deserves the dignity of that term. He showed himself to be a bombastic know-all, incapable of listening to anybody or wishing to hear anybody else's point of view. He showed that he was prepared to go to any length, even that of discrediting the CSIRO, one of the Government's most important, internationally respected scientific bodies. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders)(10.19) —It gives me great pleasure to speak on the estimates for 1983-84 for the Department of Science and Technology. The total appropriation of $574,193,000 includes an amount paid to statutory authorities within the portfolio. The appropriation represents an increase of $22,461,756 or 4 per cent over the funds provided in the very mean 1982-83 Budget. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization funding for 1983-84 is $316,936,000. The Government believes its responsible budgetary approach will ensure that funds are allocated according to the needs and aspirations of the community, whilst at the same time increased encouragement is being given to technical innovation and the efficient development of Australian research programs. The following is an outline of the allocations of funds to some specific programs: The Antarctic Division will receive $28.4m. The Government's commitment to Antarctica is evidenced by the allocation of additional funds of $ 2.5m for the first stage, including capital equipment for a new, more flexible Antarctic support transport system. The Government believes the development of an Australian-owned transport system with a capacity for air mobility to and within the Australian Antarctic Territory will considerably increase the efficiency of Australia's scientific effort and enhance the nation's standing in the international Antarctic community. The Bureau of Meteorology will receive $62.4m, of which $2.5m will be spent in 1983-84 as part of a long term program to replace aging equipment and to use modern technology. Some projects will have a direct and immediate impact on the quality of service provided by the Bureau. The projects will affect the range of Bureau services to the public, and to aviation, defence and other specialised users. Several projects will improve the Bureau's research capacity, particularly in tropical cyclone research, and enable more effective application of satellite data to weather forecasting. Industrial research and development will receive $71.6m. The Government believes the major thrust for the development of the sunrise industries must come through industrial research and development. Thus significantly increased support has been provided to the Australian industrial research and incentives scheme. More than $71m is being allocated to AIRIS in 1983-84, compared with $ 54m in 1982-83. In accordance with its election promises, the Government is including significant increases in the funds for basic research through the Australian research grants scheme and the marine science and technology scheme, plus new programs such as the national biotechnology program and the national research fellowship scheme. The Government has established a national biotechnology program to promote the development of biotechnology industries through the support of selected high quality biotechnology research and development programs, especially those having a commercial potential. For the year 1983-84 the Government has allocated $1.5m as the research grants component of the national biotechnology program. I also congratulate the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) for his thoughtfulness in organising the National Technology Conference which was held in Canberra two weeks ago. I was delighted to attend the conference and note the good feeling that it created in bringing together from different areas of technology to discuss technology, its future directions, its impact on society and its potential within Australia. As the Minister, in his keynote address, said: The major factor in the rise of resource-poor nations has been the proportion of export earnings directly attributable to intellectual input: Invention, research and development, product innovation, design, patents, royalties and copyright. More than 60 per cent of the annual export earnings of Japan, France, Sweden, the Netherlands and Italy depend on 'brain-based' industries, while Australia's figure is less than 5 per cent. The skill-based earnings of our industrial contemporaries will grow. Ours will contract unless we have a fundamental change in economic direction. With the solid basis of the estimates for the Department of Science and Technology in place and the genuine encouragement of the Minister in hosting the National Science and Technology Conference, we are setting the stage for a technology-based renaissance in Australia which will bring us out of the darkness and into the world arena of technology-based innovation. Australia can lead the world in many areas of science and technology. All we need is the foresight to direct our industries on the right paths. The National Science and Technology Conference has enunciated the broad guidelines. All we require now is entrepreneurial skills to get Australian industry gearing up for the twenty- first century. The America's Cup was won during the Science and Technology Conference. A clear result of the advanced technology used on Australia II will be the recognition of Australian inventors. No longer will the Australian inventor be in the Heath Robinson class. The Minister for Science and Technology has raised the consciousness of high technology to its rightful place in the community-the forefront. I therefore commend the estimates for the Department of Science and Technology. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(10.27) —The outstanding thing about the estimates for the Department of Industry and Commerce that we are considering this evening is that they and the Budget do nothing at all for small and medium-sized business in Australia. Let us look at what the Australian Labor Party offered the small business community at the last election. I quote from the policy: On election to Government Labor will immediately implement an Australian small business action program. These estimates say nothing of it. The Budget does not mention it. We have no Australian small business action program. Let us look in a little more detail at what the Government's policy says, apart from the small business action program that we have heard nothing about. It talks about tax. It says that a Labor government will ease the tax burden on small business. There is nothing of this in the estimates. It says further that a Labor government will: . . . legislate to allow small firms full retention of profits where these funds are to be used for genuine business purposes. Labor talks further in its policy about allowing the option of provisional tax to be paid in quarterly instalments. There is no mention of that in the Budget or in the estimates we are considering tonight. Later the policy talks about amending sales tax legislation as part of the small business action program 'to allow a full month for remittances of tax owing'. This would allow an enormous release of cash flow to small businesses. But none of these promises are fulfilled in the estimates we are considering tonight. The policy also talks about phasing out investment allowances. There was no mention of that, thank goodness. The lack of confidence given by this Budget and these estimates to the small business community is shown in the failure to fulfil promises. But not only have these promises failed to be fulfilled. It is worth noting that the Minister responsible for the administration of small business in Australia, the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), said after the election that he was in favour of imposing a capital gains tax in return for the taxation concessions promised by Labor in its policy speech before the election. That is the view of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He has publicly stated that and has not withdrawn it. Not only has Labor failed to fulfil these promises in the estimates before us tonight. The Budget of which these estimates are a part is a public sector Budget which squeezes the private sector, which squeezes businesses in Australia and which squeezes the private business community. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I shall report progress. Progress reported. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Barry Jones-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(10.31) —Before the adjournment motion was put I was saying that the estimates that we are considering this evening are contained in a public sector Budget that gives growth to the bureaucracy and to the government sector while it squeezes the private sector, private enterprise and initiative and accordingly, squeezes the small business sector even further. On top of that there is a 4.3 per cent cost increase following the wage case which was supported by the Government. The Government, through its lump sum superannuation proposal, has again attacked the small business sector. It is the small business man and woman and the employees of those businesses who have to bear the burden of the Government's initiative. We have seen the Government introduce, again and again, retrospective capital gains taxes that propose new taxes on companies in the corporate sector. We have seen the prescribed payments legislation introduced. We have seen the enormous administrative shambles that has been created by that legislation. It is putting enormous paper and administrative burdens on many small companies in Australia today. The Government, in its implementation of those proposals, shows that it does not understand private enterprise or how the private sector and small business works. We have seen the $1,000 dividend rebate withdrawn. Again we have seen a tax on the private enterprise system and on small business. The Government has done absolutely nothing for small business. It admitted the error of its ways when we discussed the Economic Planning Advisory Council Bill. It accepted an Opposition amendment that the Council include a small business representative. Let us look at what the Government says it has done in relation to the Australian Industry Development Corporation. It said that more money will be available for small business. I want to refer to a statement made by the AIDC Chief Executive who said: . . . the removal of the exemption from withholding tax had cut off AIDC's access to some international money markets 'where direct bank borrowings until recently provided AIDC with attractively priced funds for Australian industry'. On the one hand the Government says it is widening the powers of the AIDC and making more money available to it, claiming that this is a great initiative for small and medium size businesses in Australia but, on the other hand, it has introduced legislation which the head of the AIDC, Mr Thomas, said will leave the AIDC with fewer funds available to small businesses. Mr John Brown —Where did you get that from? Mr SHIPTON —The Minister should read this morning's Melbourne Age. It is all there for him. Again the Government is acting in a way inimical to the interests of the small business sector. So much for the AIDC. In relation to the new management investment companies that have been announced by the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) and the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), I quote from a Press release by the Australian Small Business Association. It welcomed the announcement but said: We are now asking the Government to widen the industries covered by the scheme. It did this because the scheme does not apply to small business. The Association said that small business investment companies or venture capital companies had failed in Australia through lack of tax incentive. It stated: As a result small business has no mini merchant banks they can turn to for equity investment, loans, other financial services and advice. Let us look at what some industry organisations that represent small business say about the Budget Estimates, and that part of the Budget which we are considering tonight. The President of the Australian Chamber of Commerce, Mr Ken Court, stated: The total lack of incentive for small business-- that is, in the Budget- is particularly disappointing. The Australian Small Business Association, with regard to the Budget, stated: Since the Labor Government was elected it has by a series of actions in the mini-Budget and the present Federal Budget, withdrawn $515 million from the small business and private investment community. The Association referred to the loss of the tax break on family income sharing which was referred to in the mini-Budget; the loss of rebate on dividends, to which I referred earlier, at a cost of $100m; the uplift on the provisional tax rate from 10 per cent to 11 per cent; and the money to be gathered in by the prescribed payments system. In regard to the Budget, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia stated: Small business is quite justifiably most disappointed and disillusioned at the Government's failure to introduce any of the many elements of its Action Program for small business in the budget context. It is obvious that the Government does not understand the small business community. It is obvious that the Government does not understand how small business works in this country. It does not understand that small business is vital for the growth of this nation. It does not understand that small business is big business; that it is only through the growth of the small business sector that jobs will be created. The larger corporate sector, in which hopefully some expansion will occur in the future-I do not predict it under this Government-has lost its capacity to take on employees. Large companies are shedding labour. We saw evidence of it this week when General Motors-Holden's Ltd shed some 900 people from its work force at Acacia Ridge in Queensland. Large companies are shedding functional departments and they are rationalising. They are being merged and taken over. It is only through the small business sector, which has proved it can bring about a net gain in employment in the community, that we can expect growth. We must create a climate for the creation of wealth. We must encourage profit- making. Those are things that must be focused on. This Government does not do so in the Budget. We need to focus on the needs and problems facing the small business community. We must look at the problems of the sole trader, the self- employed, the entrepreneur and small companies in Australia today. I have proposed in this place on another occasion-I repeat it again-that it is essential that the Government designate 1984 as the year of small business in Australia so that we can focus our attention on the needs of this vital and important sector of the economy; so that policies can be developed and put in place to meet its needs; so that the climate can be created for a healthy, prosperous, vital, growing small business sector. By designating 1984 as the year of small business, government and the bureaucracy would be forced to listen to, and hopefully understand the nature of, the problems of small business and would help create a greater understanding of policies for its needs. The small business sector is the key to the survival of the private enterprise system. It is the key to the survival of our way of life. It is only through the small business sector that we will achieve growth. Small business is the key to economic recovery. It is the key to expanding employment and to adapting to technological change. The year of small business that I have advocated in this place time and again-the Government has deaf ears to my call-would help to encourage small business in Australia today. I call on the Minister and the Government to meet this call. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(10.40) —I wish to speak mainly to the estimates for the Department of Science and Technology. In doing so it is obvious that much of what I will say will be applicable to the estimates for the Department of Industry and Commerce as well. This is really unavoidable and in no way undesirable because if for no other reason it highlights the link between the two departments. Unfortunately, as I will highlight later, the link is in some areas extremely weak to say the least, and our economy is the worse for it. I believe I can speak with some authority in this debate for before entering this House I had the honour to work as a public servant, as a senior technical officer with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. When Australians think of science they think of CSIRO, and it is not without reason considering the contributions that CSIRO has made to our industries and standard of living. Without any reflection on any other section of science, CSIRO would be the most highly respected scientific body in this country. When we look at CSIRO's achievements in agriculture, forestry, mineral, energy and water resources, public health, environment and manufacturing and technology industries, it is not difficult to see why Australians hold this organisation in such high regard today. However, CSIRO is not without its critics, especially in Canberra, where there seems to be a particularly noisy group among some local academics and the media. In considering CSIRO's budget it is a particularly appropriate time to put some of these criticisms into perspective. Some of the criticisms levelled at the Organisation are: Firstly, that there is undue emphasis on agricultural research; secondly, that much of the Organisation's work is irrelevant to our industrial and economic needs; and thirdly, that it is more interested in basic research and the acquisition of publications than what use it can be to industry. The debate surrounding the proposal to introduce foot and mouth disease virus for research at the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong is a typical example of the pop science debate being waged by some opponents of CSIRO . I can understand that sections of the higher education and research sector are worried that they will not get their fair share of the research dollar, but unfortunately that debate has been used as a springboard for more general attacks on CSIRO. The foot and mouth virus debate, which should have been conducted as an extremely disciplined scientific evaluation, for a long time has been degenerating into what amounts to a scare campaign. With the use of such a campaign it has also run the risk of becoming a political football within party politics and the politics of science and industry itself. I do not believe that the head kicking politicking of the Leader of the National Party of Australia ( Mr Anthony) in this House tonight has done much to raise the level of debate on this issue at all. Hopefully in the near future we will see the proper end to this debate. In essence what the foot and mouth virus debate has done has been to distract attention to CSIRO's real and imagined defects. Unfortunately the debate, which has been centred on CSIRO, has quite cleverly diverted attention from the real issues which face science and technology and industry in Australia today. While CSIRO devotes a quarter of its financial resources to agricultural research, it is also worth noting that it devotes about one-quarter of its expenditure to manufacturing industries. It is true that agriculture now contributes only approximately 6 per cent to our gross domestic product and about 50 per cent to our export income, but primary industry bodies as a whole have for years realised CSIRO's value to their industries and, I believe, have contributed very significant amounts to CSIRO's funds. That is not necessarily a justification of the amount spent on primary industry research, but if industries are prepared to communicate their research problems, to put their justification for research to be carried out and to contribute money toward their research then good luck to them. CSIRO and primary industry communicate very well with each other. Technology transfer and development is admittedly much simpler in primary industries than it is for manufacturing industry because of, in many cases, simpler technology and the existence of State departments of agriculture as well as general industry bodies. It is a pity that the same level of communication in technology transfer has not really existed in the secondary industry level. Let us look quickly at the mechanisms of consultation, communication and development that exist at a government level today and at some of the government incentives for Austalian industry in this Budget year. Apart from depreciation provisions, investment allowances, mammoth tax incentives and debenture capital for new technology enterprises, a 36 per cent increase to $71.6m was given to the Australian industrial research and development incentives scheme. Let us consider the $2.86m to the agencies such as the Technology Transfer Council, the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia and the Industrial Design Council of Australia. Let us also consider the $1.825m made available to research associations and to assistance to inventors and the $1.2m which has been set aside for the setting up of Sirotech, a company which will facilitate a vast amount of technology transfer and development from CSIRO to industry. There are other incentives and intiatives in the Budget Papers. The Opposition cannot complain about funding for this Department. I worked in CSIRO under worsening conditions under successive Liberal-National Party Budgets. Where is the business sector? Where are the captains of industry? What is their contribution to our national wealth and development through research and development? Without going into too many comparisons let us look at Sweden which , like Australia, is a medium performer in research and development. Government spending on research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product is slightly higher in Australia. However, business spending on research and development, expressed as a percentage of GDP, is more than five times greater in Sweden than it is in Australia. The performance of research and development in Sweden is more than eight times greater than the performance of research and development by business in Australia. One way or another it is about time that Australian industries stopped expecting the Government and the taxpayers to be paying out and doing such a high proportion of its research and development for them. It is about time that Australian industries stopped treating government research as a part of a great big industrial welfare state. We must now, more than ever before, become a lot more adaptable, versatile and adventurous. The CSIRO is not the only body in Australia to have been lacking to some degree in these attributes. Our institutes of higher education, our universities and our scientific institutes are far from paragons of virtue in this regard and it is about time that they had a good look at their own expectations before they started making too much noise about CSIRO. It is about time that Australian industry had a good look at its contribution to research and development in Australia and to its communication with government funded science. In looking at flexibility and adaptability it is about time that we looked at the well being of the workers in science. The decline in working and safety standards, and the quite serious erosion of the career structure of scientists and scientific workers in general is to be deplored. Unlike the former Government I expect that this Government will remedy that situation. Technical and support staffing levels in CSIRO in the last few years have fallen significantly compared with experimental and research scientist rankings. Further erosion of technical levels, career and educational conditions , will further deplete our skills base at a time when we should be furiously building it up. There needs to be an interchange mechanism set up so that workers in Australian science can transfer from government to industry and from university to industry, so that they can carry over their research into development and then, if need be, return to research. There does need to be flexibility of career conditions so that we can make the best use of our human skills and resources. It is about time that we took a few big steps and it is about time that investors started to take a gamble in Australia and put some of their wealth and savings into Australia's technological future. The Government, by the initiatives in this Budget, is doing its share. CSIRO and other research centres are producing the research at taxpayers' expense. Now it is about time that industry played a larger part in the research and development game. It is a fair challenge. I issue the challenge : Is Australian industry and business prepared to have a go? Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(10.49) —It must be a very long time since we have had a debate on the Estimates when so much attention has been directed to science and technology. I am very pleased to note that and I thank honourable members who made contributions on the matter. I will deal with one or two of the matters in some detail. First of all my friendly rival the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), the shadow Minister for Science and Technology, raised a number of points. I am grateful for his sympathetic words at the beginning of his speech. However he went on to say that he thought the Budget was a disappointment. Well, of course, it is not the Budget that we would have drawn ourselves, if we had not had seven years of economic mismanagement under the Fraser Government. We would not have presented such a Budget had we not been staring down the barrel of an $8.5 billion deficit . That changed completely the whole direction of what we could do in the Budget. It also meant that we had to determine priorities. Of those priorities which I pushed for, I pushed first for money to be devoted to the development of the sunrise industries to try to change Australia's industrial face, and I was successful in that. Secondly, I wished to ensure that there was a significant increase of funding available for the Antarctic, and I was successful in that. I will make a qualification about that in a moment. Thirdly, I was concerned to ensure that there was a significant contribution to pure science. That meant particularly increasing the amount of money available for the Australian research grants scheme, the ARGS, in which the honourable member for Berowra once participated. The 36 per cent increase for funding through the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board ought not, of course, to be seen in isolation. It has to be seen in the context of the Espie report as well, the adoption of which was announced three weeks after the Budget. It also has to be seen in the context of a very significant increase in the funding and the gearing ratio for the Australian Industry Development Corporation. On top of that it is important to recognise that we have been successful in raising the levels of public consciousness in this area. This means that the banking sector generally-the private banking sector apart from the public banking sector-recognises the significance of high technology development in a way it did not a year ago or perhaps even six months ago. That was parallel to the situation at the end of the 1960s and the early 1970s when some of us managed to get the Australian film industry moving. There was a long period before 1969 and 1970 when investing money in Australian films was regarded as an absolutely certain way of going broke. We were able to change the levels of expectation in the community. There was a recognition that Australian films would make a contribution recognised as having world-wide significance. I do not think the factors I have mentioned can be seen in isolation. I was chided, curiously, for our identification of 16 sunrise industries in the course of the election campaign. I thought the curious thing was that despite that the honourable member for Berowra rattled off a number of areas which he regarded as very promising, which I thought showed a very strong family resemblance to our nomination of the sunrise industries. This confirms that 'he who runs may still read'. We were very careful, in our election policy, to qualify what we said about the identification of these sunrise industries for the 1980s. I should just read the caveat that we put in the policy which the honourable member seems to have missed. The policy read: The following areas, in our present state of knowledge, seem likely to have the best prospects of success and can be discussed with some confidence. The list should not be regarded as exhaustive. Some areas not on the list may well emerge unexpectedly as has often been the case in the past. All should be considerable wealth generators. Of course, we would recognise the importance of developing many new technologies in order to regenerate existing industries. Dr Harry Edwards —That's not the point. Mr BARRY JONES —That is the point. The other point that I think needs to be made is that in a number of these new areas the capital sums required to get these industries off and running are comparatively modest. The order of magnitude of the sums that are required to regenerate already existing industries like the steel industry and the motor manufacturing industry are absolutely enormous and could swallow up the entire science and technology budget, all $52m of it, without even touching the sides. That is the reason that we are trying to develop areas where we have particular intellectual expertise. Many free marketeers-I do not think that the honourable member for Berowra is altogether one of those, although he is under considerable pressure from his colleagues-are inclined to say that one cannot 'pick winners'. I think one can pick winners if the horses are already galloping down the final straight and the finishing line is well within sight. That is exactly the case in a number of these areas. Australia holds a lead, but we hold a lead that is measured sometimes in terms of only 15 or 18 months. The honourable member for Berowra raised the matter of Antarctica. He commented that the Budget allocation in this area was disappointing and that the Government had indicated that there would be an increase of 300 per cent over a three-year period. He would have flunked somebody in a tutorial who had read as carelessly and as casually as that. What we said in our policy speech was this: Expenditure on scientific research in Antarctica will be increased by 300 per cent over a three year period. I think we will do that, but let me explain what happened. I do not conceal that I would like to have received more for the Antarctic in this Budget than I did obtain. There was a $4.7m increase. I would like to have seen that figure-- Dr Harry Edwards —What percentage? Mr BARRY JONES —It is an increase of about 11 per cent. It is not a wonderful increase, I concede that, but I also draw the attention of honourable members to the second element mentioned in our election commitments: Appropriate aircraft landing facilities will be provided at one or more of Australia's Antarctic bases to enable Australia to upgrade the levels of our operations. When I was informed of the total figure, because I was given the capacity to allocate within a global figure, I decided that it was better to go the whole hog in regard to aircraft landing facilities and go for three of them. I decided it would not be good to start off with just one and that we ought to have one at each of the three bases-Casey, Davis and Mawson-because we wanted the flexibility that a system of aircraft landing facilities would bring about. This measure will increase flexibility both in personnel and in programs. I took the responsibility. I could have increased scientific research. I assure honourable members that I did not have a very large base figure on which to work. Last year only $2m was spent in Antarctica on scientific research. A lot of money was spent on building, but not much was spent on scientific research. I could have increased scientific research and delayed the landing facilities or vice versa. I took the responsibility and decided to push for the landing facilities, even at the cost in the short term of delaying scientific research. I am sure that I was right and that history will vindicate me in that. If we are to hang on to the Antarctic and if it is to be an important element in Australia's future, we have to have that flexibility. We have to be able to provide the facilities so that members of the Parliament can go down to the Antarctic to see for themselves what is there. As it is, very few members here would be prepared to commit themselves to the six or seven weeks that are required to go down there by ship and return. Of course, if one is to get a very close acquaintance with what is going on in the bases one would have to devote months to it. I think that is unrealistic. If we are to get scientists to go down there for comparatively short term programs, so that they understand and can contribute their skills, we will have to provide that flexibility. I believe that we will do that. The honourable member for Berowra made a comment about Landsat. There were difficulties with Landsat. Although I see the very great national significance of Landsat and while I am very keen to urge that it be upgraded, it seemed to me that it was essentially peripheral to my own Department, that virtually none of the programs associated with Landsat were part of my Department. Of the 11,000 people who are responsible to me only three, not 3,000, are involved in Landsat. I think that there is a national responsibility. I believe that the national responsibility will be taken up, but it will not specifically be taken up by my Department. The honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) referred to the Australian Institute of Marine Science, which is located at Townsville in his electorate. I think that he well knows that I am deeply sympathetic to AIMS. I have been there several times, and I admire the work that it is doing. It seemed to me that, in the extraordinary constraints that we had in the Budget formulation process, it was necessary for AIMS to take a low priority this time, although we succeeded in getting additional money for the Australian Marine Science and Technology Council. Mr Lindsay —You did so. Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for that. I assure him that I am very keen to ensure that AIMS secures better recognition next year. I am also pleased about what he said about meteorological funding for North Queensland. It is an excellent service provided by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, one of the world's best. It is often forgotten that, as compared with the Northern Hemisphere, we have really only a fraction of the weather recording stations that are available in the Northern Hemisphere. It is extraordinarily difficult to get the variety, range and precision of data that would enable us to equate with the weather forecasting facilities of the Northern Hemisphere. Nevertheless , I think that we succeed in doing it. I now turn to the Leader of the National Party, the right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony). Mr Steedman —Where is he? Mr BARRY JONES —I do not know where he is. I turn to his extraordinarily ill- judged and extraordinarily ill-informed comments about the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory. I see that he has just entered the chamber. I am glad that he is here. There was an extraordinary omission in what the right honourable member said, because he never mentioned the question of live foot and mouth disease virus. I really do not see how it is possible to talk about ANAHL- as the right honourable member proved tonight, it is certainly not possible to talk coherently about it-if one does not consider the implications of live foot and mouth disease virus. He did not even mention it. Mr Anthony —You misled the chamber. Mr BARRY JONES —I did not mislead the chamber, and the right honourable member will be very sorry that he ever said that. Mr Anthony —You were carpeted. Mr BARRY JONES —I was not carpeted, and I shall explain that, too. The extraordinary thing about the Leader of the National Party is that he has never really come to understand the opinions not of the scientists- Mr Steedman —He loves his pigs. Mr BARRY JONES —Honourable members may form a judgment about that. The right honourable member has never come close to understanding the opinions of the primary industry groups, let alone the scientists. He does not understand the attitude, for example, of the National Farmers Federation with respect to the function or role of ANAHL. One would have thought that he was close enough to that organisation to be aware of its views. It has taken the attitude that it certainly wants ANAHL and it wants ANAHL to be commissioned but that it does not want live foot and mouth disease virus in it. Opposition members interjecting- Mr BARRY JONES —Just a moment. What was patently obvious from the right honourable member's speech is that he simply does not understand the difference between the diagnostic function and the research function that is proposed to be there. The point about ANAHL is that there are supposed to be four different functions. The right honourable member did not refer to any of them because he clearly does not understand any of them. The range of options to be considered were diagnostic, research, vaccine production and teaching. The question that has never been properly resolved-but it will be resolved by this Government, and , if I may be immodest, by this Minister-is the comparative weight to be given to each of these functions. Let me pursue that point for a moment. With ANAHL, there are enormous problems arising from the conflicting elements of form and function. Those are philosophical concepts which, perhaps, it is unfair to draw to the right honourable member's attention. The highly over-specific configuration of the building, with seven pressure levels, was designed precisely for the containment of live foot and mouth disease virus. Live foot and mouth disease virus is the most virulent and infectious of all animal diseases. But from the point of view of the virologist it is also the most facinating of all viruses for study. If there had been an understanding from the start that live foot and mouth disease virus would not be imported into Australia, the whole configuration of the building would have been completely different. That is common ground. Senator MacGibbon in an attempt to be helpful in the Senate a few weeks ago suggested that ANAHL would be very useful for rabies. But rabies, of course, is not communicated by aerosol like foot and mouth disease. All we need to contain rabies is a chain for the dog. We do not need seven pressure levels. That shows the absurdity of it. Mr Anthony —Is it to be commissioned or not? Mr BARRY JONES —Yes. It was announced on 22 September. Mr Anthony —After you had been carpeted? Mr BARRY JONES —No, not after I had been carpeted. Let me just get the chronology right. That is a hard word, a Greek word meaning timing. Let me get the timing right for the right honourable member. The five-man committee of the relevant Ministers who were appointed on the recommendation of CSIRO met on the morning on 20 September. Mr Hunt —At what time? Mr BARRY JONES —I think it was 8.30. We get up much earlier than honourable members of the previous Government. There was unanimous agreement on what we would recommend to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Leader of the National Party asked this question of me at 2 o'clock, or a little after 2 o'clock on the same day. I gave the answer that he quoted earlier on. On 21 September the right honourable gentleman asked a question of the Prime Minister and suggested that the Prime Minister ought to straighten me out. I saw the Prime Minister later that day and, as the right honourable member knows, the Prime Minister telephoned the Leader of the National Party in my presence. At our meeting the Prime Minister accepted the unanimous recommendation of the ministerial committee. It was duly announced in a question which came up quite fortuitously at Question Time on Thursday, 22 September. There was no carpeting; there was certainly a desire to explain what appeared to be an inconsistency. Since the right honourable member raised the matter, let me go back to the discussion of the meeting that I held in my office with Drs Wild, Boardman and Craig on Monday, 19 September. As I said then, the discussion in my office that afternoon should not be seen in isolation. It followed on from several earlier conversations with the Chairman and the Executive. I said at the discussion on 19 September that the raison d'etre-which is a French phrase-of ANAHL had been the containment of live foot and mouth disease virus. I said to the three gentlemen that 'having the existing configuration of ANAHL without FMD was rather like Spandau without Rudolf Hess'. This view was not challenged. I said that the building was overspecific and overdesigned and that if there had been an earlier decision that live FMD virus would not be imported, the building would have been smaller, cheaper and finished earlier. This was not challenged. One member conceded that the rigorous design of ANAHL, particularly the seven drops in air pressure, was not necessary for animal viral agents other than FMD; FMD was particularly virulent and was spread as an aerosol. At an earlier meeting with the CSIRO Executive on 31 August when I asked 'If ANAHL was being designed from scratch now, given the additional knowledge we have of diagnostic techniques, what advice would be given to the Government on the configuration of the building?', the answer given by one of the three who were at the meeting was: 'I would probably wait for three years'. It was volunteered at the meeting in my office on 19 September that in retrospect it was now clear that ANAHL should have been located in Tasmania rather than Geelong for extra security and because there was only a very small international meat trade from Tasmania and in the unlikely event of live FMD escaping adequate compensation could be given. Mr John Brown —There was a big possum export, though. Mr BARRY JONES —So I believe. It was also volunteered that it was possible that changing diagnostic methods would mean that ANAHL could be phased out by 1990. Honourable members will know that it is not until 1987 that there will be a reconsideration as to whether live virus will be brought up. On my recommendation we set up an advisory committee of some of the most eminent experts on virology in Australia. That committee consists of Professor Frank Fenner, who is a former Director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University and Director of the John Curtin School of Medical Research-I want to say something about ANU in a moment-Dr Keith Boardman, FRS, full time member of the CSIRO Executive; Dr Robert Gee, Director of the Bureau of Animal Health; Professor Barry Marmion of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Adelaide University; the President of the National Farmers Federation; a nominee of the Minister for Finance and now we have added a representative of the Quarantine Division. That is a very powerful team. It is specifically looking at the relative weight of those four functions-diagnostic, research, vaccine production and teaching. I assure honourable members, although the right honourable member may not have picked it up on his most recent visit to the laboratory, that the sheer configuration of the building really makes it very difficult to have a diversification of functions. What we are anxious to do first is get the laboratory going but to get the best value out of it, to have the widest variety of functions at the least possible cost. Perhaps the final thing I should say before I go on to the comments from the other speakers in the debate- Mr Anthony —But you were red-faced and the CSIRO was not. You were the red-faced one, not it. Mr BARRY JONES —I do not think that is right. In the long run we will see who is right and we will know who is vindicated. Mr Anthony —Are they still wrong? Mr BARRY JONES —No. I am saying CSIRO has inherited a situation where the right questions were simply not asked over a long period. I refer to a further point, because it was taken up I think not only by the Leader of the National Party but also by one other honourable member as well. It was put that there was a fear among ANU scientists that money given to ANAHL would be money taken away from them. That is a very curious comment and I should qualify it in case people are foolish enough to believe that it might be correct. It is not recognised- certainly not recognised by the Leader of the National party-that ANU is excluded from access to Commonwealth funding. Because it has significant Commonwealth direct funding of its own, it is not entitled to get funds either from the National Health and Medical Research Council- Mr Carlton —Nor should it be. Mr BARRY JONES —That is a different matter. The argument put up was that an additional dollar of money to CSIRO meant, presumably, that less money would be available through some other fund-I think the implication was that it would be some fund administered by me-like the Australian Research Grants Scheme. That is complete nonsense. I want to make another point clear, because I think I was traduced in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Countrywide; I suggest honourable members have a look at it tomorrow night. There was a suggestion that in a sense I was acting as a kind of partisan or agent of Professor Bede Morris of the ANU. I want to make it quite clear-I have nothing against Professor Morris-that I have never met him. I have never spoken to him on the telephone; and we have had no personal contact at all. So I repudiate the argument that I am in a sense acting as an unwitting agent for what he says. Anyway, that minor unpleasantness aside, I am glad to see that the comments made by honourable members on both sides of the Chamber recognise that there is a changing level of consciousness in this country about where we are going. Whereas the Department of Science and Technology until very recently was seen as a mere services department, as something quite peripheral to the economy, it is now seen as absolutely central to it. In a very real sense, the technological base of our society is the economy itself and we cannot get the things that all of us in this nation want unless we get our technology right. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.15) —I will not delay the Committee very long, but I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton). I think it is rather significant that, when we are discussing the estimates for the Department of Industry and Commerce-the Department which, of course, is charged with the administration of the whole of the manufacturing industry in Australia, including the car industry which is presently under great challenge and great fire from all sorts of people, the steel industry, which this Government has managed to resuscitate and the Bureau of Customs, responsible for one-third of the nation's revenue-not one speaker on the Opposition side wants to question in any way the administration of this huge Department by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). Instead we get the resident small business spokesman, the honourable member for Higgins, coming into the chamber to make some inane comments about small business. Surely the previous Government knew all about small business. It made all business small-small in profit, even small in work force and smaller again in expectations. When the former Government left the treasury benches business in Australia had almost disappeared up its own fundamental orifice. However, the only thing the honourable member for Higgins could do was to come into this chamber with the Australian Labor Party's policy on small business and read it out to honourable members. It is probably the most intelligent thing that he has read in the last 12 months. I must say that it is a change because normally he wanders about the country with pen and pencil, writes down everything that I say at the various places I speak and then issues them as Press releases. Mimicry is a high form of flattery, but I can do without it. When he got on to small business all he could do was tell us that, in the six months that this Government has been in office, it has not implemented everything we mentioned in our policy. By the way, I did not hear the honourable member for Higgins criticise in any way the policy we put up. I can assure him that the policy will be implemented. This Parliament has another 2 1/2 years to go. Our policy will be implemented to the last letter of its being. But what is significant-the honourable member for Higgins should remember this-is that the former Government's effort for small business, in its seven years of office, was to create the highest level of bankruptcy in this nation's history. In the last year of its ministry-1982-there were 7,000-odd bankruptcies in Australia in the small business sector. For the honourable member to come into this chamber and lecture us as to what we should be doing for small business almost borders on the obscene. Let me assure the honourable member that, within the next 2 1/2 years, we will do things for small business that honourable members opposite have desperately wanted to see for the last seven years. They saw nothing from the former Government. It never ever understood that small business is a matter of 500,000 businesses within Australia employing 90 per cent of the work force. The former Government did not do one thing for small business except achieve record levels of bankruptcy. What the honourable member for Higgins fails to understand is that the biggest problem for small business in Australia has been survival. Small business has never been able to get access to finance in the same way that large business concerns have. They have never been able to meet the collateral constraints that banks have required. All they have ever done is finish at the finance companies paying enormous amounts of interests for their finance. If the honourable member for Higgins has read that policy correctly, as I presume he has, he will note that the total emphasis is on the refinancing of small business. Even in the last Budget-the honourable member would not have the brains to realise this-we made two significant moves to assist the financing of small business. Firstly, we recast the capital base of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. At some stage in the honourable member's speech I heard the honourable member make some flamboyant, little offhand remark: 'Oh well, that's the end of AIDC'. He does not realise that AIDC is an amazingly good vehicle for the reconstituting, the recasting of small business in Australia. What we have done by expanding its capital base and freeing its gearing to borrow is to make over $1 billion available to industry in Australia with a special charter to cater for small business and the services sector. That is something the former Government never thought of in its seven years of ministry. We have done exactly the same thing with the Commonwealth Development Bank to make finance available. Let me tell the honourable member that, although he could not find too much in the estimates on which to praise us, if he reads that policy correctly-I presume that he has already-over the next 2 1/2 years he will see every tenet of that policy implemented. Small business will then be able to survive, free from the predatory motives of big industry that has always been taking them over if they are in any way successful to remove a competitor, enabling them to exist profitably as they should. We in this Government happen to believe that our economy is based on three things-large enterprises, small enterprises and public enterprises. With proper and sympathetic treatment the three facets of industry can combine successfully. At the end of our first term in government honourable members opposite will see how we have managed to perform that miracle. We have already performed a miracle with the steel industry. We will shortly perform a miracle with the car industry and, lastly, we will perform a miracle with the small business sector. Let us be quit of honourable members opposite coming into this House and telling us how to run small business. They certainly knew how to run it! They made small business into minuscule business. We will not. We will resuscitate it. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Progress reported. House adjourned at 11.22 p.m. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 11 October 1983: Public Service Act-Appointment-Department of Health-R. S. McClory. The following papers were presented: Mr Dawkins- Coomel Pty Ltd-Copy of letter from Mr R. W. Dunn, Liquidator, to Mr Dawkins concerning the transactions of Coomel in shares in Metro Industries Ltd, dated 11 October 1983. Metro Industries Ltd-Monthly share price history, December 1975 to May 1983. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 11 Dr Klugman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) What estimates are available for the proportion of (a) females and (b) males aged over (i) 60 and (ii) 65 years in the Australian population in (A) 1950, (B) 1960, (C) 1970, (D) 1980, (E) 1990, (F) 2000, (G) 2010 and (H) 2020. (2) What were the labour force participation rates for (a) females and (b) males aged (i) 50, (ii) 55, (iii) 60, (iv) 62, (v) 65 and (vi) 70 years in (A) 1966, (B) 1971, (C) 1976 and (D) 1981, and what are the latest available figures . (3) What proportions of (a) Commonwealth and (b) State expenditures are estimated to be spent on persons aged over (i) 60 and (ii) 65 years, including such areas as (A) direct payments, (B) taxation (including superannuation and insurance) benefits, (C) health care and (D) housing costs subsidy rates. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The answer to Parts (1) and (2) of the honourable member's question is provided in the following tables which have been compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The age groupings shown in the tables are the closest equivalent to those specified in the question for which information is readily available. The information sought in Part (3) of the question is not available. Table 1 PROPORTION OF FEMALES AND MALES AGED 60 AND OVER AND 65 AND OVER, AUSTRALIA, 1950-1980(a) Age 1950 1960 1970 1980 60 and over- Females 6.63 6.84 6.84 7.66 Males 5.84 5.49 5.40 5.98 65 and over- Females 4.41 4.83 4.85 5.57 Males 3.71 3.68 3.49 4.05 (a) Figures for 1950 and 1960 are based on population estimates which exclude Aboriginals. Table 2 PROJECTIONS OF THE PROPORTION OF FEMALES AND MALES AGED 60 AND OVER AND 65 AND OVER, AUSTRALIA, 1990-2020(a) Age 1990 2000 2010 2020 60 and over- Females 8.58 8.77 9.93 11.64 Males 6.66 6.60 7.44 8.63 65 and over- Females 6.45 6.79 7.24 8.74 Males 4.61 4.72 4.92 5.93 (a) These projections are based on the following assumptions with respect to the population as a whole: (i) a net overseas migration gain of 125,000 persons a year; (ii) fertility remaining constant at a net reproduction rate of 0.9 per cent a year from 1987; (iii) mortality rate continuing to decline to 2021. Table 3 LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES OF FEMALES AND MALES IN SELECTED AGE GROUPS, AUSTRALIA, 1966-1981(a) Age 1966 1971 1976 1981 50-54- Females 32.7 36.5 46.2 46.3 Males 94.7 92.0 91.9 89.4 55-59- Females 27.2 28.3 35.2 32.9 Males 91.2 88.4 86.6 81.3 60-64- Females 16.6 16.0 18.2 15.5 Males 79.5 75.7 68.4 53.2 65-69- Females 8.4 7.7 9.1 7.3 Males 39.8 34.9 25.0 17.3 70 and over- Females 3.2 2.5 3.1 3.7 Males 15.5 13.4 11.1 8.9 (a) Figures derived from population censuses. Table 4 LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES OF FEMALES AND MALES IN SELECTED AGE GROUPS, AUSTRALIA, MARCH 1983(a) Age 45-54- Females 48.0 Males 90.9 55-59- Females 31.0 Males 78.1 60-64- Females 12.0 Males 46.8 65-69- Females 4.1 Males 15.0 70 and over- Females 1.7 Males 5.5 (a) Figures derived from monthly population survey: not comparable with figures derived from population censuses in Table 3. Question No. 37 Mr Rocher asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) How much of the Commonwealth's existing borrowings mature in (a) 1982-83 and (b) 1983-84. (2) What is the total interest paid or payable on these borrowings for each year. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Maturities in 1982-83 and 1983-84 of Government securities on issue (as defined in the foreword to Budget Paper No. 8) on behalf of the Commonwealth and State Governments as at 30 June in the preceding year are set out in the following table: Non official Official holdings holdings Total $Am(est.) $Am(est.) $Am 1982-83 Maturing funded debt (a) domestic 2,436.2 875.5 3,311.7 overseas (b) 479.7 . . 479.7 2,915.9 875.5 3,791.4 Maturing unfunded debt (c) 2,516.0 3,928.5 6,444.5 Total for 1982-83 5,431.9 4,804.0 10,235.9 1983-84 Maturing funded debt (a) domestic 2,722.7 540.1 3,262.8 overseas (b) 795.2 . . 795.2 3,517.9 540.1 5,058.0 Maturing unfunded debt (c) 2,332.0 2,516.1 4,848.1 Total for 1983-84 5,849.9 3,056.2 8,906.1 (a) Funded debt is evidenced by securities issued for a period of more than one year. (b) converted to $A at exchange rates prevailing on 30 June preceding each year . (c) Unfunded debt is short term debt, viz Treasury Notes and Bills, with a period to maturity of less than one year. (2) Gross interest paid in 1982-83 and estimated interest payable in 1983-84 is : Non official Official Total $Am $Am $Am 1982-83 2,862.7 621.6 3,484.3 1983-84 3,586.5 656.4 4,242.9 Question No. 63 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Has the Government given consideration, as promised, to an industry loan to the (a) Queensland and (b) New South Wales sugar industries. (2) If so, what are the details. (3) If no consideration has been given, what is the reason and when will such consideration be given. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) I announced on 7 June that in relation to the question of short term assistance to the sugar industry the Government will provide $10m to Queensland and $1m to New South Wales for dollar for dollar matching by these two States to permit the extension of $22m in carry-on loans to the sugar cane industry under Part B of the Rural Adjustment Scheme (RAS). Prior to the March 1983 Federal election the Australian Labor Party undertook to give sympathetic consideration to a loan to the sugar industry or underwriting of the 1982 crop. It did not, as has been suggested by some, indicate it would adhere to the promises made to the sugar industry by the previous Government. The present Government gave careful and sympathetic consideration to the proposal for an industry-wide loan before coming to the decision that the proposition was unacceptable. The expected size of the budget deficit in the current financial year has forced the Government to rigorously prune its expenditure and the industry request for a loan to No. 1 Pool, which at its minimum level reached $47m, was simply too great for the Budget to absorb. Also the loan proposal did not meet the Government's criterion that industry assistance should be directed to those most in need. Small growers would have received only around $2,400, while growers in the 12,000 tonne category would have received around $15,000. To provide meaningful assistance to smaller cane growers through an industry wide loan would have inflated the total sum required to even more untenable levels. By providing money through the carry-on provisions of the RAS, canegrowers who have real prospects of returning to viability are able to be assisted with a higher level of carry-on funds. For growers needing debt reconstruction the Government has provided a substantial injection of funds into Part A of the RAS with around $5.5m available to Queensland and $8.6m available to New South Wales . For growers contemplating leaving the industry, RAS household support is also available. In addition, under National Disaster Relief arrangements some $30m would have been paid to Queensland by the Commonwealth for disbursement as flood and drought relief in the financial year just concluded. Many canegrowers, particularly in central and southern areas of Queensland have had access to this facility. Question No. 77 Mr McVeigh asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) During the 1983 election campaign did the Government undertake to exempt the freight component of the price of goods from sales tax. (2) If so, when will this proposal be implemented, and how will it be done. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In the election document Policies for Agriculture, there is the statement: Labor will exempt the freight element of the price of goods from sales tax. (2) Like other proposals, this initiative has had to be put aside in view of the unprecedented prospective Budget deficit which faced the Government on coming to office. Question No. 85 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: Will he permit the Australian Wheat Board to borrow overseas to enable payments to growers to be made as soon as possible and at minimal interest charges. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government decided, in the context of the decisions announced in the May statement on the economy, that the Australian Wheat Board would be permitted to finance up to 50 per cent of its annual prospective net financing requirements by overseas borrowings in respect of each wheat season, commencing from the 1983 -84 season. This decision, which was implemented by legislation passed in the 1983 Autumn sittings, gave effect to a reform long sought by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. It provides the potential for considerable savings to the benefit of growers by enabling the Board to reduce hedging costs on overseas sales and to take advantage of lower overseas interest rates. Question No. 116 Mr MacKellar asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 May 1983: (1) What aspects of the ANZUS treaty does he seek to review. (2) Can he say what the attitude of the United States of America administration is to the concept of review. (3) At what level of government will the review be undertaken. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) I draw the honourable member's attention to the Parliamentary Statement of 15 September 1983, by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on the Review of ANZUS. (Hansard, pages 898-903). Question No. 173 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: Can the Attorney-General say what specific procedures are followed by the various State authorities with respect to (a) intrastate, (b) interstate and (c) overseas maintenance for those persons entitled to maintenance payments made under the Family Law Act. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The legislative procedures for the enforcement of maintenance orders made pursuant to the Family Law Act are set out in Part XV of the Family Law Regulations. (a) The specific procedures followed in enforcement proceedings vary slightly from State to State. (i) In South Australia assistance is given to enforce orders by officials of the State Department of Community Welfare. Payments are monitored by a computerised accounting system, and when default occurs enforcement action is initiated if a standing request to enforce has been received. Officers will negotiate, prepare documentation, and appear in Court. (ii) In Western Australia the Collector of Maintenance, an officer of the Family Court of Western Australia, will assist parties to enforce orders upon request. The Collector will contact the payer, attempt to negotiate a settlement , and if this fails initiate court action and appear in court for the payee. A computerised accounting system enables accurate details to be kept of payments made and arrears due. (iii) In New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania, local Clerks of Court will assist applicants to enforce orders upon request, by negotiation where possible; preparing the application; issuing a summons; arranging for service; appearing in court to examine the payer as to the reasons for default and to seek enforcement orders. In these States, however, no centralised mechanisms exist for monitoring payments made and arrears due. (b) Within Australia, a maintenance order may be enforced by the court that made the order, or any other court having jurisdiction under the Family Law Act, provided that the order is registered in that court. The same procedures for registration of the order apply whether the order is transferred between two courts in the one State or between two courts in different States. Once registered, the order will be enforced as if made by the court in which it is registered. (c) A payee under an Australian order who has moved overseas may, of course, request enforcement in the same way as an Australian resident. If the payer is overseas, the court that made the maintenance order, or in which it is registered, will forward it through the Secretary to the Attorney- General's Department to the overseas country concerned for enforcement, if Australia has reciprocal arrangements under the Family Law Act and Regulations with that country. Where a maintenance order is made in an overseas country with which Australia has reciprocal arrangements under the Family Law Act and Regulations, it may be forwarded through the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department to any court exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act for confirmation or registration. Where an overseas order is confirmed or registered in a court it may be enforced by that court as if it was an order made by that court. Question No. 277 Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Will he undertake to report to the House of Representatives in November 1983 and again in May 1984 on the number of jobs created by the Community Employment Act. (2) Will he further specify both the (a) number of jobs created for (i) males and (ii) females and (b) level of skill gained by each sex in the course of employment under the Act. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Information on the number of jobs created through the Community Employment Program will be made available publicly on a regular basis. (2) The number of males and females employed will also be made available regularly. Information relevant to the 'level of skill gained' will form part of the planned evaluation of the CEP, and will become available in due course. Question No. 282 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: What borrowings have been approved by the Australian Loan Council for, or related to, Western Australia and its authorities in each year from 1975-76 to 1982-83 and to what projects have the borrowings been applied. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Details of borrowings approved by Loan Council for Western Australia and its authorities are published in Budget Paper No. 7. The 1982-83 budget paper contains relevant details at tables 12, 13, 14, 15, 76 and 79 (for years prior to 1978-79 refer to Budget Paper No. 7 for earlier years). The State's governmental and basic semi-government borrowing programs are not allocated by the Commonwealth or the Loan Council on a project basis. From time to time, however, the Loan Council provides for special temporary additions to the basic semi-government program to assist States in the financing of particular projects. Since 1975-76, Western Australia has had such temporary additions in respect of the following projects: $m Kwinana Power Station (1977-78 to 1979-80) 24.0 Muja Power Station (1978- 79 to 1980-81) 40.0 Kwinana-Koolyanobbing railway (1978-79 to 1982-83) 98.7 162.7 The infrastructure borrowing program introduced by Loan Council in 1978-79 has also provided borrowing authority for specific projects approved under the program. Table 14 of the Budget Paper No. 7 for 1982-83 provides details of borrowings undertaken, by State, in respect of approved projects since the inception of the program. Question No. 311 Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Further to his predecessor's answer to Question No. 4989 (Hansard, 14 October 1982, page 2142), can he say when the Australian Bureau of Statistics will resume publication of statistics on the level of (a) foreign ownership and control in Australia of (i) general insurance business, (ii) life insurance business, (iii) finance companies, (iv) mining industry, (v) accredited advertising agencies, (vi) tourist accommodation establishments and (vii) manufacturing industry, (b) foreign control in or of (i) manufacturing industry, study of large enterprise groups, (ii) mineral exploration, (iii) finance companies, (iv) life insurance business, (v) general insurance, (vi) registered financial corporations and (vii) the mining industry and (c) research and experimental development of private enterprises. (2) What allowance will these statistics make for foreign shareholdings in nominee companies, which in turn hold equity in companies involved in these areas. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Bureau of Statistics resumed publication of statistics on the level of foreign ownership and control in Australian industries on 7 September 1983 with the release of a study of the mining industry and selected mineral processing industries for 1981-82. Present plans for production of foreign participation statistics in respect of other industries and activities include: Expected Reference publication Industry year date Manufacturing 1982-83 Late 1984 General Insurance 1983-84 Late 1985 Life Insurance 1983-84 Late 1985 Registered Financial Corporations (including finance companies) 1983-84 Late 1985 Mineral Exploration 1984-85 Late 1986 Research and Experimental De- velopment 1984-85 Late 1986 In view of the relative strength of user demand for foreign participation statistics in respect of particular industries and activities, it has not been possible to include advertising, tourist accommodation and manufacturing (large enterprise groups) in the present work program which extends to 1986. (2) All significant foreign shareholdings in (or held by) nominee companies will be identified and taken into account in the compilation of these statistics . Question No. 318 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Further to my repeated questions relating to the establishment of an Accounting Standards Review Board, in view of the fact that the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities has agreed to such a Board, when (a) will the Chairman of the National Companies and Securities Commission complete his discussions with the Joint Accounting Bodies and report his findings, (b) will the Ministerial Council complete its report on the Green Paper and (c) can Parliament expect to approve the establishment of this Board. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Chairman of the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) has completed his discussions with the Joint Accounting Bodies. On 1 September 1983 the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities agreed that the Accounting Standards Review Board (ASRB) should commence operation on 1 January 1984. The ASRB is to be created by administrative action by the Ministerial Council. However, the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous) Amendments) Bill 1983 will contain some machinery provisions in relation to the operation of the ASRB and will grant legislative recognition to accounting standards approved by the ASRB. It is expected that this Bill will be introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament during the 1983 Budget Sittings. The NCSC has requested comments on its Green Paper on the financial reporting requirements of the Companies Act and Codes by 30 November 1983. I expect that the Ministerial Council will consider the matter when the NCSC has examined those comments. Question No. 342 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Is the Minister able to provide an analysis of claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury in the Minister's Department for each of the years 1978 to 1983. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The table below sets out claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injuries for the years 1978 to 1983: REPETITIVE STRAIN INJURIES FOR THE YEARS 1978 TO 1983 Number accepted or not accepted Sex of claimant Number Not Year of claims Accepted accepted Male Female Type of work performed resulting in injury 1978 2 2 . . 1 1 Lifting tea trolley Lifting drum of rock samples 1979 2 2 . . 2 . . Fell on elbow Pulling heavy trolley 1980 1 1 . . . . 1 Excessive typing 1981 2 2 . . 2 . . Vigorous wrist and arm movement during solvement extraction Lifting files 1982 6 6 . . 1 5 Typing Continual lifting 2 accounting machine operation VDU operation Using manual calculating machine 1983 7 7 . . 3 4 Using mechanical equipment on truck Using maual calculating machine Removing moulds from lead pots Use of tongs to transfer weights to a furnace Steno-secretarial duties Typing duties Data processing operation Question No. 349 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Is the Minister able to provide an analysis of claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury in the Minister's Department for each of the years 1978 to 1983. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Thirty-eight claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury have been received in the Department of Primary Industry and associated statutory authorities in the period 1978 to 1983. (b) Of these claims, 26 have been accepted and 12 are outstanding. (c) Sixteen of the claims were made by females and 22 by males. (d) Of the claims, 17 resulted from general meat inspection duties, 6 from typing duties, 2 from word processing duties, 3 from computer terminal data entry duties, 5 from general laboratory duties, 2 from normal clerical duties, 2 from heavy lifting and 1 from driving a four-wheeled drive vehicle. Question No. 351 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Is the Minister able to provide an analysis of claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury in the Minister's Department for each of the years 1978 to 1983. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Settled/ Year Sex Injury Work Performed Outstanding 1978 M Lateral Epicondylitis Using mattock and hammer Settled M Ganglion Lifting furniture Settled M Tenosynovitis Plumbing Settled M Carpal tunnel syndrome Concreting Settled 1979 M Tenosynovitis Carpentry Settled M Tennis elbow Plumbing Settled 1980 F Tenosynovitis Typing Settled F Tenosynovitis Typing Settled F Tenosynovitis Typing Settled M Tennis elbow Refrigeration Mechanic Settled M Tennis elbow Painting Settled M Carpal tunnel syndrome Painting Settled 1981 F Tenosynovitis Typing Settled F Tenosynovitis Typing Settled F Tenosynovitis Typing Settled F Tendonitis Data processing Settled F Aggravation cervical spondylosis Data processing Settled M Tenosynovitis Painting Settled M Tenosynovitis Electrician Settled M Tennis elbow Plumbing Settled M Ganglion Plumbing Settled M Tendonitis Carpentry Settled M Tendonitis Carpentry Settled 1982 F Carpal tunnel syndrome Typing Outstanding F Tenosynovitis Typing Settled F Tenosynovitis Typing Settled F Ganglion Typing Settled F Strained wrist and forearm Typing Settled F Tendonitis Data processing Settled M Sore wrist Carpentry Settled M Injured elbow Carpentry Settled M Tennis elbow Carpentry Settled M Sprained wrist Painting Settled M Tennis elbow Painting Settled 1983 F Tenosynovitis Typing Outstanding F Tenosynovitis Typing Outstanding F Tenosynovitis Typing Outstanding F Tenosynovitis Clerical work Outstanding F Tenosynovitis Drafting Outstanding F Tenosynovitis VDU Keyboard Outstanding M Tenosynovitis Lifting and hammering Outstanding F Sore wrists Typing Outstanding M Quervain's disease Painting Settled F Tenosynovitis Telephonist duties Settled F Neck and back strain Using mail trolley Settled Question No. 392 Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: Is the Minister able to say whether personal care subsidy is a payment to residents of hostels parallel to the domiciliary nursing care benefit administered by the Department of Health and is similarly suspended when short term absences from the hostel occur due to admissions to a hospital or elsewhere ; if so (a) how many suspensions and restorations in the event of a short term admission to a hospital or elsewhere were there for the period 1 May to 30 July 1983, (b) what was the average (i) amount of payment suspended and (ii) days of admission, (c) what was the total amount saved by the Government by non-payment of the benefit, (d) what is the (i) actual or (ii) estimated administrative cost of suspending and restoring benefit payments and (e) what is the average length of time that elapses between notification that the patient has returned home and restoration of the benefit. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: No. Personal care subsidy is not administered in the same way as domiciliary nursing care benefits in relation to short term absence. The Department of Social Security continues to pay personal care subsidy to eligible aged persons unless they are absent from the hostel for a period of more than 28 days. The statistics sought by the honourable member in points (a)-(e) are not readily available and I am not prepared to authorise diversion of the substantial resources required to gather these statistics. Question No. 427 Mr Wells asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: What Commonwealth funds, listed by purpose, in the form of (a) grants, (b) subsidies, (c) special purpose grants, (d) dollar for dollar contributions or (e ) other contributions have been partly or totally (i) received or (ii) returned or refused by the Queensland Government, from December 1972 to August 1983'. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) to (e) Of the Commonwealth funds provided to the Queensland Government from 1972-73 to 1982-83, none have been returned or refused. It has, however, occasionally happened that funds allocated in a particular year were not taken up in that year. Where this occurred it was the result of construction delays or other problems, with the funds being taken up in following years. Details of total funds provided from 1972-73 to 1982-83 are set out below: Grant Details of contributions Amount type* $'000 Grant towards the construction of the Ross River Dam 4,060 c Grant towards the construction of the Fairbairn Dam 2,925 c Grant towards the construction of the Lower Dawson Weirs 550 c Grant towards the development of the Eton (Mackay) irrigation system 9,990 el Grant towards the construction of the Glenlyon Dam 440 c Grant towards the construction of the Clare Weir 3,000 c Contribution towards flood mitigation programs (urban and rural) 9,438 d Contribution towards the construction of the Leslie Dam 1,000 d Grant towards the construction of the Burdekin Dam 3,761 c Contributions under the States Grants (Water Resources Assessment) Act 1974 and the National Water Resources ( Financial Assistance) Act 1978 10,101 d Grant to assist the Mt Isa City Council reduce the capital debt burden in respect of loans raised for the Julius Dam project 1,325 c Grant for the purpose of creating employment opportunities in the Maryborough region 10,450 c Contribution towards the Bundaberg irrigation works 27,500 e2 *Note: grant types-c = special purpose grants. d = dollar for dollar contribution. el = special purpose grant of $4.999m and a dollar for dollar contribution of $4.991m. e2 = special purpose grant of $13.550m a dollar for dollar contribution of $5.950m and a 40.60 contribution of $8.000m. Question No. 439 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: What Commonwealth funds, listed by purpose, in the form of (a) grants, (b) subsidies, (c) special purpose grants, (d) dollar for dollar contributions or (e ) other contributions have been partly or totally (i) received or (ii) returned or refused by the Queensland Government, from December 1972 to August 1983. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) to (e) No Commonwealth funds from my Department were received, returned or refused by the Queensland Government in the period December 1972 to August 1983. Question No. 471 Mr Blanchard asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 September 1983: How many pastoral leases are (a) wholly and (b) partially owned by foreign companies and what area do they cover. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) Information on the extent of foreign ownership of pastoral leases is not available to the Commonwealth, as administration of pastoral leases is the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory. Proposals by foreign interests to acquire rural properties (including pastoral leases) are examinable under the Government's foreign investment policy. The Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) has supplied the following information on foreign acquisitions of rural land which have been approved by the Government since the Board was established in April 1976. (Details are not readily avaialble on the specific category of pastoral leases.) FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN RURAL LAND, APRIL 1976 TO 30 JUNE 1982 Number of proposals Consider- Period approved Area ation(a) '000 ha $m 1976-77(b) 72 1,583 18.8 1977-78 74 2,156 29.2 1978-79 49 4,226 32 .8 1979-80 94 2,113 71.1 1980-81 128 1,158 87.5 1981-72(c) 80 2,370 75.7 1982 -83(d) 78 1,864 38.6 (a) Payments for shares and assets. (b) April 1976 to June 1977. (c) FIRB is aware that 2 of these proposals (involving 524,000 hectares) did not proceed. (d) FIRB is aware that 4 of these proposals (involving 559,000 hectares) did not proceed. Proposals approved by the Government in terms of its foreign investment policy since April 1976 have involved 15.5 million hectares, i.e. about 3 per cent of total rural land in use. Of course, that figure does not provide an accurate picture of foreign ownership of rural land, for a variety of reasons. In the first place, it does not cover purchases prior to April 1976. Moreover, some of the proposals approved since April 1976 would not have been implemented (where known, this is footnoted in the above table); about one-third involved intending migrants; many involved some Australian participation; and some were foreign-to- foreign sales. In addition, the figures take no account of foreign-owned land sold back to Australians, of which the Foreign Investment Review Board would not generally be aware. Question No. 486 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice , on 13 September 1983: Does the processing time taken from initial application to migrate to Australia to the rejection or approval of applications differ amongst the various Australian offices of his Department located overseas; if so, what is the average processing time taken by each office. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The processing time taken from initial application to migrate to Australia to determination of applications differs not only amongst the various offices of the Department located overseas, but also from one category of migrant entry policy to another and, indeed, from one person to another. At overseas posts factors such as rates of application, staffing levels, and seasonal factors can lead to variations in the rates of processing applications. Further, priority is given to applications in categories such as family migration, resulting in variations in processing time between categories. In addition, the personal circumstances of each case can vary which may affect processing times. Detailed data is not available on the actual processing time taken at each post . However, during the period of January to June 1983 the average processing time from application to determination of application at the Department's overseas posts has been estimated to vary from about two to five months, with an overall average of approximately three months for all posts. Question No. 487 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice , on 13 September 1983: What is the average period of time between notification to an individual that his/her application to immigrate to Australia has been accepted and the subsequent arrival in Australia of that immigrant. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Applicants for migration to Australia who are approved on the basis of their occupation (including employer nominees) and in family migration categories where employment is a major factor are required to arrive in Australia within six months of their approval. For applicants in other categories, approval is valid for twelve months from the date of radiological clearance. Very few requests for extension of approval are received, and the large majority of approved applicants arrive in Australia within the time originally approved. Question No. 509 Mr Fisher asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) Is it a fact that tenders were recently called for the supply and laying of synthetic turf for the outdoor soccer and hockey pitch and the indoor training area at the National Sports Centre, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, by the National Capital Development Commission; if so, did the tenders call for permeable or impermeable surfaces on these 2 arenas. (2) Is he able to say whether the product selected by organisers of the 1984 Olympics for competition surfaces during the Games was rejected as being unsuitable for the National Sports Centre; if so, for what reasons was the surface, manufactured by Superturf Australia Pty Ltd, rejected. (3) Is the product selected for installation at the National Sports Centre of German origin. (4) Is he able to say whether the product referred to in part (3) was rejected for use at a similar training facility in Germany. (5) Is it a fact that an Australian company was not given preference for supply of the synthetic surface. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am informed by the National Capital Development Commission that- (1) Yes. Tenders were called in March 1983 for the supply and laying of synthetic turf for the National Sports Centre, Bruce. The tender document stated that the synthetic turf would be laid on an impermeable surface which will be constructed as part of a separate contract. (2) Different selection criteria applied to the selection for suitable synthetic turf for the National Sports Centre in that the surface should be suitable for soccer and hockey. Therefore since the selection criteria were different, it was considered another product was more suitable than the one chosen for the 1984 Olympic hockey competition. (3) Yes. (4) I am unable to independently verify whether the product selected has been rejected for use at a particular facility in Germany. On the basis of the information available to me it appears that the product selected has been used for a significant number of similar training facilities in Germany. (5) No. The contract was awarded to Metz and Co. of Mt Waverley, Victoria, a registered Australian company. Question No. 510 Mr Fisher asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) What consultation did the National Capital Development Commission have in calling the tender for installation of synthetic playing surfaces at the National Sports Centre, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, with officers of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. (2) Did the NCDC consult with personnel from the Australian Institute of Sport on their preferences for surfaces; if so, what was the outcome of these consultations. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am informed by the National Capital Development Commission that- (1) Detailed consultations were held between the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Territories and Local Government, the Australian Institute of Sport and the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism during the design of the Sports Training Facilities at the National Sports Centre, Bruce. Results of the detailed evaluation of the products tendered for the synthetic turf installation at Bruce was presented to representatives of the various organisations at a meeting on 16 June 1983. The Department of Sport Recreation and Tourism was represented and supported the Commission's recommendation. (2) Soccer coaches and players of the Australian Institute of Sport and international standard hockey players evaluated samples of the products tendered . The head soccer coach of the Institute of Sport also evaluated existing installations of the different products tendered. His detailed comments were taken into account in deciding which tenderer the contract should be awarded to.